Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:29:11
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Rippy wrote:Lance wrote:
Your argument that buying recasts = stealing is like saying buying models off ebay = stealing.
That is simply wrong. Please know what you are talking about before posting. Reselling legal goods is fine. Purposefully taking part in copyright infringement is stealing. See that black and white line pal?
It isn't stealing. Please know what you're talking about before posting.
Stealing is just an emotive term people who are trying to take the moral high ground use because "stop infringing their IP!" doesn't sound sexy enough.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 00:30:12
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:30:48
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Ancient Chaos Terminator
|
Lance845 wrote: Rippy wrote:Lance wrote:
Your argument that buying recasts = stealing is like saying buying models off ebay = stealing.
That is simply wrong. Please know what you are talking about before posting. Reselling legal goods is fine. Purposefully taking part in copyright infringement is stealing. See that black and white line pal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance wrote:The buyer has no place in that. If GW wants the market then GW needs to make their product more easily available and better priced
So you don't like their pricing, so that gives you the right to steal it? No, it actually doesn't.
The difference is in the seller, not the consumer. It doesn't make YOU morally wrong for buying from the more reasonable merchant. It makes the merchant wrong for the theft.
So easy to wipe your hands clean of the responsibility of it because they are the ones selling it? Ha. "I was just following orders" Automatically Appended Next Post: Azreal13 wrote: Rippy wrote:Lance wrote:
Your argument that buying recasts = stealing is like saying buying models off ebay = stealing.
That is simply wrong. Please know what you are talking about before posting. Reselling legal goods is fine. Purposefully taking part in copyright infringement is stealing. See that black and white line pal?
It isn't stealing. Please know what you're talking about before posting.
Stealing is just an emotive term people who are trying to take the moral high ground use because "stop infringing their IP!" doesn't sound sexy enough.
I can go through and change all my words stealing to infringing their IP if you would like. Symantecs of wording changes nothing of what I have said.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 00:32:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:32:36
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Lance845 wrote: Rippy wrote:Lance wrote:
Your argument that buying recasts = stealing is like saying buying models off ebay = stealing.
That is simply wrong. Please know what you are talking about before posting. Reselling legal goods is fine. Purposefully taking part in copyright infringement is stealing. See that black and white line pal?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lance wrote:The buyer has no place in that. If GW wants the market then GW needs to make their product more easily available and better priced
So you don't like their pricing, so that gives you the right to steal it? No, it actually doesn't.
The difference is in the seller, not the consumer. It doesn't make YOU morally wrong for buying from the more reasonable merchant. It makes the merchant wrong for the theft.
Much as I hate to side with Rippy, you're wrong in this regard. If a company legitimately has a design and they patent it and make a claim, then copying and selling that design is wrong. The buyer isn't as immoral by buying said product, but still knowingly purchasing something that infringes on a companies IP where IP infringement is illegal is wrong.
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:34:07
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Lance845 wrote:Your argument that buying recasts = stealing is like saying buying models off ebay = stealing. Either way GW doesn't see a penny from you. Making recasts, even making recasts of your own stuff is closer to stealing. The buyer has no place in that. If GW wants the market then GW needs to make their product more easily available and better priced. The only reason recasters have a market at all is because GW has made their product less and less available for ridiculous prices. If I choose to buy a recast it will likely be because GW has made a crap ton of their models OOP for no good reason. The recasters have them though. For a fraction of the price. If I, the consumer, want that product, what is the most readily available option? Knockoffs (such as handbags, golf clubs, and computer software) are NOT legal. If you operate a business in North America that profits from these, you'll have your inventory confiscated, and possibly face jail time. Remember Windows XP counterfeiters? In fact, they are even illegal in China, at least nominally. The country just has a very strange enforcement policy, and foreign IP is not protected in the same way that domestic IP is. Go to Taiwan, knock off a LV handbag, no problem. Knock off an Asus motherboard, and you won't see the light of day. The question is, in your jurisdiction are counterfeit/knockoff products legal? If they are have fun. If they aren't, have fun too... but know that you're breaking the law. You won't have anyone knocking on your door, but you probably won't either ripping movies off of bittorrent sites. But that doesn't make that legal either, right? In all jurisdictions with such laws, it makes no difference if the item is no longer in production, or if you wouldn't have bought the product otherwise anyhow (and therefore not depriving the IP owner of a sale). Whether something is moral is another question entirely, and IMO beyond the scope of a forum debate. Many things like leaving a sustainable planet for future generations, or buying locally made products, or even religion are questions of individual morality. There's not really much point in debating them, because certain things, like cheating on your girlfriend/boyfriend might be immoral, but not illegal in most Western democracies.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 00:36:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:34:58
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Rippy wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
I'll admit to stealing as long you admit to supporting dubious practices and humans rights violations and that they are roughly the same amount of immorality. Then I'll be super happy, buddy.
By buying my Samsung Galaxy s5 I potentially support dubious practices and potential human rights violations that is arguably roughly the same amount of immortality, even though it is black and white stealing/immorral when knowingly buying recasts, and only potentially when buying something from an unknown source.
Signed, Rippy.
So even in my attempt to compromise, you still white knight and wriggle out of admitting what you're doing is wrong. Stellar.
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:38:33
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
If you're in a country where it isn't illegal to buy them, and the seller is in a country where they're not committing a crime making them, is it still wrong?
(Answer: yes, probably, but you see how murky it can get)
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:39:46
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Ancient Chaos Terminator
|
jreilly89 wrote: Rippy wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
I'll admit to stealing as long you admit to supporting dubious practices and humans rights violations and that they are roughly the same amount of immorality. Then I'll be super happy, buddy.
By buying my Samsung Galaxy s5 I potentially support dubious practices and potential human rights violations that is arguably roughly the same amount of immortality, even though it is black and white stealing/immorral when knowingly buying recasts, and only potentially when buying something from an unknown source.
Signed, Rippy.
So even in my attempt to compromise, you still white knight and wriggle out of admitting what you're doing is wrong. Stellar.
I didn't wriggle out of it. I said that I do it without knowing either way. I know your moral compass is quite out of whack, though this isn't a very morally sound thing to do, is it? There you have made the angel fall rofl. You guys are being White Knights as well, just for your own cause. It is pretty funny actually.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:48:08
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
No, what's funny is you spitting insults at people, casting aspersions on their morality because they don't align with your (slightly dubious) beliefs in the same matters and then getting defensive when on the receiving end of similar.
This is actually quite an interesting topic when talked about without people like yourself preaching the word of IP, because the approach to IP varies all over the world. But tragically, when people mount their high horse and start wagging their fingers, then get gakky when people won't act the way they're supposed to, it tends to spiral off into name calling and mud slinging.
You're clearly aware of dubious labour practices in a number of industries, some of which have conceivably cost people their lives or their health, so can't claim absolution through ignorance, and yet still draw parity between that and somebody reproducing a few toys and not hurting anyone.
Now that's hilarious.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:52:19
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Azreal13 wrote:If you're in a country where it isn't illegal to buy them, and the seller is in a country where they're not committing a crime making them, is it still wrong? (Answer: yes, probably, but you see how murky it can get) "Wrong" is pretty vague -- but if you aren't breaking any laws, and they aren't either, it will be a legal transaction, I would imagine. However, the list of signatories to various copyright treaties is extremely long: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements Even if you limited it to TRIPS signatories (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), that includes by definition all WTO members (except those defined as Least Developed Countries, which get a grace period). As you can see on the grid, People's Republic of China is a signatory to all of the meaningful copyright treaties. They just choose... very slow, non-proactive enforcement if there isn't any money in it for them  . Obviously, it is against the law, otherwise, Chinese recasters / knockoff manufacturers / software counterfeiters couldn't be shut down.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 00:54:14
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:55:50
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money. THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks. The music industry didn't loose his purchase, they never had it. They gained that purchase when they made the selling of individual songs constantly and easily accessed for consumers with a fair price. People know that if they like something and they want more of it they have to support the people making it. They also know what they, personally, are willing to spend and how many inconveniences they are willing to shoulder to do so. The moment that money or the hoops they have to jump through crosses those personal lines the other options get the money/time. You can call it immoral all you want. But it's in GWs hands to change it. They can reestablish the online market for their product. They can drop their prices. They can allow brick and mortar stores to order more product. As long as GW wants to make it more difficult for the consumer they will keep pushing the consumer to other options, illegal or not.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 01:03:43
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:03:31
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
Talys wrote: Azreal13 wrote:If you're in a country where it isn't illegal to buy them, and the seller is in a country where they're not committing a crime making them, is it still wrong?
(Answer: yes, probably, but you see how murky it can get)
"Wrong" is pretty vague -- but if you aren't breaking any laws, and they aren't either, it will be a legal transaction, I would imagine.
However, the list of signatories to various copyright treaties is extremely long:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements
Even if you limited it to TRIPS signatories (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), that includes by definition all WTO members (except those defined as Least Developed Countries, which get a grace period). As you can see on the grid, People's Republic of China is a signatory to all of the meaningful copyright treaties. They just choose... very slow, non-proactive enforcement if there isn't any money in it for them  . Obviously, it is against the law, otherwise, Chinese recasters / knockoff manufacturers / software counterfeiters couldn't be shut down.
I meant wrong in a moral sense, rather than illegal.
Because, as we all know legal=\=moral or vice versa.
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:05:18
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Azreal13 wrote:I meant wrong in a moral sense, rather than illegal. Because, as we all know legal=\=moral or vice versa. Yeah, in which case, I think the vast plurality of reasonable people would say it's "wrong". In this case, I believe the Golden Rule of "Do Unto Others..." applies. If you made these designs, and you made a living off of selling the designs and derivative products, would you be ok with someone taking your designs, making derivative products, or outright copies, and selling them? And by derivative products, I'm not referring to the Chapterhouse stuff. I mean, taking an exact product, making adding a rivet, and saying "see, different".
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 01:09:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:09:01
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body
|
The million dollar question is where, on the scale of "double parked for 30 seconds" to 'makes Hitler look 'a bit naughty'" do people place it?
|
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:12:16
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Talys wrote: Azreal13 wrote:I meant wrong in a moral sense, rather than illegal.
Because, as we all know legal=\=moral or vice versa.
Yeah, in which case, I think the vast plurality of reasonable people would say it's "wrong".
In this case, I believe the Golden Rule of "Do Unto Others..." applies. If you made these designs, and you made a living off of selling the designs and derivative products, would you be ok with someone taking your designs, making derivative products, or outright copies, and selling them?
And by derivative products, I'm not referring to the Chapterhouse stuff. I mean, taking an exact product, making adding a rivet, and saying "see, different".
It's closer to "If I charged people 50 for something that cost me 4 and they were selling it for 20 when it cost them 4. Meanwhile I shut down 70% of my store fronts giving them the larger online presence, would I be surprised if I lost sales to them?"
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:49:43
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Rippy wrote: jreilly89 wrote: Rippy wrote:
jreilly89 wrote:
I'll admit to stealing as long you admit to supporting dubious practices and humans rights violations and that they are roughly the same amount of immorality. Then I'll be super happy, buddy.
By buying my Samsung Galaxy s5 I potentially support dubious practices and potential human rights violations that is arguably roughly the same amount of immortality, even though it is black and white stealing/immorral when knowingly buying recasts, and only potentially when buying something from an unknown source.
Signed, Rippy.
So even in my attempt to compromise, you still white knight and wriggle out of admitting what you're doing is wrong. Stellar.
I didn't wriggle out of it. I said that I do it without knowing either way. I know your moral compass is quite out of whack, though this isn't a very morally sound thing to do, is it? There you have made the angel fall rofl. You guys are being White Knights as well, just for your own cause. It is pretty funny actually.
Even though you admitted knowing that Samsung most likely does some of these practices and that McDonald's definitely does. But sure, call me into question, because I'm obviously the dubious one.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 01:49:53
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:55:57
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Lance845 wrote:
It's closer to "If I charged people 50 for something that cost me 4 and they were selling it for 20 when it cost them 4. Meanwhile I shut down 70% of my store fronts giving them the larger online presence, would I be surprised if I lost sales to them?"
You could pay for 3 months of HBO to get Game of Thrones, or download it for free. Free is more fair, because how much does it cost for your one digital copy of GoT? Basically, nothing. Therefore you should not pay for it. Ditto for cable TV: just cut the cord and download, because the real cost is nearly zero so you should also not pay more than virtually zero.
The problem with this is that if everyone felt this way and voted to make it "right" (and legal) folks would stop creating content, and stop sculpting miniatures.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 03:51:14
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money.
THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made.
It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD.
Then the counterfeiter comes along, and he gets to take advantage of all that work Games Workshop did, steal all that, copy a model, and sell it to you for $10. It goes way beyond simply stealing a design for a model.
So even if you argue, "I wasn't going to buy that $30 model from Games Workshop anyways." By buying it from the counterfeiter you're still enabling theft.
If you're going to buy counterfeit models, at least own up to it. There's really no moral justification for it other than, "I can't afford the real ones and I really don't care if they're stolen designs and rip-off copies."
If you're comfortable looking at your awesome painted army, and knowing that none of your dollars for that army helped pay the writers, artists, sculptors, and everyone else who helped make those products... well I guess that's on you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 03:54:07
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Talys wrote:Lance845 wrote: It's closer to "If I charged people 50 for something that cost me 4 and they were selling it for 20 when it cost them 4. Meanwhile I shut down 70% of my store fronts giving them the larger online presence, would I be surprised if I lost sales to them?" You could pay for 3 months of HBO to get Game of Thrones, or download it for free. Free is more fair, because how much does it cost for your one digital copy of GoT? Basically, nothing. Therefore you should not pay for it. Ditto for cable TV: just cut the cord and download, because the real cost is nearly zero so you should also not pay more than virtually zero. The problem with this is that if everyone felt this way and voted to make it "right" (and legal) folks would stop creating content, and stop sculpting miniatures. Actually. I don't have cable, and go onto the internet to stream shows like Game of Thrones, Sleepy Hollow, Agents of Shield, True Detective etc etc... (easy enough to find anything you want to watch with a google search) and then, when the dvds/blu rays come out, I buy them. Because cable is stupid expensive considering I am already paying for what I want with Netflix, Hulu, and the web and then I gladly pay all of the shows I think deserve it with their hard copy releases. And then the people I watch these shows with on the net also like them and often go out and buy them as well. That is 2+ sales of a hard copy, where the shows themselves make all their real money, while circumventing the overpriced services of Cable and HBO. Netflix is wise to the way consumers are processing tv at this point and their move to producing their own shows is a clear directional shift. Things like paying for HBO are going to go the way of $20 cds. Watch. Automatically Appended Next Post: Murrdox wrote:Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money. THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks. This argument doesn't hold water. Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made. It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD. Then the counterfeiter comes along, and he gets to take advantage of all that work Games Workshop did, steal all that, copy a model, and sell it to you for $10. It goes way beyond simply stealing a design for a model. So even if you argue, "I wasn't going to buy that $30 model from Games Workshop anyways." By buying it from the counterfeiter you're still enabling theft. If you're going to buy counterfeit models, at least own up to it. There's really no moral justification for it other than, "I can't afford the real ones and I really don't care if they're stolen designs and rip-off copies." If you're comfortable looking at your awesome painted army, and knowing that none of your dollars for that army helped pay the writers, artists, sculptors, and everyone else who helped make those products... well I guess that's on you. Making a good product and having good business practices are two very different things. Apple makes a decent product. Apple treats their customers like total garbage. I would NEVER pay apple a single cent because of their business practice. GW has a fun game with interesting characters. They then over price their models, release their codexes with little to no thought about game design or balance, shut down avenues for their consumers to access their products, and throw their weight around going after people like Chapterhouse. Good product. gak company. I don't feel bad for them loosing out on sales because of secondary markets. It's their fault for treating their consumers like dirt.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 04:20:03
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:16:07
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Murrdox wrote:Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money.
THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made.
It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD.
This all rests on the assumption that you were both willing and able to purchase the product.
This is rather key when it comes to this whole notion. If they were not willing to pay $30 in the first place, GW is not out anything because they were never going to to get anything in the first place either way. If the consumer will only enter the market at $10, then GW is never going to be "out" anything. Now, if the consumer had been willing to pay $30 but chose instead to pay then $10, then you can say GW is out something. I realize that's an impossible thing to actually track, but it's a very important point.
For instance, GW's prices on Knight models at $140 prices them out of what I'm willing to pay for one. I will never purchase one at that price. If I buy from a recaster for $60, GW isn't "out" $140, because I would never be willing to spend that $140 on that product in the first place. However, if they were $90, I'd probably pick one oup. If I then bought the Recaster model at $60, when I was willing to pay the retail of $90, then there could be an argument that GW is out $90. (note: I don't own any Knights). Same principle with Rolex watches. I simply can't afford to dump $5,000 on a watch. If I buy a fake for $20, Rolex isn't out $5,000, because I was never going to purchase one at that price.
Likewise, in some places (not necessarily really GW specific but can be very important when dealing with things like books and music and movies), if there's no sales avenue where someone can purchase your product, then the piracy doesn't hurt you because you weren't selling there in the first place. Again, not quite as a huge a thing for GW (though can certainly apply in some instances), but when talking about Piracy in general its important to note. For instance, if someone pirates Game of Thrones, but it's not broadcast in their country and is not sold on DVD there, then does their piracy materially hurt HBO? No, as HBO is not present in their market.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:19:23
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets
|
Vaktathi wrote:Murrdox wrote:Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money.
THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made.
It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD.
This all rests on the assumption that you were both willing and able to purchase the product.
This is rather key when it comes to this whole notion. If they were not willing to pay $30 in the first place, GW is not out anything because they were never going to to get anything in the first place either way. If the consumer will only enter the market at $10, then GW is never going to be "out" anything. Now, if the consumer had been willing to pay $30 but chose instead to pay then $10, then you can say GW is out something. I realize that's an impossible thing to actually track, but it's a very important point.
For instance, GW's prices on Knight models at $140 prices them out of what I'm willing to pay for one. I will never purchase one at that price. If I buy from a recaster for $60, GW isn't "out" $140, because I would never be willing to spend that $140 on that product in the first place. However, if they were $90, I'd probably pick one oup. If I then bought the Recaster model at $60, when I was willing to pay the retail of $90, then there could be an argument that GW is out $90. (note: I don't own any Knights). Same principle with Rolex watches. I simply can't afford to dump $5,000 on a watch. If I buy a fake for $20, Rolex isn't out $5,000, because I was never going to purchase one at that price.
Likewise, in some places (not necessarily really GW specific but can be very important when dealing with things like books and music and movies), if there's no sales avenue where someone can purchase your product, then the piracy doesn't hurt you because you weren't selling there in the first place. Again, not quite as a huge a thing for GW (though can certainly apply in some instances), but when talking about Piracy in general its important to note. For instance, if someone pirates Game of Thrones, but it's not broadcast in their country and is not sold on DVD there, then does their piracy materially hurt HBO? No, as HBO is not present in their market.
Very interesting point and relevant too. Exalt!
|
~1.5k
Successful Trades: Ashrog (1), Iron35 (1), Rathryan (3), Leth (1), Eshm (1), Zeke48 (1), Gorkamorka12345 (1),
Melevolence (2), Ascalam (1), Swanny318, (1) ScootyPuffJunior, (1) LValx (1), Jim Solo (1), xSoulgrinderx (1), Reese (1), Pretre (1) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:21:13
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Vaktathi wrote:Murrdox wrote:Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money.
THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made.
It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD.
This all rests on the assumption that you were both willing and able to purchase the product.
This is rather key when it comes to this whole notion. If they were not willing to pay $30 in the first place, GW is not out anything because they were never going to to get anything in the first place either way. If the consumer will only enter the market at $10, then GW is never going to be "out" anything. Now, if the consumer had been willing to pay $30 but chose instead to pay then $10, then you can say GW is out something. I realize that's an impossible thing to actually track, but it's a very important point.
For instance, GW's prices on Knight models at $140 prices them out of what I'm willing to pay for one. I will never purchase one at that price. If I buy from a recaster for $60, GW isn't "out" $140, because I would never be willing to spend that $140 on that product in the first place. However, if they were $90, I'd probably pick one oup. If I then bought the Recaster model at $60, when I was willing to pay the retail of $90, then there could be an argument that GW is out $90. (note: I don't own any Knights). Same principle with Rolex watches. I simply can't afford to dump $5,000 on a watch. If I buy a fake for $20, Rolex isn't out $5,000, because I was never going to purchase one at that price.
Likewise, in some places (not necessarily really GW specific but can be very important when dealing with things like books and music and movies), if there's no sales avenue where someone can purchase your product, then the piracy doesn't hurt you because you weren't selling there in the first place. Again, not quite as a huge a thing for GW (though can certainly apply in some instances), but when talking about Piracy in general its important to note. For instance, if someone pirates Game of Thrones, but it's not broadcast in their country and is not sold on DVD there, then does their piracy materially hurt HBO? No, as HBO is not present in their market.
So you're essentially saying that buying from recasting is a victimless crime.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:27:59
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Murrdox wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Murrdox wrote:Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money. THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks. This argument doesn't hold water. Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made. It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD.
This all rests on the assumption that you were both willing and able to purchase the product. This is rather key when it comes to this whole notion. If they were not willing to pay $30 in the first place, GW is not out anything because they were never going to to get anything in the first place either way. If the consumer will only enter the market at $10, then GW is never going to be "out" anything. Now, if the consumer had been willing to pay $30 but chose instead to pay then $10, then you can say GW is out something. I realize that's an impossible thing to actually track, but it's a very important point. For instance, GW's prices on Knight models at $140 prices them out of what I'm willing to pay for one. I will never purchase one at that price. If I buy from a recaster for $60, GW isn't "out" $140, because I would never be willing to spend that $140 on that product in the first place. However, if they were $90, I'd probably pick one oup. If I then bought the Recaster model at $60, when I was willing to pay the retail of $90, then there could be an argument that GW is out $90. (note: I don't own any Knights). Same principle with Rolex watches. I simply can't afford to dump $5,000 on a watch. If I buy a fake for $20, Rolex isn't out $5,000, because I was never going to purchase one at that price. Likewise, in some places (not necessarily really GW specific but can be very important when dealing with things like books and music and movies), if there's no sales avenue where someone can purchase your product, then the piracy doesn't hurt you because you weren't selling there in the first place. Again, not quite as a huge a thing for GW (though can certainly apply in some instances), but when talking about Piracy in general its important to note. For instance, if someone pirates Game of Thrones, but it's not broadcast in their country and is not sold on DVD there, then does their piracy materially hurt HBO? No, as HBO is not present in their market. So you're essentially saying that buying from recasting is a victimless crime. No, we are saying that buying from recasters is NEVER going to stop and is symptomatic of other factors. The degree to which the market is willing to put up with iffy quality, poor or no customer service, and potentially 4-8 week shipping times is directly related to the amount of bull crap that GW is putting people through to begin with. Their more or less wrecked relationship with the vast majority of their brick and mortar stores and utterly devastated online retailers has turned a lot of people away from GW to recasters and ebay. The recasters markets boom. GWs fault for not respecting their consumers and their partners in distributing and promoting their product.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 04:30:35
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:29:50
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
Murrdox wrote: Vaktathi wrote:Murrdox wrote:Lance845 wrote:If GW looses no money in the production and shipping of the product because it wasn't THEIR product being sold Just a reproduction, and the buyer of said reproduction is purchasing it because GW has made the product inaccessible due to shutting down online retailers, prohibitive pricing, limited runs, poor ordering policy for brick and mortar shops, and any number of other things, then the buyer was never going to give GW the cash anyway. And thus GW has lost no money.
THAT is the point. A person who was not willing to pay $20 for a cd so they could get 1 song they liked and 6- songs they never heard before went to the net to find that one song for free because it was the only way the product they wanted was made readily available to them for a reasonable price. They were never going to spend that 20 bucks.
This argument doesn't hold water.
Why did you buy that counterfeit Space Marine? Because Games Workshop made a game with Space Marines in it that you want to play. Because Games Workshop worked really hard to develop cool storylines for those Space Marines to make the ficiton behind the game cool. Because Games Workshop wrote a great book with all the rules and paint schemes for those Space Marines. Because Games Workshop made an awesome Space Marine model that you want to buy. But because you don't want to pay $30, you pay $10 to buy a copy of it that someone else made.
It's utterly false that Games Workshop didn't lose any money. They spent money on the GAME, they spent money on the MARKETING, they spent money printing the BOOKS, they spent money writing the FICTION, they spent money developing the WORLD.
This all rests on the assumption that you were both willing and able to purchase the product.
This is rather key when it comes to this whole notion. If they were not willing to pay $30 in the first place, GW is not out anything because they were never going to to get anything in the first place either way. If the consumer will only enter the market at $10, then GW is never going to be "out" anything. Now, if the consumer had been willing to pay $30 but chose instead to pay then $10, then you can say GW is out something. I realize that's an impossible thing to actually track, but it's a very important point.
For instance, GW's prices on Knight models at $140 prices them out of what I'm willing to pay for one. I will never purchase one at that price. If I buy from a recaster for $60, GW isn't "out" $140, because I would never be willing to spend that $140 on that product in the first place. However, if they were $90, I'd probably pick one oup. If I then bought the Recaster model at $60, when I was willing to pay the retail of $90, then there could be an argument that GW is out $90. (note: I don't own any Knights). Same principle with Rolex watches. I simply can't afford to dump $5,000 on a watch. If I buy a fake for $20, Rolex isn't out $5,000, because I was never going to purchase one at that price.
Likewise, in some places (not necessarily really GW specific but can be very important when dealing with things like books and music and movies), if there's no sales avenue where someone can purchase your product, then the piracy doesn't hurt you because you weren't selling there in the first place. Again, not quite as a huge a thing for GW (though can certainly apply in some instances), but when talking about Piracy in general its important to note. For instance, if someone pirates Game of Thrones, but it's not broadcast in their country and is not sold on DVD there, then does their piracy materially hurt HBO? No, as HBO is not present in their market.
So you're essentially saying that buying from recasting is a victimless crime.
Depending on the willingness and ability of the consumer to pay.
Again, if the consumer doesn't have the *ability* to obtain a product through legal means, then the producer isn't out anything if the consumer engages in piracy because they don't exist int he market in the first place, thus, there is no harm.
If the consumer would/could never pay the producers asking price even if piracy were not an option, again the producer cannot be considered harmed because the consumer was not a participant in the market at the price point the producer wished to sell at. If 9 year old little timmy, who doesn't get an allowance, goes and pirates a video game he had no income or funds to purchase in the first place, where it the harm to the producer that was never going get a sale from that consumer in the first place? (NOTE: there is a difference if he *steals* a copy from a store, as the store has then lost merchandise it had paid for).
If the consumer has the ability to obtain the product and willingness to pay the producers price, *and then* engages in piracy, then yes, the producer is harmed.
See the point I'm making here?
It's important to keep these distinctions in mind. Piracy can be harmful, but you absolutely cannot equate every instance of piracy with a corresponding loss of revenue to the producer.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:36:56
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
@ Vaktathi Thank you for spelling out the point I was making very clearly. Kudos!
|
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:39:10
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
I gotta make my Econ degree and MBA count for something right?
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:47:27
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Keep in mind I cannot remember the last time I heard about someone pirating music off the internet. It is way to easy and way to fairly priced to just buy the songs legally. Why would anyone go through the trouble to pirate it? It's a dead avenue of acquisition or if it's not then the people who are willing to go that extra mile to download music were never willing to spend 1 dollar per song to begin with and were never going to pay them either way. The producers of the music haven't actually lost a sale. GW is still trying to force us to buy $20 cds with 6-8 songs on it. Except they cut Sam Goody and the other music retailers out of it and want you to order directly from the Publisher instead. The harder it is for the consumer to purchase and the worse the deal is the more likely people will turn to secondary markets.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 04:48:31
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:49:45
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Vaktathi wrote:
If the consumer has the ability to obtain the product and willingness to pay the producers price, *and then* engages in piracy, then yes, the producer is harmed.
See the point I'm making here?
It's important to keep these distinctions in mind. Piracy can be harmful, but you absolutely cannot equate every instance of piracy with a corresponding loss of revenue to the producer.
Yes I see your point. But it still doesn't make sense. Under your model, it is impossible for a company to create a product in a set of circumstances whereby you are not willing to rationalize piracy from them.
For example, I am a game company and I sell a model for $100. Under your definition, anybody who cannot afford a $100 is justified in buying this model from someone who has stolen my design, and is selling it for $50. Now, let's say I am able to reduce my price to $50. Now, you would rationalize this once again to say that anyone who can't afford $50 should be able to buy it from someone who stole my design and is selling it for $25. Okay, I lower my prices yet again. Now I'm selling my model for $25. But if a recaster is willing to sell my model for $10, and someone cannot afford my $25 dollar price, you say they are justified in purchasing that counterfeit item.
And through all of this, you're saying that my game company isn't economically harmed? I'm trying to sell a $100 model for $25 dollars now. That's harm.
Furthermore, as a company where should I set my price? $100? $50? $25? You can rationalize stealing from me no matter where I set my prices. It's impossible for me to win.
It's still stealing. Just because Prada makes a bag and sells it for something you're not willing to pay (but you still REALLY want that Prada bag) doesn't make it morally justified for you to go and buy a knock-off for $30. Furthermore the companies that make these products ARE harmed economically by the process. The harm may not be DIRECT harm (your dollars aren't going into their pocket, as you've said) but that doesn't mean the crime is victimless.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:56:44
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Norn Queen
|
Murrdox wrote: Vaktathi wrote: If the consumer has the ability to obtain the product and willingness to pay the producers price, *and then* engages in piracy, then yes, the producer is harmed. See the point I'm making here? It's important to keep these distinctions in mind. Piracy can be harmful, but you absolutely cannot equate every instance of piracy with a corresponding loss of revenue to the producer. Yes I see your point. But it still doesn't make sense. Under your model, it is impossible for a company to create a product in a set of circumstances whereby you are not willing to rationalize piracy from them. For example, I am a game company and I sell a model for $100. Under your definition, anybody who cannot afford a $100 is justified in buying this model from someone who has stolen my design, and is selling it for $50. Now, let's say I am able to reduce my price to $50. Now, you would rationalize this once again to say that anyone who can't afford $50 should be able to buy it from someone who stole my design and is selling it for $25. Okay, I lower my prices yet again. Now I'm selling my model for $25. But if a recaster is willing to sell my model for $10, and someone cannot afford my $25 dollar price, you say they are justified in purchasing that counterfeit item. And through all of this, you're saying that my game company isn't economically harmed? I'm trying to sell a $100 model for $25 dollars now. That's harm. Furthermore, as a company where should I set my price? $100? $50? $25? You can rationalize stealing from me no matter where I set my prices. It's impossible for me to win. It's still stealing. Just because Prada makes a bag and sells it for something you're not willing to pay (but you still REALLY want that Prada bag) doesn't make it morally justified for you to go and buy a knock-off for $30. Furthermore the companies that make these products ARE harmed economically by the process. The harm may not be DIRECT harm (your dollars aren't going into their pocket, as you've said) but that doesn't mean the crime is victimless. Your caught up on the wrong points. It doesn't matter that people are going to buy knock offs. They are. You cannot stop that. You can either 1) spend a bunch of money creating DMR or taking other actions that ultimately will fail to stop it or 2) you can appeal to your consumer base by making the product easily accessible and fairly priced and thus grow your legitimate consumer base. It does not hurt your business as much as you imply. It shows flaws in your current business model that need to be addressed. There is NO WAY that 1 Chinese guy in a garage is producing models at the rate and quality you should be producing to really impact your business unless the rest of what you are doing is actively driving your customers towards him.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 04:57:41
These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 05:00:17
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
Ancient Chaos Terminator
|
It doesn't matter if you want to enter the market at a certain price, and will only at a certain price, the point is you are willingly buying recasts which is infringing on GW's IP. It doesn't matter if you would never have spent the money on the real deal, you are not entitled to spend less on counterfeits, you are still doing the wrong thing.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 05:00:36
Subject: How are recast sites legal?
|
 |
[MOD]
Making Stuff
|
Murrdox wrote:
Under your definition, anybody who cannot afford a $100 is justified in buying this model from someone who has stolen my design, and is selling it for $50.
He wasn't saying that buying it from someone who has stolen your design is justified. Just that it's not actually costing you a sale, because you weren't going to get that sale even if the cheaper option wasn't available.
It's not about whether or not people should be able to buy your product cheaper. It's about whether or not the product you are selling is seen by your customers as being value for money.
I'm trying to sell a $100 model for $25 dollars now. That's harm.
If you can sell that '$100 model' for $25 and still remain in business, it wasn't a $100 model to begin with. It was a $25 model with a grossly inflated price tag.
Furthermore, as a company where should I set my price? $100? $50? $25?
That's up to you.
You can price high, on the understanding that the higher you go, the more likely it is that people will look for cheaper options. Or you can price low, and leave less of a gap between your prices and the recasters. Or somewhere in the middle, and hope for the best.
And in any of those cases, you should be actively seeking to engage your customer base, and by doing so encourage loyalty to your brand... because that also goes a long way towards reducing the chances people will look elsewhere. People are happier to pay more to a company that they like and want to support.
As someone else alluded to, the music industry has largely stamped out piracy after years of trying to go the litigation route, when they finally realised that instead encouraging people to buy by offering their product in a different way to match an evolving market.
Yelling at people to stop won't make them stop. Making them want to buy the real deal will.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 05:05:58
|
|
 |
 |
|
|