pretre Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Advocating cheap Chinese knock offs... Good times. ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyote Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBeadle Posted June 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 If I cannot afford it from the manufacturer, that doesn't mean I am willing to buy stolen goods. I don't mean to be a jerk, but that is what those are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyote Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 No worries. You are not being a jerk. Not at all. It's an interesting issue. An issue in which the legality of the matter and what is commonly accepted as the morality of the matter appear to be at odds. At least when it comes to purchasing knock offs. LINKY Does GW make more money if you completely abandon the hobby or if you supplement your purchases with knock offs? If GW's prices weren't absurd, would there be a market for knock offs? Is it immoral or even a little bit immoral to purchase used models, since doing so denies GW the profit it would make from new purchases. Likewise, is it immoral to share copies of rule books, because once again someone is denying GW its profit? Bert vows to never again buy any new GW products. Every model he owns was purchased second hand. Not a dime of his model budget will ever again go to GW. Is Bert's second hand army more "moral" than Ernie's army of knock off models? What if one fields a 40k army comprised entirely of Kromlech miniatures? What about purchases from Chapter House? Are purchases from "above board" manufacturers that undermine GW's IP immoral? Does the real harm lie in the purchase of the knock offs or the the fact that the purchase supports and perpetuates the manufacturers of knock offs? Is it wrong to agree to play a game against an opponent if you know that said opponent is fielding knock offs? By doing so are you not contributing to the problem by turning a blind eye to the immoral deeds of the malefactor? How far down the causal chain from the harm inflicted does one have to be to transform an immoral act into a neutral or moral act? For example, consider the World Cup. Are you enjoying the World Cup? At this very moment thousands of immigrant workers are toiling in near slave like conditions in Qatar for your future World Cup viewing pleasure. Almost a thousand of these workers have died due to their working and living conditions. Consequently, since ones viewing of the World Cup is contributing to a human rights catastrophe, how much blame do the individual viewers share? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Personally this edition has kinda drifted me away from 40k too. Its actually moved me to flames of war and lord of the rings strategy game. One of which is a historical game so cant become super wanky and allows me to build to historical unit compisitions. The other which has been practically abandoned by GW which means they pay it almost no mind and most stores gove you discounts because the models almost never sell. You were already drifting away. I still love 40k and can find enough games to keep me happy and spending less than I would chasing another game. I'm just glad you have found games you love that have enough players to keep you interested sir! Game on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalripphook Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 You were already drifting away. I still love 40k and can find enough games to keep me happy and spending less than I would chasing another game. I'm just glad you have found games you love that have enough players to keep you interested sir! Game on. Dont worry, I shant be getting rid of my army. There shall be atime when my men march back to battle. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 speaking of getting more games in as a goal... This weekend theres the Fight against Cancer tournament in Olympia. Love to see people supporting that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBeadle Posted June 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's an interesting issue. An issue in which the legality of the matter and what is commonly accepted as the morality of the matter appear to be at odds. At least when it comes to purchasing knock offs. LINKY Does GW make more money if you completely abandon the hobby or if you supplement your purchases with knock offs? If GW's prices weren't absurd, would there be a market for knock offs? Is it immoral or even a little bit immoral to purchase used models, since doing so denies GW the profit it would make from new purchases. Likewise, Its a false distinction. Its not about denying GW profits, I could care less about GW's profit margin insofar as they stay in buisness and their products remain affordable by my estimation. What matters is that hijacking intellectual property is stealing, and knowingly buying such property makes a person an accomplice to a crime. Once you buy something legitimately, it belongs to you. You may sell it, give it away as a gift, trade it, destroy it, or balance it on your nose. It's yours to do as you will. You may not make additional copies of it and then sell it, and making copies for personal use is a little more murkey. Things get complex there. Regardless, I do not see levels of grey in knowingly buying copied goods, its black and white. Sharing is also perfectly fine so long as hyou are not making replicas and giving the replicated product away. That ammounts to distribution of stolen property the moment it changes hands. This is not so difficult as folks want to make it out to be. We find, whenever someone really wants to do something that is illegal, all manner of justifications arise to convince themselves that it is acceptable to do as they want. This has ever been the case with man. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBeadle Posted June 17, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 I'm beating a dead horse here however, and I apologize. Both my original topic and this one have been hashed out dozens of times. I was just feeling discouraged the other day when I ordered the book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Its a false distinction. Its not about denying GW profits, I could care less about GW's profit margin insofar as they stay in buisness and their products remain affordable by my estimation. What matters is that hijacking intellectual property is stealing, and knowingly buying such property makes a person an accomplice to a crime. Once you buy something legitimately, it belongs to you. You may sell it, give it away as a gift, trade it, destroy it, or balance it on your nose. It's yours to do as you will. You may not make additional copies of it and then sell it, and making copies for personal use is a little more murkey. Things get complex there. Regardless, I do not see levels of grey in knowingly buying copied goods, its black and white. Sharing is also perfectly fine so long as hyou are not making replicas and giving the replicated product away. That ammounts to distribution of stolen property the moment it changes hands. This is not so difficult as folks want to make it out to be. We find, whenever someone really wants to do something that is illegal, all manner of justifications arise to convince themselves that it is acceptable to do as they want. This has ever been the case with man. I'm glad you covered the differences here because I was about to and decided against it. It's silly to equate IP piracy with sharing your book or selling your models second-hand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyote Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Its a false distinction. Its not about denying GW profits, I could care less about GW's profit margin insofar as they stay in buisness and their products remain affordable by my estimation. What matters is that hijacking intellectual property is stealing, and knowingly buying such property makes a person an accomplice to a crime.Ah, but that's just it. I've been researching this matter and it is my understanding thus far, that in general, purchasing knock off manufactured goods for personal consumption is not a crime in the U.S. (there is a distinction between knock offs and counterfeit goods). Nor does it expose one to criminal accomplice liability. Consequently, nobody here is justifying illegal conduct. So, if we are not exploring the legality of the matter, what is left is the morality of it. And this is why I broadened the scope of the discussion. Does your position on buying copied goods and IP piracy extend to purchases from third party manufacturers, such as Kromlech and Chapter House? I can assure you that the likeness of their products to GW products and thus GW's IP is no coincidence. What about individuals making casts of GW products strictly for personal use? I used Instant Mold to create a mold of a skull from a GW Death Company shoulder pad. Then using greenstuff I cast dozens of these skulls that I affixed to plastic GW shoulder pads to serve as Chapter badges for my Mortifactors. Am I a "criminal" for doing so? Am I an IP pirate? ...Shiver me timbers! Also, if loss of profit does not factor into your position on this issue and your sole concern is replicating another's design, what happens after the copyright on GW's designs expire and they enter the public domain? Will it be "criminal" for my grandchildren to make or purchase GW knockoffs? Still convinced it's purely black and white? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Yep. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 17, 2014 Report Share Posted June 17, 2014 Being a devils advocate myself, I appreciate your post but it doesn't change that making and selling exact copies of someone's stuff is stealing. ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBeadle Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 It boils down to it being legal or illegal Koyote. If you can demonstrate to me that this is not illegal, then I am not against it. Making your own stuff, for your own use, this is not morally ambiguous. All of this is going to become very much in the public eye when 3d printers become as ubiquitous as 2d printers are now. We all know that this will happen. At that point, as the materials to 3d print become cheaper, it will be easier and cheaper to scan and print model replicas than to buy a box of minis. I do not think this is a bad thing, though it might birth a new generation of anti-IP theft laws. Either way it does strongly suggest that our games will probably shift from large company IP's to shareware or even freeware miniature gaming generated by the community at large. Regardless, its the legality that is the issue for me. Were it not illegal, I would not have an issue with it. As it stands, I've not seen anything to indicate that this is a legal practice, in fact everthing I know about this kind of crime is clear that it is in fact a crime, and a major sticking point in US/Eastern commercial relations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombking Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Being a devils advocate myself, I appreciate your post but it doesn't change that making and selling exact copies of someone's stuff is stealing. ;) I gave the post a like that but I will get nitpicky, copying is not theft. It is copyright infringement but not theft. If I steal your Ork Stompa, you are out the item you are at a loss. If I by chance of miracle had a 3d printer that gave the same quality of detail and made a duplicate, you still have the original, nothing has been stolen all you are out is a potential sale, but laws have been broken and copyright has gone too far in the power of corporations all in the cause to keep Mickey Mouse from the public domain. I disagree with the length of copyright terms but I am still not going to support pirate copies of models. I don't think GW is evil and I do like 40K a lot. I just wish I got to play more often to feel like I get some value out of the expenditure. Back to the original, I admit rules/codexes/supplies has been what I have been buying mostly as I am trying to get caught up with the models I have and want to repaint as I am better at it now than I was in the Rogue Trader days. I think the book costs are what is making me pause a bit. If they plan on longer release times between editions (as well as Marine Codexes) I can deal with the hardcovers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyote Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 It boils down to it being legal or illegal Koyote. If you can demonstrate to me that this is not illegal, then I am not against it.Let me preface this post by stating that in no way should what follows be construed by anyone as me providing anyone with legal advice. Before you act on anything I have written about, you should first consult with an attorney who has experience in this area if the law. I am not an expert in this field. What follows is purely an intellectual exercise engaged in to sate my own curiosity and to improve my understanding of this area of the law. From what I have found thus far, the federal criminal laws regarding counterfeit and knockoff goods (the latter is a colloquial term for unauthorized copies of trademarked goods that don't meet the legal definition of counterfeit goods), seem to focus exclusively on the sellers of such goods or those who import with the intent to sell. Based on the photos from yoymart it appears as if yoymart's supplier has removed the trademarks that GW places on its models, so the classification of yoymart's models as counterfeits is certainly debatable. Regardless, even if they do qualify as counterfeit goods, the counterfeit goods laws appear to focus on sellers not buyers. The definition of "trafficking" under 18 U.S. Code § 2320 (Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services) is a bit ambiguous, as it could be interpreted as applying to anyone who imports counterfeit goods into the US for any reason: "(5) the term “traffic” means to transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or to make, import, export, obtain control of, or possess, with intent to so transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of; and" However, The Criminal Resource Manual for the Department of US Attorneys appears to address this ambiguity: "C. DEFINITION OF 'TRAFFICKING' Subsection 2320(d) provides a definition of the term "trafficking." This definition is derived from a related, recently enacted statute, the Piracy and Counterfeiting Amendments Act of 1982, now codified at 18 U.S.C. 2318(b). Under this definition, the scope of the act is limited to commercial activities. Thus it is not a crime under this act for an individual knowingly to purchase goods bearing counterfeit marks, if the purchase is for the individual's personal use." My research thus far has focused on federal criminal statutes. I have yet to dig into civil actions or state law. Neverthess, what I've found so far appears to coincide with the NY Times article I posted a link to in my earlier post. More research is required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesBeadle Posted June 18, 2014 Author Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Thank you for posting this. I'd be interested if you come across more. This is a good start, but not enough to convince. Edit: In the article, the last paragraph appears to explain why buyers are not prosecuted, because it is too difficult. This does place the issue into the realm of morality, however it appears that it is not illegal to purchase knockoffs overseas and I will refrain from commenting on folks who talk about buying this way from now on. I admit that I hadn't read the article until just now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 I gave the post a like that but I will get nitpicky, copying is not theft. It is copyright infringement but not theft. If I steal your Ork Stompa, you are out the item you are at a loss. If I by chance of miracle had a 3d printer that gave the same quality of detail and made a duplicate, you still have the original, nothing has been stolen all you are out is a potential sale, but laws have been broken and copyright has gone too far in the power of corporations all in the cause to keep Mickey Mouse from the public domain. I disagree with the length of copyright terms but I am still not going to support pirate copies of models. I don't think GW is evil and I do like 40K a lot. I just wish I got to play more often to feel like I get some value out of the expenditure. While I might agree that you are right from a legal standpoint, I'm not really concerned about the legality of it. If they were making derivative works (Look at this Not-Gorkanaut that we made), that'd be cool. But making an exact replica and selling it as a cheap knock off is theft in my mind. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blasto Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'm beating a dead horse here however, and I apologize. Both my original topic and this one have been hashed out dozens of times. I was just feeling discouraged the other day when I ordered the book. Hi James, I don't think your really "beating a dead horse". Yes this topic comes up often, but that is due to many people running in to the same problem. Granted everyone's Geek Budget is a little different, but time and time again, this issue shows up. It has merit, and your thoughts are not unique. I, like you, are discouraged at GW's pricing and policy's. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Yes this topic comes up often, but that is due to many people running in to the same problem. We can find examples of this same topic for the last 15 years or so thanks to google. :) Not that that makes it any less valid, but it is funny when other people think it is a new thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blasto Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Its just New to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Its just New to them. Just for James: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koyote Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Here is a link to a paper from the Seton Hall Legislative Journal regarding an attempt to make it illegal to purchase counterfeit goods in New York. It contains a good overview of the issues as well as the assertion that "[c]urrently, there are no federal, state, or local laws that punish the buyers of counterfeit goods." Of course by "state" and "local" the author is referring to New York State and New York City. Also, while buying counterfeit goods may not violate federal law, there may be a federal prohibition against bringing counterfeit goods into the U.S.. More research is required. LINKY Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InfestedKerrigan Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 Just for James: "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." Because quoting Solomon hasn't been done before. ;) I actually quote this scripture multiple times a month. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted June 18, 2014 Report Share Posted June 18, 2014 I look at the issue this way, I can't imagine my purchase from yoymart (or any other knock off) will help make hobby the better for all. Legality aside I am extremely tempted to buy from them for the savings but then I look at the fact that my purchase would hurt the bottom dollar for gw. Whether I like them or not as a company, their practices are not illegal or immoral. Judging a corporation on social principles versus legal/market principles is illogical. Corporations main drive is profit sharing for investors, otherwise they would remain private. I support gw financially because I like the game until I stop liking the game I will continue to support them financially. Pricing is a factor as to whether I like the game and is personally have not hit a breaking point. I support second hand market too. Just not knock off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.