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

BugStomper said – "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. "

Yes, absolutely correct. Certainly under UK law all of JI's waffling is irrelevant and wrong.

As far as I know there never has been a comparable test case in the UK related to anything like home casting but it is reasonable to suppose from the numerous music cases that:

If I purchased a Hasslefree fig and created one copy, which I put away in a box just in case my original was destroyed, then I might be OK. (I can't imagine how I'd match the casting quality but that's not important right now). Hasslefree haven't lost anything because I bought one figure and I'm using one figure.

If I buy one set of four TAG figs and cast 100 of each and paint them up and play with them then I've 100% definitely broken UK law.

There are other options where I could or would be OK, such as casting them, putting them away and not using them, but why would anyone do that anyway?

Ah, he's gone.

What a shame.

And I was enjoying myself so much as well. Too bad I only have a few minutes a day to donate to such a diverting occupation!

Tetchy 14 Nov 2007 7:11 a.m. PST

Ah, he's gone.

What a shame.

No it's not, he was an arsewipe. Good riddance

No it's not, he was an arsewipe. Good riddance.

Well, OK then, you're right!

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

Yes, you are correct it's probably very low on the priority list of the constabulary. And, given a choice between IP pirates and murderers, I'd rather they went after the killers. BTW – If someone is murdered and their killer is never caught, the murder still happens.

No hand wringing on my part, I'm not recasting and I'm not the one permitting someone to advocate recasting. I was just walking by this train wreck and thought I'd try to capture some video moments for America's Funniest Home Videos.

I have never advocated "Re-casting" as Bill had defined it to me.

I suggest that this case is on-point, and as can be seen the decision went against the individual copiers.

link

In the majority opinion they carefully explain how they applied each of the following factors:

First Factor: Purpose and Character of Use

Second Factor: Nature of Copyrighted Work

Third Factor: Amount and Substantiality of Portion Used

Fourth Factor: Effect Upon Potential Market or Value

In this Texaco case no one making a copy had the slightest intent of resale, but the court still ruled against Texaco.

Judas Iscariot 14 Nov 2007 7:06 p.m. PST
……. I have been simply stating that the law does not forbid a person to make copies of any item they have bought legally to their hearts content. …..

BTW – Are you disseminating legal advice or merely offering a layman's opinion?

The court ruled for Texaco because (And, if you had been paying attention to what I wrote, you would know this), the use of those photocopies was still within an area defined as a "Marketplace", the articles were being used for scientific research that itself had a value to the facility doing the research and dissemenating the copies (another point against fair use, although each individual scientist was making his/her own copies, they were allowing other scientists to use those copies in an open lab.

Resale is not the only factor in market value… It is just an enormous one.

As is stated in the Opinion:

Prior to Campbell, the Supreme Court had characterized the fourth factor as "the single most important element of fair use," Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 566, 105 S.Ct. at 2233; accord 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05[A][4], at 13-183.

You will notice somehwere in pt. 69-70(something – I think that 71 has the basis of that opinion) that the effect of the "Market Value" upon the Market of Catalysis magazine due to "lost subscriptions, sales of back-issues, etc" was explored, but then discarded as having little or no relevance upon the case at hand:

(71)hese considerations persuade us that evidence concerning the effect of Texaco's photocopying of individual articles within Catalysis on the traditional market for Catalysis subscriptions is of somewhat limited significance in determining and evaluating the effect of Texaco's photocopying "upon the potential market for or value of" the individual articles.

(In other words… The loss of sales was insigificant/limited significance – they did use the word somewhere else to describe this)

The nature of a work such as in a journal is a VERY different animal than a miniature.

A scientific journal articles very existence transmits value to the reader by the inherent nature of its existence. By being read (which is what the scientists were doing), they were taking value from the work of another.

Simple "Existence" or "Enjoyment of existence" does not imply value as it is not an objective value (One person may think that a miniature is the most valuable thing on earth, yet another may think that it would be over-valued if used as a door-stop or as ballast in the bottom of a ship), which is what is happening when a work such as a miniature is copied.

It's presence does not convey a means of increasing the value of one's home, business or other endeavours outside of private life… i.e… It is NOT on the market place.

I tried to say that before… A commodity is different than an IP that is used for some form of work itself. A scientific journal's existence is said to be doing work, as it contains value that is both measurable and objective in the creation of new derivative works

(72)…Cf. Sony, 464 U.S. at 451-55, 104 S.Ct. at 793-95 (rejecting various predictions of harm to value of copyrighted work based on speculation about possible consequences of secondary use). At best, the loss of a few journal subscriptions tips the fourth factor only slightly toward the publishers because evidence of such loss is weak evidence that the copied articles themselves have lost any value.

I am going to stop there, as my dad just told me that this entire case supports my view… So, I am not going to waste any more time simply repeating (again) what I said in my previous posts… The link is there, and in the case you can read for yourself where the substantive differences are between a work such as a scientific journal that was photocopies for use by a working laboratory (i.e a place that itself exists in the marketplace) and a miniature that has been copied for use solely in one's home.

DJ Coaltrain…

No, I am not offering (Professional) legal advice (but neither is it "Lay", as I do have a background of legal education and work experience).. That is illegal without a Dr. of Jurispruence (at least offering that advice as counsel at law), which is I suspect what you were fishing for)…

BTW, thanks for digging that up… I had not yet gotten 'round to looking through rulings "against" fair use in support of my position…

Of course, I had also previously stated that I had abandoned doing ANY more remarking to the point unless someone actually had something of value to comment upon… That was valuable… Thanks…

One more short comment…

Here, from the conclusion notes is a summation of why Chickering was ruled against:

7. Though Texaco claims that its copying is for "research" as that term is used in the preamble of section 107, this characterization might somewhat overstate the matter. Chickering has not used portions of articles from Catalysis in his own published piece of research, nor has he had to duplicate some portion of copyrighted material directly in the course of conducting an experiment or investigation. Rather, entire articles were copied as an intermediate step that might abet Chickering's research.

The copies were used to abet Chickering's research.

Now… If one were to make a copy of a miniature…

And, that copy exists solely for the private use of that individual…

What is abetted by its use that will affect the market value (Taking into account that the case presented above has already ruled that loss of any sales or licensing fees is of no consequence to the market value of the original: (69)-(71/75))?

I other words:

How exactly does the use of a product at home affect the sales price, production costs (Marginal costs), and eventual profits of the copyright holder?

Remembering, again, you can't use the "They would have been able to sell you those figures" excuse… Sorry to bring it up again, but posters have demonstrated a remarkable lack of memory on this thread…

If you know of a way that this can happen…

Then I would like to discuss a plan to rule the world with you, and I know for a fact that there are more than a few others who are very rich and powerful who would love to hear about this as well (I know some people who have the ears of three governors for instance)… Because, that would be the single most powerful economic manipulation tool on the planet.

"Yes, you are correct it's probably very low on the priority list of the constabulary. And, given a choice between IP pirates and murderers, I'd rather they went after the killers.
BTW – If someone is murdered and their killer is never caught, the murder still happens."

So what does murder have to do with re-casting metal toy soldiers?
A little OTT for a comparison is it not?

So,

Call it what you want – in the eys of the sane majority and the law, you will be seen as a thief, plain and simple. And not the Robin Hood type.

Indeed,you have come on here to gloat over trolling on other forums and have been 'hoist by thine own petard'.
Despite the wordy and tedious attempts at justification on your part your taking something your not entitled to.
And even if it were uneconomical for any company to pursue you,you are still benefitting from work done by others.

@RocketToad – GW had a clearout of those giants and they sold them for £1.00 GBP each (yes £1.00 GBP each!) during their big stock clearout around 1991/2, so if he'd said he'd bought them I actually would've believed him.

As for your fencing question, I have no idea. I would imagine that many fencing designs are not copyright and you're just paying for the materials and construction.

The thing with recasting is that there are many very small companies in this hobby that aren't exactly rolling around in cash, or breaking even. I just don't understand why people who are passionate about this hobby will not support it, and actually put effort into harming it.

So… Time to think of a new business model for miniature companies

The business model would be not to become involved in the mass production of figures at all as no money could be made at it. Instead the only viable option would be to sell figures at a much, much higher price than they are now and accept that only one of any particular casting will be sold to one individual. That option will, no doubt, stop many people buying miniatures completely.

Most of my adamantine sticking by what the law says

Selectively quoting the parts that back you up and ignoring the rest is hardly an open and honest view to be shared with those less knowleable.

I notice comments and discussion over copyright persist but there's no longer a denial regarding smug and superior statements.

Steve P

@Rocket Toad – ""

And this is one of the reasons why I reckon GW are moving to plastics.

It's what happens in a free market economy, goods can be sold at whatever level the seller desires, the purchaser buys or not, their choice. No company creates a sub market in illegal goods. That is created by the the purchasers who have aspirations above their means and it is serviced by the criminals who provide the copied goods.

I agree wholeheartedly, the re-casting for money of small miniature companies is disgraceful.

You should also agree that it is disgraceful no matter what size company suffers. As an example, store theft from a multi national supermarket chain is the same crime as store theft from your local (and locally owned) convenience store.

The size and financial stability of the victim in no way alters the crime that is committed.

RocketToad, your comparing apples and oranges with your fence analogy.
Equivelant would be more like buying the sculpting materials and making the figure yourself,end result may look similar but is essentially scratchbuilt.

And as far a recasting any miniatures, the cost of what your copying is the lamest you can argue. You may as well say they're too expensive for me so thats why I shoplift them from the store.

while I may have had a criminal past

…and a criminal future…

"You should also agree that it is disgraceful no matter what size company suffers. As an example, store theft from a multi national supermarket chain is the same crime as store theft from your local (and locally owned) convenience store.
The size and financial stability of the victim in no way alters the crime that is committed."

As for GW changing to plastics because of re-casting? That is a positive side effect but GW made that decision many years ago now and it was driven by the increased profit margins that can be made from creating their products in plastic.

if the profitable sub market is there because of the high retail prices then pirates will do what they do…

Regardless of the size of company selling the original product. The 'high retail price' is in the eye of the purchaser. Many of the small companies in this industry charge 'high' prices. Will you start to care if they cease production due to their product being copied? To accept it happening to one company is, in theory, accepting it happening to any company.

pirates will do what they do…

Only if they have a market.
But you are right that there is little anyone can do to stop it, there is no reason not to try though.

As far as "Piracy" is concerned… I do an awful lot to make certain that it is prevented. Including tracking an eBay selling who is re-casting various old Lines from Citadel and Ral Partha. Most of the minis that he is pirating are still available from RAFM, and at a reasonable price…

Or are the words:

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

to understand?

They must be, that's me put fairly in my place. I bow to your superior interpretation and promise not to doubt anything you say in the future.

Now, rather than going over the same points again and again. Please read my previous posts and actually answer the points I raised.

ERM,

You are going to have to be a little more specific, because some of your posts do not contain much that is really pertinent to the actual issue of copyright laws, or, in the one about business models… Was a fairly common (but inaccurate) observation of where businesses are going to have to go (The correct response is:

They will be selling the 3DO files instead of the minis at first, and then when the technology becomes too ubiquitous… Only boutiques who do one-offs will be left… in other words… The Miniature industry as it exists right now is a dinosaur that is seeing its own death, and the inevitabe extinction of its kind…

Now… To RT

As for GW changing to plastics because of re-casting?
That is a positive side effect but GW made that decision many years ago now and it was driven by the increased profit margins that can be made from creating their products in plastic.

The conversion to Plastics is not meant to deter reproduction… NOTHING can deter reproduction in the same way that .

And.. Because I didn't order my response very well (and I hate editing on a non-professional forum): eastridingmilitia… I would be happy to not bring up the same points again and again if people would not keep going in these little circles around them throwing the same arguments out like a kid running around in a circle with their hands over their ears going:

"NAHNAHNAHNAHNAG… I can't hear you! NAHNAHNAHNAH…"

I think that my comment about GW's plastics and what I do to detect real pirates addresses that point as well.

Also, the technology that I have mentioned making the reproduction of minis easier, will, for a short time, also make the discovery of Pirates (people who reproduce the figures to then sell, or otherwise profit from) a very simple matter (As I just demonstrated above. I caught another re-caster on eBay doing the same thing with a metal mini)…

Any work I do in either sculpting or otherwise related to converting or duplicating a miniature for whatever reason has a pretty fair amount of time putting in something that will allow me to control the products to make their illegal use more difficult… For instance… If one were to have a resin copy of the Metal Balrog from GW… It would be very difficult to use that in an oficial GW event… Someone would notice that your balrog was much too light, and thus couldn't be a GW original… I don't play in GW events in any event…

If there is another specific point that I missed… Please point it out again, and I will address it… Sorry for missing it the first time…

Judas Iscariot 14 Nov 2007 9:14 p.m. PST
The court ruled for Texaco because …

The court most assuredly did NOT rule for Texaco:

"[82] E. Aggregate Assessment
[83] We conclude that three of the four statutory factors, including the important first and the fourth factors, favor the publishers. We recognize that the statutory factors provide a nonexclusive guide to analysis, see Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 560, 105 S.Ct. at 2230, but to whatever extent more generalized equitable considerations are relevant, we are in agreement with the District Court's analysis of them. See 802 F. Supp. at 21-27. We therefore agree with the District Court's conclusion that Texaco's photocopying of eight particular articles from the Journal of Catalysis was not fair use.
….
[85] Conclusion
[86] The order of the District Court is affirmed.[n19]"

The District Court ruled against Texaco.

Prior to Campbell, the Supreme Court had characterized the fourth factor as "the single most important element of fair use," Harper & Row, 471 U.S. at 566, 105 S.Ct. at 2233; accord 3 Nimmer on Copyright § 13.05[A][4], at 13-183.

Campbell is an older case and does not supercede this one.

You will notice somehwere in pt. 69-70(something – I think that 71 has the basis of that opinion) that the effect of the "Market Value" upon the Market of Catalysis magazine due to "lost subscriptions, sales of back-issues, etc" was explored, but then discarded as having little or no relevance upon the case at hand: …

That's most assuredly NOT what they wrote:

"[71] These considerations persuade us that evidence concerning the effect of Texaco's photocopying of individual articles within Catalysis on the traditional market for Catalysis subscriptions is of somewhat limited significance in determining and evaluating the effect of Texaco's photocopying "upon the potential market for or value of" the individual articles. We do not mean to suggest that we believe the effect on the marketability of journal subscriptions is completely irrelevant to gauging the effect on the market for and value of individual articles. Were the publishers able to demonstrate that Texaco's type of photocopying, if widespread,[n14] would impair the marketability of journals, then they might have a strong claim under the fourth factor. Likewise, were Texaco able to demonstrate that its type of photocopying, even if widespread, would have virtually no effect on the marketability of journals, then it might have a strong claim under this fourth factor.

[72] On this record, however, the evidence is not resounding for either side. The District Court specifically found that, in the absence of photocopying, (1) "Texaco would not ordinarily fill the need now being supplied by photocopies through the purchase of back issues or back volumes . . . [or] by enormously enlarging the number of its subscriptions," but (2) Texaco still "would increase the number of subscriptions somewhat." 802 F. Supp. at 19.[n15] This moderate conclusion concerning the actual effect on the marketability of journals, combined with the uncertain relationship between the market for journals and the market for and value of individual articles, leads us to conclude that the evidence concerning sales of additional journal subscriptions, back issues, and back volumes does not strongly support either side with regard to the fourth factor. Cf. Sony, 464 U.S. at 451-55, 104 S.Ct. at 793-95 (rejecting various predictions of harm to value of copyrighted work based on speculation about possible consequences of secondary use). At best, the loss of a few journal subscriptions tips the fourth factor only slightly toward the publishers because evidence of such loss is weak evidence that the copied articles themselves have lost any value."

The first sentence and last sentence of paragraph [72] are clearly quite relevant.

The nature of a work such as in a journal is a VERY different animal than a miniature.

A sculpture may be a copyrightable work.

A scientific journal articles very existence transmits value to the reader by the inherent nature of its existence. SNIPPED …

Irrelevant to the case at hand.

I am going to stop there, as my dad just told me that this entire case supports my view… So, I am not going to waste any more time simply repeating (again) what I said in my previous posts…

Ahhh, the old logic fallacy of "appeal to an authority." I don't like to play that game, but I could counter with a Professor of Law, who constantly works with copyright issues, if needed. Please, let's not go there.

No, I am not offering (Professional) legal advice (but neither is it "Lay", as I do have a background of legal education and work experience)..

So do I, so do many in my family, and so do many of my friends. However, all that means is that we're offering opinions and neither is more valuable than the other. All that matters is what the courts think.

Thanks…

You're welcome. BTW – I think you're misreading the case.

Nope, sorry but

(The correct response is:

They will be selling the 3DO files instead of the minis at first

is not the correct response. The original question asked about 'miniature companies', a company selling 3DO files and not miniatures is not, by definition, a miniatures company.
A shallow and petty response,I know, but I could not resist. And it agrees with my initial response that they would not become involved in the mass production of miniatures. The comment I made of selling a very low volume at a much higher price is still valid. The fact that you chose the digital rather than the physical version makes not one iota of difference to the business model (other than adapting to emerging technology). The 3DO files would still need to be priced at a similar level, as with the low sales volume that would occur it would not be viable commercially to 'sell cheap'. The only other option is that some kind souls do the work for the love of it and do not seek financial reward.

And to be more specific, concentrate on my post of 14 Nov 2007 3:25 a.m. and the points raised about § 106/106A and 107.

Judas Iscariot 14 Nov 2007 9:27 p.m. PST
One more short comment…

Here, from the conclusion notes is a summation of why Chickering was ruled against:

7. Though Texaco claims that its copying is for "research" as that term is used in the preamble of section 107, this characterization might somewhat overstate the matter. Chickering has not used portions of articles from Catalysis in his own published piece of research, nor has he had to duplicate some portion of copyrighted material directly in the course of conducting an experiment or investigation. Rather, entire articles were copied as an intermediate step that might abet Chickering's research.

That's from the Footnotes, it's NOT a Conclusion note. There's a substantial difference between the two.

Now… If one were to make a copy of a miniature…

And, that copy exists solely for the private use of that individual…

What is abetted by its use that will affect the market value (Taking into account that the case presented above has already ruled that loss of any sales or licensing fees is of no consequence to the market value of the original: (69)-(71/75))?

That's NOT what they decided.

How exactly does the use of a product at home affect the sales price, production costs (Marginal costs), and eventual profits of the copyright holder?

Not the central issue. The central issue is the violation of the copyright. A person can't make a copy just because they want one, the fair use doctrine is quite specific.

Remembering, again, you can't use the "They would have been able to sell you those figures" excuse… Sorry to bring it up again, but posters have demonstrated a remarkable lack of memory on this thread…

Just because you say it's not valid doesn't make it so.

If you know of a way that this can happen…

I'm against violating IP rights. No matter the mental gymnastics and rationalizations invovled.

…..(I know some people who have the ears of three governors for instance) …

Great, now we're name dropping. OK, I'll call. The swearing in ceremony for Associate Justice O'Connor was held in the courtroom of the Supreme Court of the USA. So many people wanted to be there for that great historic event they had to turn away Senators, Representatives, Governors, and Foreign dignitaries. However, my wife was there courtesy of Chief Justice Burger's Office and her position at the Supreme Court of the USA. Can we now please stop the appeals to authority and name dropping?

Regardless of the size of company selling the original product. The 'high retail price' is in the eye of the purchaser.

Thats true, and that is why perhaps GW for example is suffering at the till point because they have priced their products too high.

Many of the small companies in this industry charge 'high' prices.

Many?
Hmmmm….
I can only think of Freebooter and Gamezone in the fantasy genre as boutique manufacturers who charge noticeably high prices. Possibly Avatars of War.
All of them do exquisite work.

Will you start to care if they cease production due to their product being copied?

To accept it happening to one company is, in theory, accepting it happening to any company.

Who cares, when in practice, not theory, it's completely different.

I never said I accept it at all.

For little boutique miniature manufacturers it is a much more serious issue.

However, their work stands out clearly because it is rarely generic and they have a staunch fan base that will speak out if they see something untoward going on.

Regarding GW, , I see them getting hurt by legitimate 2nd hand products going on eBay as people decide to cash up and use the money for another army or for another game.

Ah… The points about §106/106A

They don't really mean a thing in the scope of this disusion…

If you will go back and read them… All they do is say that they owner of a copyright has the right to control that work in the Marketplace (copies for sale or distribution)… It is those little phrases that people just seem to not be able to see that define the character of use.

Since personal/home use has no effect upon the copyright holders ability to control the work in the marketplace (Does the Copyright holder have a shop set-up inside that person's living room? Unless he/she does… There is no ability to claim that the reproductions have any impact upon the marketplace).

All that §106/106A do is to define the Copyright Holder's rights within the Marketplace… And nothing more!

Once you are out of the Marketplace… Copyrights really mean squat.

Now, about the "correct answer"… In a manner, it is neither "right nor wrong"… But… it is the answer that will allow a company to continue to profit from the sales of what will eventually be "Toy Soldiers"/Miniatures.

As I also mentioned in that same post… Smaller Boutique companies will still continue to produce one-off designs (which is the model that you put forth… The exact same model: Producing a smaller number of figures at a greatly increased price… Or, did the use of "Boutique" companies throw you? I'll admit that it is not a term that most people tend to think about in terms of miniature companies)… So, your point about the companies selling 3DO files not being miniature companies…

Not quite correct…

While it is true that they are not selling "miniatures" as physical products… They ARE selling miniatures (or information that is intended to become a miniature, or, in a virtual environment can be represented in any size you wanted – but still effectively a "miniature").

That is another part of what I mean by "They will have to change the model of the business".

Not only does this mean that the actual mode of operation must change, but that the manner in which we think about it must change as well…

Once you begin to have an information based society… Physical property becomes meaningless, and to attempt to cling to its definitions and paradigms is to cling to a shinking ship. You will either eventually have to let go and learn to swim in the new sea… Or, continue to hold onto the older paradigms and drown (perish) in the sea in which those paradigms are sinking.

Now… Coaltrain… I like the way that you edited out the material that WAS from the decision… That material said exactly what the footnotes says…

Why on EARTH do you think a legal opinion would contain contradictory notes about a decision in its footnotes, especially when the wording I posted from the actual decision says exactly the same thing.

Good for you… You are against violating IP rights no matter the "Mental Gymnastics)…Hang onto that sinking ship… I hope that you are somehow able to learn to breath water then…

Nothing I have described is "Violating IP rights"… That is the whole point of Title17 §107… It describes the situations in which it is NOT a violation of IP rights.

As far as "Just because I say it is so".. Did you NOT read that case? Did you just decide to ignore the parts that I posted from it that say the exact same thing (The existence of the copies has to tangible effect upon the possible lost sales due to their existence)? It isn't me that saying it that makes it so… It is the case law that YOU posted…

As for name dropping… I figured that it was important, since you seem to have stumbed upon a means of market manipulation for which billions would be paid… I just wanted to let you know I could get the ear of someone who would be willing to pay for such information (someone who had that kind of money)… And, I didn't mention who they were… THAT would be name dropping…

"A scientific journal articles very existence transmits value to the reader by the inherent nature of its existence. SNIPPED …

Irrelevant to the case at hand."

No, as it is entirely what the court based its decision upon. That the copying of the articles was being used to increase the value of chickering's own works.

The copying of a miniature does not increase the value of anything of the person doing the reproduction UNLESS that person then puts those reproductions onto a marketplace.

Like I said… If you really think it does… I suggest that you take this information to the nearest hedge fun as FAST as you possibly can…

Maybe they would be more successful in explaining to you where this is a fantasy or delusion on the part of those who believe that it (The physical existence of a copy affects/effects the market value of the original or market of the copyright) is so.

>>Regarding GW, , I see them getting hurt by legitimate 2nd hand products going on eBay as people decide to cash up and use the money for another army or for another game.

This may be true (or may not) but under anglo-saxon law the figure is your property to dispose of as you wish. Another possibility is that secondhand sales enable people to get into the hobby on less money than usual, who go on to buy firsthand figures.

Videogame publishers definitely want to stop secondhand sales and that is why there is a rush to digital distribution. My opinion is that users will simply discount the lost expected secondhand value of a game from the digital version's price, and decide to pay that much less for it.

As for the 3D scanning replicator machine, no doubt these are coming. If and when cheap replication of figures at home becomes widespread, there are several possible outcomes.

1. General collapse of the miniatures market.
2. Serious legal repression of the technology and behaviour as the record industry is doing to MP3s.
3. An "honesty" system in which people keen on new figures pay for them, and turn in recasters when they catch them.
4. A subscription system in which a sculptor does not release a new model until he has got enough pre-orders to make it worth his while.

Ah… The points about §106/106A

They don't really mean a thing in the scope of this disusion…

If so, why did you bring them up?

If you will go back and read them… All they do is say that they owner of a copyright has the right to control that work in the Marketplace (copies for sale or distribution)

Selective again see

§ 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;

This point, I'm sure, does not mention the marketplace.
And you are so right with the following statement

It is those little phrases that people just seem to not be able to see that define the character of use

Please try not to be so condesending, especially when 'cherry picking' the little phrases.

Onto the side issue

They ARE selling miniatures (or information that is intended to become a miniature

So they ARE selling information, not miniatures. My local store will sell me the ingredients that allow me to make a meal. This does not mean that they are a restaurant.

JI, I am impressed with you. You have managed to tell me that I am wrong, agree with me without saying so, back down from saying I was wrong and then expose my continued ignorance (which is to be hated and despised) because I do not know (or could not figure out) what a Boutique Company is.
Now please stop rehashing the same point over and over, talk nicely to others – as equals, accept graciously when you are wrong, don't gloat when others are and enjoy your figures that no one else will ever see (except when you take them to your gaming partners, oh and the ones that someone else copied from your copies)

I must follow advice of counsel and stop talking to the poster known as Judas Iscariot regarding the issue of re-casting IP protected miniatures and the IP laws of the USA.

I want to make it perfectly clear to anyone who may ask now, or in the future, I do not in any manner whatsoever support violations of IP laws of the USA.

I want to make it perfectly clear to anyone who may ask now, or in the future, my posts here are not to be construed as in any manner whatsoever as support for violations of the IP laws of the USA.

§106

Subject to §107 through §122 the owner of the copyright under this Title…

(1) The right…

(2)…

Yeah… Uner sub-heading 1… The owner of a copyright has the rights to control its reproduction

with the exceptions to Fair Use (§107) and the remaining exceptions through §122, which explicitly state that there are conditions under which the owner of a copyright loses those rights…

I know that this is very much like trying to read a set of Barker Rules, but at least there are rules for interpreting law (unlike Barkerese)…

Also, anyone else who sees these figures is not breaking a law either, unless they are there specifically for business reasons…

As for various cease and desist orders, and involvement with the law… I have been involved in more cases than I can think… Only two have actually gone to court, one (Where the guy copied my Venus Fountains… and I lost, and another where I produced work that was a commentary upon a work done by a famous artist back in the 80s… In which case I won, and I the work was found to be a completely fair use)… All other cases (or Cease & Desist Letters – which is not an Order until after it has gone to court and a ruling goes against you… Until then… All a "Cease & Desist" letter is is a mechanism to scare people… sometimes succesful, sometimes appropriate (sometimes not), and often meaningless) the various accusations, charges and civil matters have been dropped when it was learned that I was within the bounds of fair use. Only one case involved miniatures. The remaining cases involved various Fine Arts…

As for "constantly bringing up the same points…

It has't been me that is running around in tight little circular arguments.

I seem to be doing this little dance:

Title 17 §106 says that something or another is fair use

Someone else will say:

But §106 says that they get to control the reproduction of their works

To which I will say:

§106 has explicitly stated that §107 is an exception to that case

Then they will say:

But, reproducing will affect their sales

To which I say:

That is not a legal argument (as pointed out in the Chickering / Catalysis case, where this was not seen as a valid argument*)

Then they come back with:

But the owner of a copyright has the right to control its use

Which brings us back to the beginning…. I am not the one doing the circular arguments.

I have raised the EXACT same points to the various arguments that any reproduction of a work is a violation of the copyright, when §107 explicitly states that there are 4 points that may make a reproduction of copyrighted works completely legal (with the 4th point being the most important… No Financial loss to the copyright holder… No breah/infringment has taken place)

*The fact that they did not find explicitly for one side or the other is still the loss of a valid argument, because they pointed out the difference in quality of the eventual use of the journals as opposed to a different type of reproduced material, where it could have gone to one side or another… Read the footnotes

Coaltrain…

I have been trying to argue the same point…

That I do not support the violation of IP laws of the USA…

See you later…

As for the 3D scanning replicator machine, no doubt these are coming. If and when cheap replication of figures at home becomes widespread, there are several possible outcomes.

1. General collapse of the miniatures market.
2. Serious legal repression of the technology and behaviour as the record industry is doing to MP3s.
3. An "honesty" system in which people keen on new figures pay for them, and turn in recasters when they catch them.
4. A subscription system in which a sculptor does not release a new model until he has got enough pre-orders to make it worth his while.

It's all a pretty unpleasant scenario to entertain.
Perhaps the speed at which the pirates can be detected could bcome a factor as well.
If they can be discovered quickly it will offer a solid deterrent to others.
However, what happens when some pirate in China gets hold of one?
That could be difficult to deal with effectively.

At last you are starting to make a coherent argument. See how much better it is when you put together a string of related points rather than than just one on its own?
My continuation on this thread has had little to do with the law, as stated previously I am quite ignorant of it. Rather, my interest was trying to find the crux of your argument, expressed in a way that is understandable to the masses (eg me).
One last question – if the 'fair use' rule allows the lawful copying of a work, why do you gain the permission of the copyright holder before reproducing the work? Shouting from the rooftops that 'fair use' means you can copy as much as you want whilst whispering that that is not what you do, does tend to make it look like a weak argument. It could also be seen, by some, as an attempt to mislead.

ERM,

I gain the permission of a copyright holder before making any reproductions of their work because it is the right thing to do… Usually, I will start out with a goal of creating a derivative work that I wish to reproduce (rather than the goal of reproducing the original itself)… This has meant in most cases that I have worked out a deal to gain n originals from them rather than reproducing them myself (That way, I am paying for the original at a lower price since they are meant to be used as parts rather than as works on their own).

However, sometimes this requires the reproduction of the original in a small number in order to get the required parts, or for the required number of variations.

If they are just s about the whole thing..

Then… I will pursue my rights under fair us if it is something that I really want (Only happened once… And I doubt anyone will cry over the potential or percieved loss to the company involved), and it is something that I am not going to be using except at home or during non-convention games (Use of reproductions at an event at a convention falls under a possible "Use placing the reproductions into the Public Market" as their use at a convention can be deemed "use as a promotional tool"…)

As far as my "shouting" from the rooftops (while also "whispering that is not what I do")… That is what a lot of people do who tend to support causes that are seen as legal, but morally suspect.

I also used to do a lot of work for the ACLU and DPA (Drug Polcy Alliance); both organizations that support causes of legality of various issues that are not seen as "Morally sound"; the ACLU more so that the DPA.

One of the reasons for that is that people today have a tendency to assume to much (It isn't just today, but I think that it is more so that some periods). At least, that is also among the things that has been discussed among the Lawyers I have known working for the ACLU. They also mention that personal actions are not in question… My mistake here was in not remembering the ignorance around the issue and making an observation about something I encountered on another forum that would explode here… Then, it was in addressing what my own actions were in the first place…

But, since the Cart got before the horse… There was little I could do at that point…

It shouldn't matter what I am doing though in arguing the Law… I could be , and it would not change the legality of doing so for personal use outside of a marketplace… The law would still be the law…

And… Technically, your answer was more correct that you would know… The Miniatures business is not one that is going to survive the explosion of Prototyping technologies as it exists now (Pay attention to that "as it exists now"… people have a habit of not fully paying attention to the implications of that)… Even selling 3DO files at some point is going to become non-profitable (People will be able to design and create their own miniatures as easily as making paper-dolls by around 2020 – that's only 12 years away… Not exactly a long time)… In the short term though; we are likely to see this issue becoming more and more explosive as people continue to have difficulties both adapting to the rapidly changing technologies and to the laws surrounding them (and already on the books)

"I will start out with a goal of creating a derivative work that I wish to reproduce"

…..So you'll just rip off any IP you fancy

"I gain the permission of a copyright holder before making any reproductions of their work because it is the right thing to do"…
"If they are just bastards about the whole thing..

Then… I will pursue my rights under fair us if it is something that I really want "

In other words, if they object to you ripping off their designs just just do it anyway and stick the finger up at them, lets call a spade a spade here.
I'm tired of your convoluted excuses for thieving others work and ideas,you can repeat it ad infinitum, it doesn't make you right.Were you to convert each figure you'd be praised,but its the act of casting those conversions to make many copies that has put you in the wrong.

A thief is still a thief now matter how many justifications you may present.
It may be fairer to you to say your plagiarizing rather than stealing. Your standing on the shoulders of others talent.

Sure Yoricke…

You think whatever you want… And, when you have been doing this for 30 years with the blessings of those whose works you are using…

Then I wil give a flying monkey about your opinion

So, JI, which companies have you been stealing from. Which ones said "Hey sure man, just steal my stuff!". C'mon let's know so that we can all follow in your wise ways.

GW forums are filled with posts complaining about rules, cost, FAQ, or retired figures. Often times with more venom than you'll find here at TMP. Other than on GW's corporate forums, I've never seen or heard of a post deleted for GW bashing.

Try RPG.net in the Wargaming section after the Role playing sub forums.
Two chaps who are on the TWF, American guys, they go by the name Unheilig and DJHeuti.
Hardcore Fanbois.
Those two guys will not tolerate a single bad word said against GW at any stage.
Their modus operandi is to bait and abuse anyone posting anything they disagree with regarding GW and then they get on the PM to DJHeuti's brother who is a mod there, he then closes the thread and bans the person raising a point that his two cronies do not like.
They have become quite a standing joke for some time now.
Try it out for yourself…
rpg.net

Started in 1976 myself so start giving the flying monkeys a second look perhaps.

You've made a whole career out of ripping off others then?,got to admit I'm impressed with that.

So, Yorkicke

How many of those years were spent working in or for various miniature companies?

How many have you been an owner of (or been offered ownership options)?

BugStomper,

I already gave the answer to that question, before… You will need to go back and re-read the thread…

All of them.

Meh,when you start giving answers to the questions about your past I'll cheerfully let you know about mine.

Lets start with, which particular designers/miniatures companies let you alter and reproduce their original miniatures?