Switch Theme:

How are recast sites legal?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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.




Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?


It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.


And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".



Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.


Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.


Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 11:05:21


 
   
Made in au
Ancient Chaos Terminator





'Straya... Mate.

LordBlades wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?


It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.


And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".



Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.


Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.


Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

How do the treat their customers?!

 
   
Made in dk
Stormin' Stompa





 Rippy wrote:

How do the treat their customers?!


Like an annoying, stupid, ignorant but necessary evil?

-------------------------------------------------------
"He died because he had no honor. He had no honor and the Emperor was watching."

18.000 3.500 8.200 3.300 2.400 3.100 5.500 2.500 3.200 3.000


 
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




 Rippy wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?


It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.


And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".



Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.


Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.


Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

How do the treat their customers?!


For starters, not everything they do immediately looks like a blatant cash grab.

Then they do have the.habit of releasing pretty regular errata.to their stuff, which does address problems.

Third, they actually engage with the community. Dark Heresy 2 had an open beta for example, which actually did an 180 degrees turn based on community feedback.

TBH, part of me hopes that when GW goes under (based.on.their recent financial reports, it seems more a matter of when rather than if) FFG picks up the IP.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 12:01:58


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




LordBlades wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?


It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.


And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".



Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.


Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.


Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

No, the directional componnet isnt there; it is an immoral action, regardless of the company you are targeting.

"but bobby was bad as well!" isnt a great excuse for immoral behaviour.
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
Who here claimed it's a need?


It's implied by the statement that GW's pricing decisions are immoral. You can't have immoral pricing with a luxury item that potential customers are completely free to stop buying if the prices aren't desirable.

You want my cash? Earn it. Make me feel your products are worth the asking price.


And I don't object to that at all. The problem is when your conclusion is "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy recasts because I have to have GW products no matter what" instead of "if it isn't worth it then I'll buy some other thing instead".



Nope, I will buy recasts because:
- I want (not need) the specific model
- I can do so legally
- I feel no obligation to be moral toward a company that IMO treats their fan base like gak

That being said:
- I do buy from GW stuff that I feel is worth it (ally my Tau army apart from broadsides basicly)
- I would rather support an independent original creator but I haven't found anything the right size abd aesthetic for a HYMP Broadside.


Youre not being moral "towards" a company. there is no directional component here. You are being IMmoral, full stop.


Actually there is a directional component, since I wouldn't buy recasts for let's say X-wing, since I do respect FFG.

I buy recasts of GW products mainly because I don't respect them and the way they treat their cystomers, but I still enjoy the 40k universe.

No, the directional componnet isnt there; it is an immoral action, regardless of the company you are targeting.

"but bobby was bad as well!" isnt a great excuse for immoral behaviour.


It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

LordBlades wrote:
It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'


They are a goods-producing company. They sell good, they set their prices. Buy or don't buy. There is no need for any form of "respect" (unless you want to discuss the Business transactions of obtaining such goods)

Undercutting a goods producer by copying the goods produced and selling at a cheaper price is immoral.

As a purchaser of both goods available on the market (The original and the copy) you make a descision of purchase. Choosing the copy supports the immoral manufacturing.

As such, i would not say "you are being immoral", but you are supporting "immorality" (which, technically, does make you immoral)

DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




 BlackTalos wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'


They are a goods-producing company. They sell good, they set their prices. Buy or don't buy. There is no need for any form of "respect" (unless you want to discuss the Business transactions of obtaining such goods)

Undercutting a goods producer by copying the goods produced and selling at a cheaper price is immoral.

As a purchaser of both goods available on the market (The original and the copy) you make a descision of purchase. Choosing the copy supports the immoral manufacturing.

As such, i would not say "you are being immoral", but you are supporting "immorality" (which, technically, does make you immoral)


On the other hand, in my view, most/all corporations, as well as corporate culture in general, are full of immoral stuff. So in the end, for me, it's just a choice regarding which kind of immorality I want to support.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 12:34:56


 
   
Made in gb
Confessor Of Sins





Newton Aycliffe

LordBlades wrote:
 BlackTalos wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
It's less 'but bobby was bad too' and more 'if you don't respect me, why should I go the extra mile to respect you?'


They are a goods-producing company. They sell good, they set their prices. Buy or don't buy. There is no need for any form of "respect" (unless you want to discuss the Business transactions of obtaining such goods)

Undercutting a goods producer by copying the goods produced and selling at a cheaper price is immoral.

As a purchaser of both goods available on the market (The original and the copy) you make a descision of purchase. Choosing the copy supports the immoral manufacturing.

As such, i would not say "you are being immoral", but you are supporting "immorality" (which, technically, does make you immoral)


On the other hand, in my view, most/all corporations, as well as corporate culture in general, are full of immiral stuff. So in the end, for me, it's just a choice regarding which kind of immorality I want to support.


Of course, simply the fact that i am supporting and buying models from Raging Heroes makes it immoral if i am playing a 40K Sisters of Battle Army.

But the aim here was to agree that buying recasts is immoral, and some users would rather not do such immoral deeds (even if "most/all corporations, as well as corporate culture in general, are full of immoral stuff" => 'but bobby was bad too' )

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 12:36:39


DA:80-S+G+M+B++I-Pw40k01++D+++A+++WD100R++T(T)DM+
Roronoa Zoro wrote:When the world shoves you around, you just gotta stand up and shove back. It's not like somebody's gonna save you if you start babbling excuses. - Bring on the hardship. It's preferred in a path of carnage.
Manchu wrote:
It's like you take a Space Marine and say "what could make him cooler?" Instead of adding more super-genetic-psycho-organic modification, you take it all away. You have a regular human left in power armor and all the armies of hell at the gates. And she doesn't even flinch. Pure. Badass. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Runnin up on ya.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

No, the directional componnet isnt there; it is an immoral action, regardless of the company you are targeting.

"but bobby was bad as well!" isnt a great excuse for immoral behaviour.


What is immoral? Immoral by whose standard? Yours? Irrelevant. You may be surprised to learn that your mores do not apply to the greater portion of the world's population...or even to your own community.

Fact: Purchasing and owning recasts is expressly legal in the US according to the US Attorney's Office.

Fact: The established purpose of law is to "preserve freedom and moral agency"

Inference: Moral agency is served by the purchase/ownership of recasts being legal. Ergo, NOT immoral by society's standards.

* Note, this does not apply to the manufacture/sale of said recasts as these acts are expressly illegal (except when applicable under Fair Use).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 13:17:43


Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yet legal and moral are NOT equivalences. One does not necessarily follow from the other, except in the most trivial and trite circumstances. Your inference is poorly constructed and flawed from the get go.

Also, your second "fact" is disagreed with on different sites. I noticed you cited no source for this face, but a business law site* considers the purpose to be:

"The law serves many purposes and functions in society. Four principal purposes and functions are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights."

But even this is flawed, as it presumes that a US standard is even a standard.

Supporting a parasite is unlikely to be indicative of good morals.

*http://www.businesslawbasics.com/chapter-3-purposes-and-functions-law-1
   
Made in es
Pulsating Possessed Chaos Marine





Well, I'm glad at least the discussion seems to have shifted from "you're a thief!" to "you're inmoral!".

Considering GW has proven to be more than willing to blatantly lie under oath in order to shut off the competition (Chapterhouse case), I'd say it's fair to label them an absolutely inmoral company.

As such, what do you guys think would be a suitable adjective for people who not only give them money, but also defend them on the internet? Inmoral guardians?

Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.

GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Runnin up on ya.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet legal and moral are NOT equivalences. One does not necessarily follow from the other, except in the most trivial and trite circumstances. Your inference is poorly constructed and flawed from the get go.

Also, your second "fact" is disagreed with on different sites. I noticed you cited no source for this face, but a business law site* considers the purpose to be:

"The law serves many purposes and functions in society. Four principal purposes and functions are establishing standards, maintaining order, resolving disputes, and protecting liberties and rights."

But even this is flawed, as it presumes that a US standard is even a standard.

Supporting a parasite is unlikely to be indicative of good morals.

*http://www.businesslawbasics.com/chapter-3-purposes-and-functions-law-1


Source for my second fact:
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/000902-11.htm

I used it because I thought the point was clearly made and succinct but if you require further research, keep reading for a couple of other suggestions.

Other scholarly research on the matter:
"Morals and the Criminal Law" in The Philosophy of Law (ed R M Dworkin) Oxford (1977)
without shared ideas on politics, morals, and ethics no society can exist. Each one of us has ideas about what is good and what is evil; they cannot be kept private from the society in which we live. If men and women try to create a society in which there is no fundamental agreement about good and evil they will fail; if having based it on common agreement, the agreement goes, the society will disintegrate. For society is not something that is kept together physically; it is held by the invisible bonds of common thought. If the bonds were too far relaxed the members would drift apart. A common morality is part of the bondage. The bondage is part of the price of society; and mankind, which needs society, must pay its price.


The foundation of the US legal system is Common Law or case law, the law of precedents. I recommend you read, The Nature of the Common Law by Melvin Aron Eisenberg, he goes in depth into moral norms, social morality and how they determine rule of law in American society. It's a good read, I recommend around page 19-20 as a good starting point for that discussion.

--A bit off topic, sorry, but my first degree was in History and I worked for several years as a Legal Assistant in a previous life.

So, if we divorce law and morality completely, we have nothing to talk about at all because if laws and morality are not tied together in some way, your mores will be completely subjective and have no bearing whatsoever on my actions or anyone else's for that matter.


Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do 
   
Made in gb
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus







There is something i feel should be pointed out here.
From the beginning: i got into 40k decades ago about 1990 - so i've seen GW's practices, not quite from the beginning, but pretty close.

you didn't hear about 40k; you accidentally wandered into a shop because it said 'D&D' in the window and started asking questions about the sci-fi models they had in the cabinet.
After that you might buy into it and then you would go to the same shop to meet people who also play the game and maybe pick up a copy of white dwarf.
THIS IS BEFORE THE INTERNET OR MOBILE PHONES what you didn't get from white dwarf or your store owner or the parts catalouge you just didn't have or didn't know about. end of.
The only reason that GW even exists today is because people like me put our money into it back then, and let me tell you, prices were cheaper!
You could get any part you wanted from any model you wanted for about £1 maybe £2 and you could just buy the parts to upgrade your rhino to a razorback if you felt you wanted to.

We made the community that supported their company, we (the players) supported their stores, it became our community hub (no internet, no mobile phones!) - they encouraged us to do so to 'make the hobby our own'.
they used to supply models, terrain, game books, templates and dice to anyone who walked in the door wanting to play because GW knew that as soon as they got into it, they would be buying multiple armies. and IT WORKED.

Now look at things today; you have to ask in advance and then jump through hoops to even use one of GW's tables, you have to bring everything (may as well do it at home now, you can smoke/drink while doing it), no proxying allowed, staff get funny over 'houseruling' in their store (even though BRB enshrines it), you can't buy bits now, white dwarf is now a mini catalouge, we all go to a forum rather than the flgs for hobby info, and most importantly - that statement from the GW CEO stated how they now view us all -

Games Workshop is in the business of selling toy soldiers to children. - Tom Kirby, Chairman of Games Workshop PLC


If you play 40k and buy the models; he's talking about YOU.
Personally - if someone insults me as casually as that and despite having that pointed out to them still maintains that attitude - thats the opening of hostilities, and they are going to have to do some serious ass-kissing for me to forgive and let it drop.

There are three people in this thread who eigther didn't see that era or have developed 'stockholm syndrome' towards the company and i don't see why.
Since when did GW earn that loyalty from you? what did they do that impressed you so much youre willing to spend time on this thread (which was answered ages ago) arguing against the general concensus - they don't deserve your devotion.
BTW please avoid falling into the trap of feeling burned because the other guy got the same models for a fraction of the price; there's satisfaction in knowing you have the 'genuine' item, right? i'm feeling that with 'Bello Canis' my Warhound.


On a positive note, I see the new Skittarii stuff as the first step in the right direction for GW - the ranger squads are reasonably priced and the codex being £20 was refreshing. only dissapointment was the Onager at £40; £30 and i would be defending GW for 'doing the right thing'.

On a negative note, vehicles are still typically about £45 - that's too much for a plastic kit. All their vehicles need to come down in price a bit - how much spare cash do they think the children they sell to have?!?

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-px27tzAtVwZpZ4ljopV2w "ashtrays and teacups do not count as cover"
"jack of all trades, master of none; certainly better than a master of one"
The Ordo Reductor - the guy's who make wonderful things like the Landraider Achillies, but can't use them in battle..  
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"
   
Made in ro
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"


The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Rippy wrote:

Apologies, I thought you said exactly that with
insaniak wrote:Rather than carrying on playing whack-a-mole with file-sharing sites, they just evolved their business model to one that works for today's market

Fair point. Poor choice of words on my part,

 
   
Made in us
Norn Queen






 Rippy wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:

So Prada should reduce their prices, because you dont like them?

More that Prada should make their price seem justified if they want him as a customer.


It comes back to that relationship with the customers that was discussed earlier. People are happy to spend money with companies that they like. We've seen comments in this very thread from people who buy direct from GW because they feel that they should support GW for producing the product that they like.

If GW want to stop people buying from recasters, they need to make those people feel that the product they are buying is worth the asking price. Lowering prices is only a part of that, and not inherently required because the price is only one part of the relationship equation. The other part (and IMO the bigger part) is fostering a positive outlook in your customers. Happy customers are often far less concerned about the price.

Do you honestly think that even if GW made plastic sister's of battle (sorry this thread hadn't mentioned them yet), made a rule book everyone in the world was happy with, and lowered all of their prices by half that people still wouldn't buy recasts if they could get them cheaper?


And allowed brick and mortar stores to order them so people could shop locally. And stopped shutting down avenues of purchase. And reopened communication with their customer base. Then yes. Recasters would make drastically less money.

Again,the only arguments I am seeing here is "Recasters are bad!" and "you should feel bad for GW". I would love for some actual points to come out of the other camp.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 16:46:41



These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.
 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"


Thank you. A point I was trying to make... over and over... pages ago. All the posts about GW/FW models being overpriced is just bullgak rationalization. It wouldn't matter if FW wanted to charge $25,000 for a Sicaran that was $5 in materials. Copying would still be both immoral and illegal in any country that someone on this forum is posting from.
   
Made in us
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets






 Talys wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"


Thank you. A point I was trying to make... over and over... pages ago. All the posts about GW/FW models being overpriced is just bullgak rationalization. It wouldn't matter if FW wanted to charge $25,000 for a Sicaran that was $5 in materials. Copying would still be both immoral and illegal in any country that someone on this forum is posting from.


Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Side note: not every country has a law against IP infringement. I'm sure there are other countries where recasts are perfectly legal.

~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) 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 jreilly89 wrote:


Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Side note: not every country has a law against IP infringement. I'm sure there are other countries where recasts are perfectly legal.


I didn't say that I am a moral person. I openly admit that I am immoral, though I don't break the law. But I'm honest about it. Every country that matters has signed TRIPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

It's a requirement to enter WTO. Countries that haven't signed include ones like: East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kiribati, North Korea, Liberia, Libya, Nauru, Niue. I'll bet you couldn't even point out 75% of the non-signatories on a globe... or even knew that some of those countries existed. Hell, even Sierra Leone is on the list.

My point: I'm not making a judgment on morality; I'm making a judgment on rationalization. If you want to cheat on your wife or girlfriend, go for it; I won't judge. But I will if you try to then justify it as somehow ok, for any reason at all other than that it's ok with her (in which case it's not cheating).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/04/08 17:08:01


 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




LordBlades wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"


The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Runnin up on ya.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"


To understand that you have to understand the nature of Common Law. The decisions by courts and in the laws passed by local/state/national governments reflect the mores of the community that they represent. America is governed through a representative form of government (some argue democracy while others republic) and the intent is that laws will be passed to further the will of the people. Local laws of course reflect the local mores, not necessarily the national conscience; if the elected officials in New York feel that the majority of people who elected them approve of a ban on purchase of rebranded/counterfeit goods, that is more restrictive than the federal law which is supposed to be representative of the overall conscience of the entire country of 300+ million people. This is why prostitution is somewhat legal in Nevada and illegal throughout the rest of the US. The majority of the US does not support legalized prostitution but historically/traditionally, residents of Nevada are less bothered or else it wouldn't be legal. We're seeing changes in national mores in numerous areas (marijuana and gay marriage) throughout the US but localized resistance dependent upon local mores which are reflected by local ordinances and state laws.

Interesting stuff.

Again. Your morality does not equal my or necessarily anyone else's morality, no rationalization needed.

Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do 
   
Made in us
Wraith






The concept of ownership of an idea or form is an arbitrary condition, it has no purpose beyond an attempt of a rationale to determine its merit or worth in society. We can rapidly come to conclusions that ownership of things is greatly beneficial but the ownership of ideas is entirely murky as creating an industry around said notion may result in a broken window fallacy.

Also, trying to any other analogy or rationale based on scarcity (relationships, physical goods, etc.) is inappropriate. It meets no end because these are based on rational concepts of limited resources. Ideas are not limited, but infinite.

Intellectual property and patents is something I fully intend to study further in my own lifetime. Potentially attending school to gain a degree in such as the concept will come to a quick and great concern as our society is on the cusp of negating scarcity otherwise (energy which begets elements).

Shine on, Kaldor Dayglow!
Not Ken Lobb

 
   
Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




I do understand it, coming from the UK which most of your precedents in law are based on, all the way back 800 years.

You made an equivalence that legal is moral. Yet that is unsupportable, as proven.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 17:24:06


 
   
Made in ca
Fixture of Dakka






 agnosto wrote:


Again. Your morality does not equal my or necessarily anyone else's morality, no rationalization needed.


What isn't debatable is that recasting is covered under international IP treaties, and is both illegal and enforceable in every country that has signed the relevant treaty -- the fourth column in the table on this chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

That includes China, and it isn't debatable. If an IP holder can prove that a recaster is selling counterfeit products, injunctive relief will be offered and sanctions will apply.

I think anyone who feels that stealing IP is not immoral should create an original work, try to make money off of it, and have it ripped off.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

nosferatu1001 wrote:

By any standard it is immoral.

What a strange thing to say.

I remember this discussion happening years ago, and someone who had lived in China pointed out that a large part of the reason that knock-offs are so prevalent there is that culturally, they simply don't see intellectual property as an actual thing. In that sort of environment, despite the fact that their government has signed an international treaty promising to adhere to certain standards, it's very easy to imagine that the average guy on the street would not see a moral issue with ignoring the rules.

We see the same thing in western culture. Intellectual property isn't some fundamental law of the universe. It's a set of imaginary rules that we have created in order to (supposedly) allow the people who create things to fairly profit from them. Unless you talk to opponents of intellectual property law, in which case it's a set of imaginary rules put in place to protect the interests of mega-corporations like Disney, that frequently wind up screwing over the little guy. And to people with that viewpoint, it's very possible that ignoring those laws wouldn't be considered immoral in the slightest.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/08 17:27:32


 
   
Made in gb
Boom! Leman Russ Commander





UK

 Talys wrote:
 jreilly89 wrote:


Immoral to YOU. Again, morality is relative. I find it hard to take moral bashing from people who have openly claimed to support either businesses who engage in shady practices or obvious tax evasion, but hey, to each his one.

Side note: not every country has a law against IP infringement. I'm sure there are other countries where recasts are perfectly legal.


I didn't say that I am a moral person. I openly admit that I am immoral, though I don't break the law. But I'm honest about it. Every country that matters has signed TRIPS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_international_copyright_agreements

It's a requirement to enter WTO. Countries that haven't signed include ones like: East Timor, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kiribati, North Korea, Liberia, Libya, Nauru, Niue. I'll bet you couldn't even point out 75% of the non-signatories on a globe... or even knew that some of those countries existed. Hell, even Sierra Leone is on the list.

My point: I'm not making a judgment on morality; I'm making a judgment on rationalization. If you want to cheat on your wife or girlfriend, go for it; I won't judge. But I will if you try to then justify it as somehow ok, for any reason at all other than that it's ok with her (in which case it's not cheating).


So that's why the UAE closed down the Thomsun Original shops I mentioned a couple of pages ago.

   
Made in us
On a Canoptek Spyder's Waiting List



Washington

nosferatu1001 wrote:

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.


And how can you justify a statement saying that it is immoral to everyone? You can't. Morals are entirely subjective and will change between cultures, cities, countries or even individuals within one of those groups.
   
Made in at
Dakka Veteran




nosferatu1001 wrote:
LordBlades wrote:
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet we know laws are not always moral. And not everything considered moral makes it to law. So you cannot tie one for one. Even in the U.S. Your assertion is not true - NY has a law against purchasing counterfeit goods.

It's an immoral act. Avoiding it is easy - just have to not purchase GW products at all. Don't post hoc rationalise by saying "well they're worse so it's ok"


The fact that YOU consider it immoral, doesn't make it so for everyone.

By any standard it is immoral. Have fun with trying to justify something so self evident.

Again, your post hoc justification of your immoral act isn't my concern, just pointing out it out. Own your immorality.


Have you completely studied every possible moral standard existing under the sun and reached this conclusion?

Bear in mind, I don't claim that buying recasts isn't immoral (nor that it is moral for that matter), just that holding everyone to your own purely subjective standard of morality is extremely presumptuous.

   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: