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.

 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.

Morality is relative, but you are stretching the definition of "relative" to essentially mean "If I think it's OK, then it's moral." That is not what it means. You're simply trying to rationalize your immoral choice, and pretend that it's moral. In truth, you have made an immoral decision, and you are happy with it.

What you are describing is NOT moral relativity. Moral relativity is based on the social morays of a given group or society. For example, you could have strong personal convictions that beating your wife is not immoral. But if you live in a society where that is not morally acceptable to do, your act is still going to be judged as "immoral".

Similarly, you seem to have this outrageous opinion that you can only be met with valid criticism from a totally righteous man. I have no right to judge you for buying illegally copied models, because I cheat on my taxes, or I copy game of thrones, for example.

This is also a false assumption. One does not have to be perfect to criticize another person. If I criticize you for speeding, but in the past I myself have gotten a speeding ticket, that doesn't invalidate the fact that you were, in fact, speeding. A drunk driver could criticize you for speeding. His crime is worse than yours. But if you are, in fact, speeding then it doesn't invalidate his judgement.

You cannot dodge being morally judged by others by demanding that you will only accept judgement from people that are perfect. Your actions stand alone. Your bad action is not cancelled out by my bad action.

Imagine I shot and killed my mother. We meet in jail, where you tell me that you shot and killed YOUR mother too. I can and will judge you negatively for killing your mother, and rightly so. Simply because I also killed my own mother doesn't invalidate your negative act. It simply makes you free to judge me negatively in return. You can't say to me "You can't judge me for killing my mom, you killed your mom too!" Just because I killed my own mother, doesn't mean I have to accept that YOU killing YOUR mother was morally correct. At worst I sound hypocritical, but even then, just because I killed my own mother, does that mean I have to be in favor of everyone killing their mothers? Of course it doesn't.

So I can freely judge you negatively for copying models. You can freely negatively judge me for cheating on my taxes.

 Talys wrote:

 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.

HAHAHAHA I would LOVE to see Britain place sanctions on China. That would be hilarious. China, the second of 2 world super powers, that exports crap all over the world, and Britain would get zero support from the rest of the world who needs China's economy to keep the world running.

Good luck with that.

 Talys wrote:


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.

Why? That would be asinine as arts as a product, more so one that's with zero reproduction cost (or extremely low) is a failing business model. Arts as a service, however, is growing by leaps and bounds. So maybe IP law is, as stated, a broken window fallacy and that the market is naturally course correcting faster than the laws can change.

Here's a wonderful example of such I read as I was sipping on my morning and coffee:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/how-a-cities-skylines-modder-turned-community-generosity-into-a-full-time-job/

Lance845 wrote:
HAHAHAHA I would LOVE to see Britain place sanctions on China. That would be hilarious. China, the second of 2 world super powers, that exports crap all over the world, and Britain would get zero support from the rest of the world who needs China's economy to keep the world running.

Good luck with that.

You, sir, have obviously never taken even a high school law class. In law, the term "Sanction" is means a remedy against the party perpetrating the injury. It may involve a fine, or jailtime, or injunctive relief, or a combination of such things. Economic Sanctions, between nations, is what you're thinking of.

Nominally, China fully (and vociferously) supports IP laws. Practically, whenever someone proves counterfeit, Chinese courts issue injunctive relief and shut down the perpetrator. These are called sanctions -- against the counterfeiter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


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.

Why? That would be asinine as arts as a product, more so one that's with zero reproduction cost (or extremely low) is a failing business model. Arts as a service, however, is growing by leaps and bounds. So maybe IP law is, as stated, a broken window fallacy and that the market is naturally course correcting faster than the laws can change.

Here's a wonderful example of such I read as I was sipping on my morning and coffee:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/how-a-cities-skylines-modder-turned-community-generosity-into-a-full-time-job/

Royalties are a foundation of our intellectual properties laws as a means of compensating artists. Without them, and you'd have a lot less art and a lot less distribution. Once upon a time, there were no such laws, and artists lived in poverty (look at musicians like Mozart, who had to find a wealthy patron).

While I will agree that a lot of people feel the way you do (that there should be no IP protection when there's no production cost), that is not the law, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't feel that way if you were a photographer, painter, sculptor, author, or recording artist. Especially if you enjoyed eating.

 Talys wrote:

Royalties are a foundation of our intellectual properties laws as a means of compensating artists. Without them, and you'd have a lot less art and a lot less distribution. Once upon a time, there were no such laws, and artists lived in poverty (look at musicians like Mozart, who had to find a wealthy patron).

While I will agree that a lot of people feel the way you do (that there should be no IP protection when there's no production cost), that is not the law, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't feel that way if you were a photographer, painter, sculptor, author, or recording artist. Especially if you enjoyed eating.

And I entirely disagree with the basis of facts compounding daily as the old models of artistic business fail with the new means, enables by Internet Commerce, are seeing artists turn forlorn skills into on-demand assets. Something tells me you didn't read that article. Or many others like them...

The concept of owning music is barely 100 years old. Movies and games even less. Books were limited entirely due to production cost and only became a thing with the printing press. Otherwise, the limitation was not IP rights, but how fast a monk could transcribe the text.

IP rights and royalties are a construct of primarily the 20th century in the right time, right place of being able to enforce them while reproduction costs remained high enough.

If you're selling arts as a product, you have no right to income. No other profoession of major worth can ride the coat tails of one major event unless that event was so monumental that the societal impact was that immense. Instead they must provide a service for that sustenance. I see no reason why artists need such a barrier to make it work. That tells me the business model is bad.

 Talys wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
HAHAHAHA I would LOVE to see Britain place sanctions on China. That would be hilarious. China, the second of 2 world super powers, that exports crap all over the world, and Britain would get zero support from the rest of the world who needs China's economy to keep the world running.

Good luck with that.

You, sir, have obviously never taken even a high school law class. In law, the term "Sanction" is means a remedy against the party perpetrating the injury. It may involve a fine, or jailtime, or injunctive relief, or a combination of such things. Economic Sanctions, between nations, is what you're thinking of.

Nominally, China fully (and vociferously) supports IP laws. Practically, whenever someone proves counterfeit, Chinese courts issue injunctive relief and shut down the perpetrator. These are called sanctions -- against the counterfeiter.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheKbob wrote:

 Talys wrote:


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.

Why? That would be asinine as arts as a product, more so one that's with zero reproduction cost (or extremely low) is a failing business model. Arts as a service, however, is growing by leaps and bounds. So maybe IP law is, as stated, a broken window fallacy and that the market is naturally course correcting faster than the laws can change.

Here's a wonderful example of such I read as I was sipping on my morning and coffee:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/04/how-a-cities-skylines-modder-turned-community-generosity-into-a-full-time-job/

Royalties are a foundation of our intellectual properties laws as a means of compensating artists. Without them, and you'd have a lot less art and a lot less distribution. Once upon a time, there were no such laws, and artists lived in poverty (look at musicians like Mozart, who had to find a wealthy patron).

While I will agree that a lot of people feel the way you do (that there should be no IP protection when there's no production cost), that is not the law, and I am pretty sure you wouldn't feel that way if you were a photographer, painter, sculptor, author, or recording artist. Especially if you enjoyed eating.

Do you mean closing down their web address? Because yes, that happens. And then the guy makes a new site. If anything was actually going to happen they wouldn't show up again.

IP laws is not why artists lived in poverty. Artists lived in poverty because the divide between the wealthy and the poor was vast. The poor didn't have money or time to waste on "art" and the rich were few in number. Those who got patronage flourished well enough. Those that didn't stayed poor. IP laws had nothing to do with it.

LordBlades wrote:

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.

Apart from when you said it wasn't immoral, due to GW actions or the entitlement fuelled rant over their supposed treatment of you, of course.

Keep justifying and rationalising the immorality as just not that bad, I'll continue to point out it is certainly immoral. I care not for your opinion otherwise.

Paying someone to commit an illegal act on your behalf. That's what you do when you pay a recaster.

Also, the success of art is no way indicative of the quality, as we live in a world where Twilight fan fiction is a multi billion dollar asset.

If you look at best paid positions, they are not artists. They are all those that provide a highly desired skill set that requires significant study or capability. They are also ones entirely constrained by time; a doctor or engineer can only manage or attend to so many customers in a given time period.

Artists, however, have built their entire livelihood on a subjective basis and with only a few managing great successes. The rest either wither or more to the rational world of selling their skill as a service. How many "starving artists" are there versus your JK Rawlings or George RR Martins? Every busboy and barrista in California has a script to sell someone.

For more information on why this is, I recommend "The Black Swan" by Taleb.

 Talys wrote:

 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.

Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

*in parts of the U.S. I presume you mean there

 TheKbob wrote:
Also, the success of art is no way indicative of the quality, as we live in a world where Twilight fan fiction is a multi billion dollar asset.

If you look at best paid positions, they are not artists. They are all those that provide a highly desired skill set that requires significant study or capability. They are also ones entirely constrained by time; a doctor or engineer can only manage or attend to so many customers in a given time period.

Artists, however, have built their entire livelihood on a subjective basis and with only a few managing great successes. The rest either wither or more to the rational world of selling their skill as a service. How many "starving artists" are there versus your JK Rawlings or George RR Martins? Every busboy and barrista in California has a script to sell someone.

For more information on why this is, I recommend "The Black Swan" by Taleb.

How dare you be so immoral as to download a song by a long dead artist. Don't you know his/her great-grandchildren have a right to receive money from their work? Seriously, the concept of Copyright lost all pretense of legitimacy when the length was changed to life plus 70 years. If the intent is to ensure that the artist benefits from their work, why demand that they continue to benefit 70 years after they're dead? Nope. That was created for the sole benefit of companies.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
So, is the land raider I scratch-built from a pizza box an IP violation that needs to be reported and destroyed? And what if I decide to sell that creation on e-bay?

If its not, I don't see any reason why a "recast" land raider by non-GW producer is any more wrong.

The difference is that one is a single custom-made model that uses GW's ideas but isn't a direct copy of the GW kit, while the other is an exact copy of the original sold in large numbers as a for-profit business. And technically selling your scratch-built LR is illegal and GW could in theory take legal action against you over it. It's just not worth their time to go after someone selling a $1 pile of scrap cardboard.

And if I model it after WW1 tanks, I'm also copying GW? Also, GW, say hi to Giger.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

LordBlades wrote:

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.

Apart from when you said it wasn't immoral, due to GW actions or the entitlement fuelled rant over their supposed treatment of you, of course.

Keep justifying and rationalising the immorality as just not that bad, I'll continue to point out it is certainly immoral. I care not for your opinion otherwise.

Paying someone to commit an illegal act on your behalf. That's what you do when you pay a recaster.

At best, you can point out that YOU THINK it's immoral.

TBH I feel this discussion is pointless further: I am well within my country granted legal rights as well as self-imposed moral rights to buy and own recasts, and you are well within your country granted legal rights as well as self-imposed moral rights to express your opinion about the fact, so let's just agree to disagree on the matter.

I see I need to elaborate.

To me this game and hobby is DIY, as long as you use GW's rules. In our group we are into modelling. We have made some great scenery basing it on recasting existing models, e.g. Stormraven. We've also recast some models such as Nurgle's Plague drones, Crisis suits etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

The rules make the game, for models use whatever you want. If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

 agnosto wrote:


Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

The conversation is the topic at the topic of the thread: "How are recast sites legal?". It's not, "Is recasting moral?" -- which has been the topic of many threads in the past. The topic of THIS thread isn't about the legality of purchasing items for recasting, it's about the legality of websites that sell recast items.

Even so, I assure you that if you run a US company that *KNOWINGLY* buys counterfeit copy of Windows, for whatever reason, including feeling that Microsoft should sell what essentially costs 0 to produce for a price greater than 0, you will be screwed in a pretty serious way. If you are an individual who downloads an unlicensed movie, you could be hit with a monstrous fine, with a settlement that runs in thousands of dollars. Ask the folks who downloaded Hurt Locker.

I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
I see I need to elaborate.

To me this game and hobby is DIY, as long as you use GW's rules. In our group we are into modelling. We have made some great scenery basing it on recasting existing models, e.g. Stormraven. We've also recast some models such as Nurgle's Plague drones, Crisis suits etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

The rules make the game, for models use whatever you want. If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book). Recasting a model for resale is not legal (it falls under the same category as copying a book and selling it).

I don't think there's anything wrong at all if you take a stormraven and recast it for personal use. OTOH, I can't see how it would possibly be worth the $60 or so a stormraven model costs to buy to recast it.

@Vyxen -- wow, you took the words right out of my mouth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
So, is the land raider I scratch-built from a pizza box an IP violation that needs to be reported and destroyed? And what if I decide to sell that creation on e-bay?

If its not, I don't see any reason why a "recast" land raider by non-GW producer is any more wrong.

The difference is that one is a single custom-made model that uses GW's ideas but isn't a direct copy of the GW kit, while the other is an exact copy of the original sold in large numbers as a for-profit business. And technically selling your scratch-built LR is illegal and GW could in theory take legal action against you over it. It's just not worth their time to go after someone selling a $1 pile of scrap cardboard.

And if I model it after WW1 tanks, I'm also copying GW? Also, GW, say hi to Giger.

If you take a Revell or Tamiya model, recast it, and resell it, that's illegal.

If you take a Revell or Tamiya model, recast it, and use it for yourself, that is perfectly legal.

If you take a Revell or Tamiya model of a real-life tank for inspiration, and make your own model for resale, that's perfectly legal. And yes, you can call it exactly the same model, because Revell or Tamiya won't have a copyright on the name of the model.

If you take a GW model for inspiration, and make your own model, that MIGHT be perfectly legal; depending on whether and how much you copied or if there was some some extremely unique, distinctive elements, and obviously, if you called it the same thing. For instance, if you knocked off an Skitarii Walker or Onager, it would be pretty hard to argue and win in court.

I hope everyone who buys recasts one day has their own company that gets heavily pirated. It would be funny to see what side of the argument you are on then.

Vyxen wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


Again, the conversation is not debating whether or not the creation or sale of the recasts is illegal, it is; I have not disputed this and I dare you find a quote from me stating that. I have stated the fact, supported by the US Attorney's Office, that purchasing such items is not illegal (at least in the US).

The conversation that you have inserted yourself into has been about the supposed "immorality" of purchasing counterfeit or knockoff products. My contention is that mores are subjective on numerous levels dependent greatly on local and culture.

The conversation is the topic at the topic of the thread: "How are recast sites legal?". It's not, "Is recasting moral?" -- which has been the topic of many threads in the past. The topic of THIS thread isn't about the legality of purchasing items for recasting, it's about the legality of websites that sell recast items.

Even so, I assure you that if you run a US company that *KNOWINGLY* buys counterfeit copy of Windows, for whatever reason, including feeling that Microsoft should sell what essentially costs 0 to produce for a price greater than 0, you will be screwed in a pretty serious way. If you are an individual who downloads an unlicensed movie, you could be hit with a monstrous fine, with a settlement that runs in thousands of dollars. Ask the folks who downloaded Hurt Locker.

I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:
I see I need to elaborate.

To me this game and hobby is DIY, as long as you use GW's rules. In our group we are into modelling. We have made some great scenery basing it on recasting existing models, e.g. Stormraven. We've also recast some models such as Nurgle's Plague drones, Crisis suits etc. I see nothing wrong in that.

The rules make the game, for models use whatever you want. If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

Recasting a model for your own use is perfectly legal (it falls explicitly under "Fair Use", same as photocopying a book). Recasting a model for resale is not legal (it falls under the same category as copying a book and selling it).


I don't think there's anything wrong at all if you take a stormraven and recast it for personal use. OTOH, I can't see how it would possibly be worth the $60 or so a stormraven model costs to buy to recast it.

You missed my point. Ok, it was not explained well, I will try again.

If I can produce copies of Stormraven at a bargain, why couldn't GW do so? Why should I pay a gazillion for a model that is worth a couple of euros? Certainly copying from other sources can't be so expensive to warrant the prices?

Naw wrote:
If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

By that extension, Universal Music should close up shop, because they can't possibly compete with the prices at ThePirateBay.

That said, I have paid a gazillion for the models. Wish I had not.

Naw wrote:

If I can produce copies of Stormraven at a bargain, why couldn't GW do so? Why should I pay a gazillion for a model that is worth a couple of euros? Certainly copying from other sources can't be so expensive to warrant the prices?

Because you didn't invent it, Naw.

If I can reprint George Martin books for $5, and copy eBooks for free, why should anyone ever buy copies at Chapters or Amazon? Why should George Martin ever get a cent of my money? Why should HBO pay George Martin to produce the Game of Thrones TV Show?

The answer is because in civilized modern society, the value of an item is the manufacturing cost PLUS the value of the intellectual property -- not just the manufacturing cost.

Vyxen wrote:

The answer is because in civilized modern society, the value of an item is the manufacturing cost PLUS the value of the intellectual property -- not just the manufacturing cost.

Someone give this lady a medal. It couldn't be any simpler put than that. Exalted!

 Talys wrote:

Naw wrote:
If GW can't compete in the modelling business maybe they should outscope that and concentrate on the bloody rules.

By that extension, Universal Music should close up shop, because they can't possibly compete with the prices at ThePirateBay.

And the European Whatever Manufacturers should close shop, because.. Oh but they have!

Money will go where it is cheapest. At least my car has not been built in China.

The amount of self entitlement and self justification in this thread is leaving me gob smacked.

Vyxen wrote:

Naw wrote:

If I can produce copies of Stormraven at a bargain, why couldn't GW do so? Why should I pay a gazillion for a model that is worth a couple of euros? Certainly copying from other sources can't be so expensive to warrant the prices?

Because you didn't invent it, Naw.

If I can reprint George Martin books for $5, and copy eBooks for free, why should anyone ever buy copies at Chapters or Amazon? Why should George Martin ever get a cent of my money? Why should HBO pay George Martin to produce the Game of Thrones TV Show?

The answer is because in civilized modern society, the value of an item is the manufacturing cost PLUS the value of the intellectual property -- not just the manufacturing cost.

Oh my.. Once more. Where are all your electronics, including your computer, built? Why?

When you answer that ask yourself why does GW charge an arm and a leg for five models that sell for profit with half of what they do? Why can't you see this side?

You are not supposed to owe the company to buy overpriced stuff, are you?

Vyxen wrote:


I don't disagree that morals are subjective and that not everyone on this planet feels the same way about intellectual property. However, I would be happy to debate how musicians, artists, photographers and authors are much better off now that there are IP laws, and how horrible it was for them before such laws -- and if you made a living doing creative work of that nature, you'd feel the same way.

[

And I've already discussed and shot down this argument. You have no right to income as of now. As an artist, there is nothing decreeing that somone should and will buy your wares. Rather, the only artists able to sell their wares are those that the market has, for some nearly random fashion deemed desirable.

Intelligent artists are much better suited to follow the lead of their technical based peers and offer their skills as services. There, the quality of their work determines the value of the service and can expect a greater degree of income.

And I chose my degree based on both interest and feasibility to provide for myself; to have a positive, if not great, lifetime return on investment of the both literal and opportunity cost of my education. There's nothing in this world that guarantees the payback of either, but basic application of thought says service based jobs are always going to be in abundance (at least until the singularity takes place) and those basing their profession on simple product output will always be displaced by more efficient ways of reproduction.

Or should we burn all the cotton gins and spinning jennys?

The countless people who pirate movies/music/games/etc just because they can would disagree with you. I suppose there are a few people who buy recasts to make some kind of ideological statement about how fair GW's prices are, but are they really that common compared to the people who only care about getting the cheapest possible price regardless of how ethical it is?

Buying a physical object and downloading a movie\music\game is a completely different ballgame. Comes down to ease of accessibility. Almost anyone can find a movie online to download or torrent, I can't really download a GW model. (well at least not until 3d printing gets a bit better, then that'll be a different ballgame to)

I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

Simply put, selling ideas puts you in the position of being only protected by arbitrary restrictions not known to common sense. Selling the skill of idea creation or implementation will mean you're always in business, if intelligent enough, as ideas themselves are not scarcity based.

Sorris wrote:

The countless people who pirate movies/music/games/etc just because they can would disagree with you. I suppose there are a few people who buy recasts to make some kind of ideological statement about how fair GW's prices are, but are they really that common compared to the people who only care about getting the cheapest possible price regardless of how ethical it is?

Buying a physical object and downloading a movie\music\game is a completely different ballgame. Comes down to ease of accessibility. Almost anyone can find a movie online to download or torrent, I can't really download a GW model. (well at least not until 3d printing gets a bit better, then that'll be a different ballgame to)

I can say personally, if the FW models where less expensive for me (as an American esp., where it's like 1 euro to like 1.50 American) I would buy them over the Chinese recasts. It's extremely cost prohibitive for me to buy anything from FW and have it shipped at there prices. I don't even really want to buy the physical copy of the rules book for the models at those prices.

No, Vyxen had it right. The value of an item in civilized society today is the manufacturing cost plus the value of the intellectual property (plus profit).

Just because you can't afford it doesn't make the alternatives more legal. Just because you can't afford or don't want to pay for IA2 doesn't make it acceptable, in the social contract as accepted by most citizens of this world, to simply steal it (by a bittorrent). I'm not saying people don't do it; I'm just saying, just because people do it doesn't make it right (moral) or legal.

Counter, we're assuming the arbitrary restrictions of IP creating false scarcity is the moral solution. The market is tending to say no, strongly so. We live in an era of ever reducing cost of reproduction of goods. The concept of idea ownership will be dwindling as such. The sister to copyright, patents, is already showing its age as most technological advances have barely a shelf life of a few years versus the twenty it protects.

And the mere concept that an idea needs to be protected for artists to create is asinine. Games Workshop ripped off a great deal of their original fiction and has since adapted into their own, quite profitably I might add.