"Touchy GW Forums... An Experiment..." Topic

Getting back to the original discussion topic…
At RPG.net there is a sub forum for tabletop gaming.
In there are two regulars from the Warhammer Forum under the same sigs… Unheilig and DJHeuti.
Whenever anyone in that forum paints GW in a less than savoury light they start a flame war and then PM Djheuti's family member who is a mod there and he bans the baited member tout suite.
They seem to get a kick out of it but that forum has dwindled due to the s, shame really, could have been a good discussion spot.

Oh.. Thank GOD! Rocket Toad! Three Cheers for this guy!

The One Ring was a really good site, but it seemed to have an issue similar to the one going on here.

A couple of the members took it upon themselves to just make something up about what they thought that I said… That is, rather than asking me point blank about it, or (actually going back, reading what I had said, and) realizing that what I had said was so vague that it could cover so many concievable situations that they would HAVE to ask for a clarification in order to really know what had been said.

Eventually though, a few of them "got it" and realized that they had been making this huge issue out of nothing… But, I had been banned by a less "Open-minded" individual by then.

Anyway… Just one of the many differences I find in different forums…

I have not actively participated in other forums due to a lack of interest in their focus. Sort of like a type of music that I am not fond of, but seem to find myself listening to every now and then. You find interesting bits in it, but overall it doesn't "hook" you…

As far as the Three Amigos that you have mentioned… I have seen that trick on other forums as well… The Warmaster Forum for instance when WMA first came out. Seems that they were really twitchy there…

Pity… I actually managed to get one of my suggestions for the game included in the latest WMA army book (hamippoi)… The game has so much that you can do with it without "Breaking" it (changing various relationships and features are easy, and generally have a related "Counter-rule" that keeps a change from being overly critical to the rules…

There seems to be a huge shame all around at times in the biz… It just comes with the territory.

you wasted those years Judas.

"If I don't charge for it, it's not a violation."
False. Whether you charge can affect the damages awarded in court, but that's main difference under the law. It's still a violation if you give it away -- and there can still be serious damages if you hurt the commercial value of the property. There is a USA exception for personal copying of music, which is not a violation, though courts seem to have said that doesn't include widescale anonymous personal copying as Napster. If the work has no commercial value, the violation is mostly technical and is unlikely to result in legal action. Fair use determinations (see below) do sometimes depend on the involvement of money.

"My posting was just fair use!"

The "fair use" exemption to (U.S.) copyright law was created to allow things such as commentary, parody, news reporting, research and education about copyrighted works without the permission of the author. That's vital so that copyright law doesn't block your freedom to express your own works -- only the ability to appropriate other people's. Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations. Are you reproducing an article from the New York Times because you needed to in order to criticise the quality of the New York Times, or because you couldn't find time to write your own story, or didn't want your readers to have to register at the New York Times web site? The first is probably fair use, the others probably aren't.

Fair use is generally a short excerpt and almost always attributed. (One should not use much more of the work than is needed to make the commentary.) It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it (which is another reason why reproduction of the entire work is a problem.) Famously, copying just 300 words from Gerald Ford's 200,000 word memoir for a magazine article was ruled as not fair use, in spite of it being very newsworthy, because it was the most important 300 words -- why he pardoned Nixon.

Note that most inclusion of text in followups and replies is for commentary, and it doesn't damage the commercial value of the original posting (if it has any) and as such it is almost surely fair use. Fair use isn't an exact doctrine, though. The court decides if the right to comment overrides the copyright on an individual basis in each case. There have been cases that go beyond the bounds of what I say above, but in general they don't apply to the typical net misclaim of fair use.

The "fair use" concept varies from country to country, and has different names (such as "fair dealing" in Canada) and other limitations outside the USA.

Even keeping them for yourself breaches the point concerning commercial value YOU don't have to buy any more because you are recasting them.
Not buying the legal figures deprives that company of legitimate income.

It should not harm the commercial value of the work -- in the sense of people no longer needing to buy it

YOU no longer need to buy it.

Thus a definitive breach of copyright, full stop end of discussion.

See these guys for an "EXPERT" Opinion (Not something that you have pulled out of your anatomy):

link

I just love how people make these "full stop" claims to the end of a discussion…

Do people do that in court…

How do they exist?

Because people like you tell use they exist. You are rght no one would know you are a recaster, a criminal, or an arseclown unless you tell everyone you are.

The reason most criminals get caught is because they have to brag about it.

I (I am about to use an absolute again… Don't let it go unnoticed like so many other things that I actually did say) NEVER said that about ANY TLA member or forum.

Fair enough, I'll bite. What you did was talk about "many members of Gw forums." Well, without the inference that this really means "most" implying that most posters on GW forums behave in a certain way. If all you meant was in fact that "many members of GW forums are immature s" then my response is "woop di do! It's taken you how long to realise that?"

My response therefore to your literal post and not your inferred one is therefore "It's a fact of life and not worth commenting on. Get over it you sad sack!"

However, I'll remain resolute in my assumption that you were posting in order to provoke a response, which would imply my inference was correct, not my literal interpretation of your post.

Lastly '…' They are called "ilipses".

I know that you patronising . I just was worried you didn't!

Their presence indicates that something has ben (sic) left-out of the text… [see I can use them as well]

Yes, we can all read grammar text books. However English grammar is a boring subject and grammar-nazis are never liked in internet forums! If you want to make yourself instantly disliked, lecturing the disinterested in the finer points of English grammar is the right way to go about it.

Nah, not in a million years. When you can learn to spell "colour", "armour" and "phoetus" correctly, measure your fluids in gallons of the correct size and drink beer with a decent colour and taste to it that has been kept at an appropriate temperature and not chilled to oblivion, then I'll believe it. And not until!

I bet that you cannot point out a clause that does not follow the rules for use of illipses… I DARE you to find such a phrase or sentence (Here… I AM trolling. So… Ignore that dare. See, I could do it again… I dare you to ignore that dare… and so on.) As far as fragments… I think that you are seeing things or imagining them.

No. What I am doing is reading a block of text that is rendered virtually illegible by the overuse of a single grammatical ruse. It's not big and its not clever. Its just crap and comes over poorly. If you are going to preach down to the masses, as you appear to wish to, you should learn how to write in an interesting, even witty manner. Just overusing a single tactic is not the way to go. People will forgive bad grammar and typos (in the context of a throwaway comment on a forum), they won't forgive being a boring fart.

I wasn't going to say anything about this last point:

I wear my stifles like a badge of honor!

Or "honour" even. So that someone cares enough about what you say to ignore it? And you think that is a positive thing?

*Shakes head in wonder*

You Yanks are crazy!

It means that someone is so intently focused upon me that they just cannot think clearly. That I have upset them to the point of irrationality.

Or just bored the arse off them.

I should point out that I do not seek this out, That I do not go looking to be stifled and that I think stiflers are no different than censors. There are times and places where…

Nothing at all to do with free speech. You're totally at liberty to express the most insane of views. I'm totally at liberty to ignore them, either by staying away from TMP, or by hitting the handy little button at the bottom of your profile.

So, what do we have here?

I think my advice is as follows:

1. Say what you mean, and mean what you say. Think more carefully how you phrase things and people will understand you better. Unless of course you prefer to remain misunderstood so you can go on a little rantette against the ignorance of your fellow internet-users.

2. Learn to write better. If you want people to respond postively (not necessarily agree, just not respond with aggression and hatred) then you've got to come over like a human being and not a pedantic grade-school (is that the term you Americans understand?) teacher with no mates.

3. Find a better hobby. Lurking around internet forums picking fights with 12 year-old GW fanbois is not a respectable hobby for a grown man. I hear wargaming has its merits, maybe you should try that?

I say Potatoe.. You say Potãto…

Is that what I am hearing?

That you don't like the way that I spell?

If you havent' heard.. English is really several languages these days.

Ever try to commincate from someone from far Eastern Maryland? How about those really garbled Cockney guys from the East End??? Even my landlady in school had a hard time with those when they were re-building her drive and car-shed thingy…

Sorry that you can't parse my use of language.

Sorry that you can't seem to simply ask for a clarification… Most of my professors don't seem to mind the way that I write, and I can point you to a few links where someone has decided that what I write merits publication in various topical online periodicals. I guess that I could go back and look up the Bibliographical info on the stuff that I had published in a Texas Medical/Psychological Journal back in 1992, but if you are having trouble reading and understanding what I have written here (and the "No I don't I understand it perfectly well" is a form of defensive rationalization to prevent actually listening to what I (The final arbiter of what I mean by my words…) have meant by an expression. The only way to prove otherwise is to actually dissect the verbage and associative clauses by word to show that their meaning is not what I have claimed…

And, you seem to have problems with remaining within the quote that you have picked… Not exactly good form… If you are going to quote something, then the text following that quote should comment solely upon that quote (or vice-versa… The text preceding the quote should make a case/thesis, and then use the quote as evidence of that making specific connections between portions of the quote and your supposedly interpretation of that material…

Here… I'll give you an example:

No. What I am doing is reading a block of text that is rendered virtually illegible by the overuse of a single grammatical ruse. It's not big and its not clever. Its just crap and comes over poorly. If you are going to preach down to the masses, as you appear to wish to, you should learn how to write in an interesting, even witty manner.

(First off… Notice the italicization of the quote. At least you indented… Good form there. I prefer Italicization though… different styles)

First off, you begin by responding to a statement in a quote of mine "I think that you are seeing things or even imagining them". A simple flat refusal… Not much to say there…

But, rather than address the point of my quote, which was about you finding a SINGLE phrase that doesn't conform to the rules of grammar,you go on about th euse of illipses ("…rendered virtually illegible through the overuse of a grammatical ruse…") and you continue about your feelings about the use of "Illipses" which by definition is NOT a ruse

Definition of a "Ruse": n. (I will forgo pronunciation): an action intended to decieve someone, to use trickery to divert attention

Origin: From the Old French "Ruser": To trick/decieve

I am guessing that you were not intending to say that my use of illipses was like the Bulgarian city on the danube??? Of course… I don't know, because the word is used out of context/improperly… as my use of illipses doesn't in any case seem to be to decieve anyone. It is just a means of letting people know that I had more thougts on the matter that were not included…

But, back to your quote. Your next bit seem to imply that I am Trying to preach down to the masses… as if that is what I intend to do to begin with… I sit at a keyboard and wring my hands menacingly and think "How can I look down my nose at some lowly plebian today?"

I may come off that way. I have noticed that there are a lot of people who do. I have also noticed that many of them are not doing so on purpose and that they do not intend for anyone to feel "Less-than". But, those who feel "Less-than" and react as if they are being patronized… That is THERE reaction to what has been said… It is not my responsibility. Their emotions and reactions are there own, and if they feel less than… I am sorry… If they asked what i meant by something that they felt that way about… Maybe they wouldn't wind up feeling that way all the time..

I also find this quote to be REALLY Ironic when compared to this one:

If you want to make yourself instantly disliked, lecturing the disinterested in the finer points of English grammar is the right way to go about it.

So… What is it that you are doing by making an issue out of my use of illipses if it is not a "Grammar Lesson"? Or, the commentary on the "English" spelling of various words… Spelling falls under the heading of "Grammar" in grade-school… It is a part of the structure of a "comminique by lettered-word"

As for writing wittily… I write what I write… If I was trying to be witty… I would probably be able to pull it off.

But, since I began this thread as an observation of behavior that tried not to make any assumptions about the observed (I did make use of the word "Sissy" in describing certain behaviors, which is probably more judgemental than I should have been at the time…), only to document it and the reactions to various comments or other actions seem on the forum.

And, in the follow-ups regarding other topics… I simply responded to people putting words in my mouth and accusing me of something that I am not guilt of (at least by the narrow definition that they seem to be abiding by), and I provided evidence for each point that they raised specifically… No more or less usually…

I guess "sarcasm" and "irony" are words left out of the non-English dictionary?

But, not that I care.

My purpose is not to engender serious debate, but to !

One further word of advice: just be careful what you pull off when you eventually do make the attempt to write wittily!

If I was being really cruel I'd point out the irony (well being American, I appreciate you'll find it hard to spot yourself) of someone attempting to take moral high ground in a grammatical discussion while not being able to distinguish the difference between the use of the possessive "their" and the and the adverb "there". And in capitals too. Too precious, my precious.

Of course ranting against grammar-nazism and partaking of it at the same time is a post-modernistic ironic stance of utter relish! Probably something we Brits are to blame for as well.

@JI –

You can continue to stamp your feet as much as you like about your right to steal but it doesn't change anything. You're a thief. It really is that simple.

As for:

"In the UK/EU, they also make reproduction of any audio or video recording by a digital medium a crime."

Nope. Not true. When you buy a CD you are buying a license to listen to the contents of that CD. You can legally back it up, stick it on audio tape, rip it to MP3 etc etc. It doesn't matter. What you cannot do is listen to the CD and the ripped version (or whatever) you did at the same time as that is in breach of your single license. The same applies if you listen to your ripped version and lend your CD to a friend.

"This/these laws are holdovers from prior ages when the copyright was a very different animal and "Intellectual Property" was held in different esteem."

That is such utter cr4p I really don't know where to begin.

Aw Tetchy,now you picking on the nerd.Remember his mum told him he was clever and he's believed that ever since.
And your making him type replies and wasting valuable recasting time,those figures dont just appear in the shops y'now.

…..oh wait

Think me the thief if you want…

Your imaginations are remarkable….. Truly… And… I have not seen such ignorance or ineptitude on a subject in my life… Obsess over my actions…

I hope that I can keep your blood pressure as high as possible at this point…

That kind of attention is truly having power over someone…

@JI – I apologise. You're not a thief, you're an attention seeking .

Hey, Judas! My dad's bigger than your dad!

Judas Iscariot wrote on 13 Nov 2007 5:23 a.m. PST

A load more bollox to try and justify my stealing

But no-one believed him.

He's still here though, banging on about re-casting on a site that allegedly doesn't tolerate such things.

What's up with that?

Judas Iscariot 12 Nov 2007 4:00 p.m. PST

Oh.. Thank GOD! Rocket Toad! Three Cheers for this guy!

The recaster and the arsebiscuit…. who'da thunk it… (I suppose that at least you could manage to forge up a really "accurate" army?)

Judas Iscariot 13 Nov 2007 5:23 a.m. PST

Think me the thief if you want…

I haven't see but ONE person respond with any EVIDENCE

You said yourself that you recast minis. That's theft

"Lastly '…' They are called "ilipses". "

Er … actually, they're called Ellipses!!

I got a point blank question for you.

I would like to know the companies you have contacted about recasting their stuff?

I want to know too, as it seems to be legally ok to do so. I want to know these forward think companies. I have a few purchases to make.

Of course I too will mark all my figues with marks so they will know them on the open market. Not that I would let the out as these are personal compies.

So, who are these companies?

""Dismissed Prima-Facié Absent" Or "Lacking Prima-Facié""

Er … its Latin, so no acute accent: prima-facie

"Er … actually, they're called Ellipses!!"

2 points for Mike S. :)

Hmmm???

Er … actually, they're called Ellipses!!

I suppose that they can be spelled that way… The use of the wod has several different spellings: Illipses, Ellipses, Elipses… The "I" spelling being common in the USA under an MLA style that my insane English teacher uses (and in many countries with Romance Langauges)… I'm not to particular about which form is used at this point. Ellipses and Elipses seem to be the two most common on the WWW… Again.. reaching for it… Google recognizes many spellings (of course, some of those are other people's not knowing which spelling to use), and has links that show several accepted spellings. Regardless of how it is spelled… The device is still the same. It shows ommited content.

Twitchy… Pardon my ONE use of "There" in place of "their"…You guys are really reaching aren't you…… Thanks for editing my work for me… Pity they don't have an "edit post" function… Should I go back through your posts to make certain that you have held to every possible spelling and grammatical form?

As for"So, who are these companies?":

None of your business…

Also… I know, and have a long relationship with, a lot of people in the minis business… I am in the minis business for that matter (not full time, I do contract work, and I am the primary sculptor for one company…) Having known most of the manufacturers since I was 14, and being recognized as one of the great losses of the miniatures industry helps out considerably in getting permission…

Back in the 80s… I will admit… I pirated like hell… Then, when Wizards of the Coast came along, and bought up everything after their Card Game did so well… Things started to change…

But, after seeing my own works "Pirated"… I changed my tune a bit…

Of course, after I lost what would have put me squarely back on my feet after that whole "death" thing. I still do not "Pirate" though.

So… In gracious response to a sane set of questions (And a desire – whatever its origin – to seek the truth):

But… I am sure that if you looked around, it would be pretty easy to discover who I knew and what companies they are with…

Thanks snorebeans.. Typing fast I occasionallly mispell things… I think that my couple of mis-uses of an accent are really vital…

Good thing you caught it.. Heck… The topic of this thread could have hung in the balance?!

The market value of copies is irrelevant to the issue of defining copyright violation.

It is an offence to copy something without permission, except if done under the fair dealings or fair use provisions. It doesn't matter whether you sell it or keep the copies for yourself.

If you obtain permission to make copies then your copies are legal so long as you stick to the agreement made with the copyright holder.

Illipsis (pl. Illipses) is not recognosed as a word in my copy of Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary.

The point being my dear sir, is that your spelling and grammatical inaccuracies (more than most I usually see here) indicate your slapdash attitude. And if that is your attitude then your painstaking attempts to stay within the letter of the law as you understand it rather than the spirit of the law as the rest of us hold rather belies your statement:

"… stopped ALL reproduction that would result in a violation of the letter of the law, and took the spirit of the law to heart a bit more too"

As for you're being dead 10 years … I know of only one man who claim that – and he was only dead for three days.

"Thanks for editing my work for me"
Since you asked …

"I suppose that they can be spelled that way" -> I suppose it they can be spelled that way (in reference to the singluar word "ellipses")
"I'm not to particular" -> I'm not too particular
ommited -> omitted
agrement -> agreement
tansformative -> transformative
"value of Gold as the market anticipates the flood of Gold." (unnecessary capitalisation)

Glad you spotted the acute accent thingy though. If you're typing that fast it must be tricky to get the accent in!

Mike Snorbens wrote… "Illipsis (pl. Illipses) is not 'recognosed' as a word in my copy of Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary."

Mr Snorbens, I understand and appreciate an element of pedantry when it comes to keeping communication standards on a forum to a high quality standard.
However, when giving advice on this issue, or taking people to task about it, it generally makes your argument stronger if you remove any glaring spelling mistakes from your own work first.
People in glass houses… and all that. ;)

"not 'recognosed'"

Oops! Sorry, I was typing too fast!! The 'i' and the 'o' are next to each other on my keyboard, however the same cannot be said of the 'i' and the 'e'! :-)

On the off topic discussion of Re-Casting…

I'm not fond of the concept.

If people are Re-Casting to make money off eBay etc, then they run the risk of getting caught. If they get caught and suffer then they have only themselves to blame.

Re-Casting for profit is wrong.

It's understandable why some folk do it because the high retail prices of some large miniature companies are very high and they create the opportunity for a cheaper 'knock off' sub market…. but it's still wrong.

Re-Casting from smaller boutique miniature companies for the purposes of making profit isn't just wrong, it's a crime on par with high Treason.

Mr. J. Iscariot wrote:
""

Hang on, now I get it. You're BME!

JI
From the (UK) Government Intellectual Property Office ipo.gov.uk
'Copyright protects creative or artistic works. You should only copy or use a copyrighted work with the copyright owner's permission.'
and
'Design protection covers the outward appearance of your product, including decoration, lines, contours, colours, shape, texture and materials. If you have a new shape or pattern for a product, you may be able to protect it as a design.

In the United Kingdom designs are protected by three legal rights;

Registered designs

Registered designs give you the right to stop anyone copying or using your design in the United Kingdom for up to 25 years.

Design right

Design right is a free, automatic right that you get when you create an original design. It gives you the right to stop anyone copying your design for up to 15 years.

Copyright

If your design is artistic and you do not intend to mass produce it, you will receive automatic copyright protection against illegal copying. Copyright also protects any drawings or plans of your design.'

However, not being a legal type and not having that much interest in the topic*, I cannot be bothered to dig any more.

*Total interest is that you appear to be a … as I would percieve anyone else to be who posts as you do.

Does it bother you people that I have not once resported to calling any of you names? (There was the "Smarty-Pants" comment… But, I noticed that not one of you have answered a direct question that I have asked…

The one guy I credit with brains seem to actually use them (no surprise to me actually), and has actually raised a very pertinent point…

It is so much better to imply a group of people to be brainless. But you seem to fail to understand even most basic concepts of rational discourse so I'll let it pass.

No you didn't (let it pass).

If you did… You wouldn't have brought it up

And… To Thomas Whitten's inability to let something really pass…

I do not think that anyone here is brainless… I have found most gamers to be pretty on the ball when it comes to "smarts"… I have also found them to be some of the most ignorant people when it comes to various topics as well, basing a lot of their knowledge upon hearsay rather than actual research of the facts, and pursual of their use… To be accused of ignorance is nothing… I get it every day in school… Being ignorant is realizing that there is something that you do not know, and then learning what it is (that you do not know).

Only by defining that (ignorance) can you begin to replace the ignorance with educated knowledge.

You were bullied at school, weren't you?

Wonder why?

Back in the 80s… I will admit… I pirated like hell… Everyone did

I suppose that makes it alright then…

But, after seeing my own works "Pirated"… I changed my tune a bit

Yet you still do it… even tho you know first hand what it feels like. Nice

(So, any "Straight" reproductions I MIGHT have… I can't use at conventions, or local game shops… They stay in my house, or if I travel to a friend's house, I may take them there to use, but they must remain in my possession)…

Still theft. Reproducing them means you are NOT PAYING FOR THEM! Which is stealing,

Judas,

You are either (a) intentionally lying about your grasp of UK laws, in which case – fine, you'll be sued, or (b) as you seem – in which case, again, fine – some time with a machine spinning molten metal should do you the world of good. Go play.

JDE

<munch> <munch> <munch>

Oh, the drama! This is better'n TV. I'm starting to get fat from all the popcorn I've been eating while watching this topic.

<munch> <munch> <munch>

;)

Judas Iscariot 13 Nov 2007 9:04 a.m. PST
I suppose that they can be spelled that way… The use of the wod has several different spellings: Illipses, Ellipses, Elipses… The "I" spelling being common in the USA under an MLA style that my insane English teacher uses

Normally I wouldn't say anything in a thread like this, but I'd like to make a few points:

1. Ellipsis is singular as in, ellipsis dot. Ellipses is plural. "A Manual for Writers" by K. L. Turabian uses the spelling "Ellipsis," because she refers to "ellipsis dots/points." "Handbook of Technical Writing" by Brusaw/Alred/Oliu uses the spelling "Ellipses," because they refer to multiple ellipsis points. The assertion that the spelling "Illipsis" is common in the USA lacks credibility.

2. There are four ways to protect IP, Copyright, Trademark, Patent, and Trade Secrets. Once an item is protected appropriately, copying said item violates the legal protections. There are very narrow exceptions. Recasting or reproducing something to avoid paying for it, is not one of them.

ALL companies realize that there is little they can do to prevent the personal reproduction of their works

Not being caught, prosecuted, and convicted for a theft doesn't make a theft anything less than a theft.

Back in the 80s… I will admit… I pirated like hell… Everyone did…

I've been a collector since the late fifties. Over the years I have bought, painted, and sold countless thousands of castings. Not once have I ever pirated a figure, or bought a pirated figure. I was taught a "workman is worthy of his hire," and that I should not cheat nor steal because doing so is just plain wrong. Your blanket assertion that "Everyone did" is also just plain wrong.

Judas Iscariot

You really should read this thread:

TMP link

Glad I coud oblidge Zypher… Glad I could oblidge…

You people think what you want.

As far as my grammar goes, or whether or not the freaking word is spelled illipses or Ellipses… My freaking god in my underpants! is it realy that important… I know that my writing here is not 100%, and I don't care to proof what I write here but in a very cursory manner… Unfortunately Bill has not created a system wherby you may edit entries after the fact.. Come to think of it… NO… I am glad that he has NOT created such a system… You people would go back and alter what you have said in a discussion in order to make it seem as if you had a specific position all along…

My grammar… Oh, Gracious me! I shall surely burn in hell-fire (even though I am an atheist) for such a damnable sin…

DJ, I have read that thread… It has nothing at all to do with anything I have done, and it is a specious attempt by someone to lay a broad copyright over a "design" that is not copyright-able (or however it is freaking spelled…

I swear… when I get my army of robotic supermen finished… To the moon Alice!

Until then… Unless someone posts some real and relevant case law, legal code with a complete understanding demonstrated of what they have posted…

Good night Seattle!

The folks at GW have shut down several "pirates" in the States, …even a couple who were pretty clever by only offering painted and based figures they'd copied as a majority in painted armies of original GW figures.

Judas Iscariot's trumpeting his activities as a pirate might be interpreted either as a "cry for help" or a "I need to be punished" flag waving, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise.

I am sure GW monitors this forum so perhaps our "Judas" will soon receive his own "cease and desist" order from his local GW attorney.

I/S

"…"

That sounds like a DHable offence to me …

That sounds like a DHable offence to me …

So's talking about recasting as he was. Mind, me wishing him ill with a spin caster probably is as well…

I suggest that rather than just looking at a legal code and thinking that you know what it means

Sorry, but I never said that i knew what it meant.

I am not mocking your "ignorance" (Please, don't take exception to its use…

Maybe you are not but:

I really hate and despise ignorance.

So my ignorance is hated and despised – thanks.
On to some other points

All that the "exceptions in sections/chapter 106/106A have to say is that you can't do anything that would damage the reputation of the creator/holder and that you cannot do anything that would damage their ability to continue to profit from their mark/copyright (duplications are expressely excluded from any "damages of their ability…" as duplication of a work does absolutely NOTHING to prevent them from operating their copyright (spelled out in 106/106A)

Not quite an accurate description as

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

and

§ 106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity

I have not quoted § 106A in full, but it also makes no mention of

that you cannot do anything that would damage their ability to continue to profit from their mark/copyright

So we have § 106 giving the copyright holder exclusive rights to reproduce the work in copies.
And Copies is defined as:

"Copies" are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term "copies" includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

From this it appears that the unauthorised reproduction of the work (including derivative works based upon the original work) is not quite within the law.
However, taking into account '§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use' such reproductions are allowed

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research

As reproducing a work for your own use does not seem to be covered by any of the above, it would be hard to justify as being legitimate. Your oft quoted point from § 107 of

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

and your statements that

And… One of the first things that I brought up about making copies of miniatures that you use for your own "fully private" use is:

If you would not have bought them in the first place… They cannot represent lost sales. Lost sales only occur when something happens with a customer who WOULD buy the figures…

only covers the potential value of the copyrighted work (i.e. the 'I have lost sales revenue/no you have not as I would not have bought them' argument). It does not cover the potential market aspect (i.e. the potential to sell the authorised copies of the original work to someone who may have purchased them).
And onto another point

I have software that will allow me to turn a digital image into a 3D work… Does that make the digital image illegal?

Probably – as

A "device", "machine", or "process" is one now known or later developed

combined with the legal definition of 'copies'.
Now, having said all that how does this sound.
JI from what you say you are doing nothing that is not within the law. You have made it clear on several occasions that you gain the copyright holders permission to copy the work and that you do not allow your copies of the work be sold, traded or given away and that all copies remain in your possession. If, however, that is not what you said or meant then please let us know.
Ignorance is, as they say, bliss.

Conviction rates are irrelevant, crime is still crime. To quote H.M.G. on the subject:

IP crime has a serious economic threat in the United Kingdom (UK), and is considered a serious threat to safety of consumers. No product is too cheap to copy, and no product immune. It is estimated that IP crime costs the UK economy around £9,000,000,000.00 GBP each year and it is growing considerably.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

"In The UK… You have some similar guidlines, but sine the UK has some strange form of common law (my dad would understand it… He did a treaty with Nicaragua back in the 80s, and with Honduras up until the 90s concerning various standards like that… The treaty dealt with Nicaragua's and Honduras' market evaluation proceedures or something like that… It will be a while before I can ask him) they do not codify the points upon which an infringement is based. But, it still basically will come down to "did it affect the market value : i.e. Did it pervent the "Fair Dealing" of "the copyright holder?"

<snip>

"In the UK, you may be in violation of one part of the law, but be found to have done no damage to the Market value… It is also necessary for the plantif in the UK, once in court to produce evidence of reproduction in addition to what damages have been incurred as a result. "

ROTFL! You really are just spouting any old cr4p to keep your argument going.

I really pity you.

The sequence of three dots is called "an ellipsis". From the Greek for "an omission".

Let us hope the legal advice here is more accurate than the English language tutorial, eh?

RocketToad 13 Nov 2007 11:30 p.m. PST

Is this the official stance of AoA? Or just it's self nominated mouthpiece?

I just want to be "accurate" about this, of course

"but sine the UK has some strange form of common law"

I don't think you understand what common law means. And we don't have a strange form of it. We have the original form of it.

You'd think someone interested in legal systems would have learned about it. What is it that you're reading? Please tell me it's not law.

"You'd think someone interested in legal systems would have learned about it. What is it that you're reading? Please tell me it's not law."

LOL! :D