"Piracy on eBay - TimeCast models being copied illegally" Topic

It has come to our attention that a number of TimeCast models are being copied and sold via eBay. These models, from our 6mm Middle East range, are not listed as TimeCast and are described as "used". They are cast in a white resin, which is very different from the materials we use.

We are taking action against the person concerned.

However, we cannot watch eBay all the time! We do know however that a lot TMPers do use eBay regularly.

We would very much appreciate it that if you come across any suspect TimeCast items being offered for sale on eBay then please let us know. We can easily confirm whether they are being offered for sale legally or if they are being copied.

Our contact details are:

sales@timecastmodels.co.uk
Tel: 01743 465676

Best wishes

Barrie Lovell
TimeCast

Hi, I bought some a while back and have painted them. How can I tell if they are kosher?

We would very much appreciate it that if you come across any suspect TimeCast items being offered for sale on eBay then please let us know.

Will do and Good Luck.

Hi, I bought some a while back and have painted them. How can I tell if they are kosher?

TimeCast can best answer that dafydd.
But my guess would be that TimeCast seem only to use some magic reason that is very lightweight and grey or brown in colour, they seem to suggest that the copies are white resin, something they do not use.

Hi Dafyd

If you are in the UK please call us on 01743 465676 otherwise drop us an email.

Best wishes

Barrie
TimeCast

I would suggest that you report any models or figures you suspect of being 'knock offs' to the respective manufacturer.

Barrie – email sent.

Hi Dafydd

Enjoy your models – they are not copies of ours! I don't know who makes these ones but the seller is not our pirate.

Thanks for contacting us though.

Best wishes

Barrie
TimeCast

Cool – they are very nice Arab buildings.

@razor: he he he…

In re the OP: I have reported more than one pirate/recaster. I will keep an eye out for them.

You lot must agree with every piece of legislature ever put in place by any state, ever?

If you think legislation is bad then campaign to get it changed.
Breaking the law shows you care only about yourself, trying to change the law shows you care about others too.

So you disagree with people who broke the Nuremberg Laws of 1935?

Godwin etc yadda yadda.

It's a waste of time, AB. This sort always think stealing is OK so long as it's THEM doing the stealing (in which case they can rationalize their unethical (I care little whether or not it's technically legal or illegal) behavior by saying that that nobody except some big faceless corporation that won't REALLY notice it gets hurt). Let somebody burgle THEIR house, however, and they're singing a different tune, and most likely singing it to the authorities they otherwise denigrate and expecting action to be taken by those authorities on their behalf. Because accepting the parallel between the two instances and the logical consequences of that parallel would inhibit them from having whatever they want, whenever they want it, for whatever they choose to pay (or not) for it, they refuse to acknowledge it. They'd far rather continue to act precisely like spoiled children whilst claiming they're some kind of freedom fighters sticking it to "the man."

Doug

I have just contacted Barrie re a purchase that I made – all was in order thankfully.

I purchased in Nov but my e-bay will only search back 2 months and the seller did not leave me feedback, so I could not find the item that way.

Anyway, for those (like me) who have not searched for old stuff before, I went via my PayPal account, I found the transaction which had the item listing ID, copied that and pasted it into e-bay search engine and the item popped up, giving me the user name, which is all that Barrie needs (can be e-mailed to him).

Hope all this works out for you OK Barrie, I detest those that ride on the back of others creativity.

It doesn't have anything to do with the law, he is a thief. The law, in this case, coincides with morality.

He quit arguing because he can't support his selfish, cowardly, thieving ways. Perhaps he is a teenager, as I suspect, and doesn't really know any better yet. His arguments are probably no better than the ones I heard when I was in high school from kids who would steal CDs or tapes from the record store.

What he is doing is morally wrong. He is stealing work from other people. he somehow thinks that he is better than others so he can steal art and other people will just pay for it.

There were probably some slave owners in the old American south who treated their slaves "humanely" in that they didn't beat them, saw to it that they were fed well, etc. Probably those that had only one slave did this more frequently than the owners of many. He occupies a moral high ground that is not dissimilar to them.

Nothing more from me on this thread.
So a thief and a liar

So i can rob you but not your sweet grandmother?? Condoning piracy/theft of something 'small' is wrong but piracy/theft from something 'big' is ok.

So lets not report any burglarys because they arent as bad as murder.

Theft, Piracy whatever is bad, end of. If you found two wallets and one was to a rich guy and one was too a poor guy what would you do? Theft is Theft.

Do not try to pretty it up

Politics and thievery in one thread.

manchesterreg,

Not to disagree, however, "If you found two wallets and…" should read "If you found two wallets in the owners pants pockets and…..".

I'm with the theft is theft with no justification.

Wolfprophet, your arguments assume that you have some right to take someone else's stuff without paying for it. Or that you have some right to try it. You don't. If you can't get the kind of guarantee that you want from a product, don't buy it. You won't die without movies, music or video games.

If a car company would not let me test drive their car for whatever reason I probably wouldn't buy it, but for me to come back after hours and steal it for a test drive would be wrong.

Even after 10 years of law enforcement it never ceases to amaze me how people can lie to themselves to justify stealing/assaulting/driveing intoxicated/insert crime here.

Then they blame me for ruining their lives when I catch them.

Cheers mate. Everyone loves coppers.

I have a feeling someone here has a sense of entitlement and is missing the point slightly.

-"Do you approve of child labour?"
-"Certainly not, children have no sense of quality"

It isn't stealing to rent a movie. You rented it, rights have been paid by the person renting it to rent it. It is not being copied. Same thing with a book.

The example with the car is exactly the same thing. You have no right to use someone's property without their permission.

When you steal a movie or a video game that is what you are doing.

There are lots of things that you might get stuck with that you don't like. Everyone understands this, if a company makes crappy figures and you buy some, then don't buy from that company again. This might not be something you can see from a visual inspection.

If the figure is crappy because it is difficult to put together or stay together then that might be a good reason not to buy from them in the future, not something you could tell from looking at the picture on the box or the web or whatever.

There are no guarantees in life. Because there are not that does not give you the right to steal someone's property, which is what you are doing when you pirate a video game.

I have bought CDs in the past based on hearing a single song on the radio, all the other songs on the CD sucked. I learned my lesson, now I buy CDs from bands I know or CDs that I've heard more than one song from. Sometimes a song is so good that I don't mind paying full CD price for it.

You pays your money and you takes your chances.

If you don't like the quality of a video game, don't buy one from that company again.

There are certainly methods for trying video games before you buy them without stealing them.

Pictors

FBI is on this thread-run!

I'm sorry, maybe you aren't so good at reading but I said in one of my posts that this doesn't have to do with law but morality.

The theft of someone's IP is not different from the theft of physical property because it is taking money out of their pocket.

Your argument seems to be that because something doesn't fall under the same set of laws as something else they cannot be equated.

This is nonsense. In the US herbal supplements are not regulated by the FDA. To say that in this "reality" that you seem to be welcoming me to herbal supplements and drugs are two different things completely. The herbal supplements are different even than food in that sense.

But that is nonsense to anyone that knows anything about medicine or even science.

You are confusing law with reality. Two different things in their entirety.

Law is not based on reality, it is based on perceptions, perceptions which could be wrong.

What you are contending is that because laws exist then you have to accept that the premise on which it is based because "we don't have control over the arrangement of neurons inside the brains of others."

Well this is obviously crap too as anyone should know. People sway the thoughts and opinions of others all the time.

Laws change how people think over time.

At one point people thought it was wrong for a black woman to marry a white man.

There were laws that treated black and white people differently.

This statement:

" And in this case, the nearly unanimous decision of law makers the world over is that copyright violation and theft are simply not the same thing."

Could just as easily be stated in reference to something else like this:

" And in this case, the nearly unanimous decision of law makers the south over is that black people and white people are simply not the same thing."

But they don't any more. Someone changed their "neurons."

Which, according to you, can't be done.

But it has been, it is currently being and will always be done.

The difference, in reality, between the theft of IP and the theft of material things is negligible and the law should reflect the reality of the situation.

And you should really brush up on your understanding of the difference between reality and human constructs.

How do the morality police feel about the custom deprived from businesses by the second-hand/used goods market?

If someone buys an item second hand, to avoid paying full price, then this is also depriving the creator their royalties, as two people have enjoyed the fruits of their labours, but only one has paid their dues to the creator.

This is a dread thread to be read…

"Everyone loves coppers."

Well you do, certainly Dafydd…

If someone buys an item second hand, to avoid paying full price, then this is also depriving the creator their royalties

dafydd you can't be serious.
A second hand item belongs to the guy who has bought it.
It's not the same as copying it to make more; especially in the intention of selling them.

But if that person has read it for example, then surely the author loses out if another potential buyer gets the book from him?

The creator/author/popstar could have had two royalty paying customers, but because of a second hand purchase, only has one.

As evidenced by some on this thread: TMP link

I was going to comment here, but half the thread seems to be missing :-)

Dafydd,

Goods sold in secondary markets are protected under a Supreme Court ruling know as the First Sale Doctrine. Of course, I am talking United State law but it is an accepted concept in most of the world. In short and to paraphrase,if I the manufacturer have sold to you my product(normally at a wholesale price)I do not have the right to then dictate to you how much you can sell that product for. I cannot limit how much of the product you sell except by not selling to you in the first place, and I cannot go after third and fourth parties that may have bought the item and later sold it to someone else at a lower or even higher price. The maker of the product regardless of what it is has already made their money on the product. The buyer now owns the item. However, if I were to take the item I purchased and then made copies of it and sold those I would be in violation of copyright law. Selling the original purchase to someone else is not a violation of copyright or fair use.

It is this law that allows for instance used book stores, consignment stores, and libraries to exist. Sadly Congress has not kept up with issues of copy right and fair use given the dynamics of the market in the age of the internet. Much of the First Sale Doctrine is being eroded by businesses that want to limit the secondary markets if not completely wipe them out.

When you buy a copy of something, you are not buying the intellectual copyright. Buying a book or model (for example) allows you to sell on the copy for whatever someone is willing to pay. It does not allow you to make your own copies of the copy other than for your own private use. There is no grey area.

The intellectual owner is still deprived of their income.

One man in a village of 100 people writes a great book. He deserves to sell 100 copies, providing him with income.

However one man buys it for £10.00 GBP He then sells it to the next man for £9.90 GBP, who sells it to the next one for £9.80 GBP and so on. Wear and tear etc etc.

100 people have read his book, but he's only made £10.00 GBP

He stops writing great books and spends his time on eBay instead.

Ah yes Dafydd but your reasoning last night read like this

One man in a village of 100 people writes a great book. He deserves to sell 100 copies, providing him with income.

Dafydd-- sod him, im stealing it, why should i give him money when i can have it for nothing.

No. You're the lying thief, Reg, as you said so in that email to me. It's not okay to 'take a handful of samples' at Gaming Conventions when the stall holder has his back turned.

The intellectual owner is still deprived of their income.

Yes but it is honest. And if the town public library buys one of the books, everyone will be able to read it. But it still is a different thing.

Someone who buys ONE new book, and sells it second hand later, gets some of his/her money back. The author had been paid once and there still is ONE book.
Someone who copies a book and sells copies, earns money that belongs to the author: that's many books and the author has only been paid once but the other guy gets paid many times for a book he did not write: he is a thief.

Ah yes Dafydd, so funny.

Patrice, what if a person downloaded a film, watched it once, and deleted it, giving €5.00 EUR to charity too, rather than pay €25.00 EUR for a blu ray disc which then gathers dust on the shelf as he didn't really like the film? What then, eh, what then?

@GeoffQRF, I know what you mean.. So.. did we find out who the Ebay user was that was selling the nocked off/recasts/copies of Timecasts stuff in the end?

what if a person downloaded a film, watched it once, and deleted it, giving €5.00 EUR EUR to charity too, rather than pay €25.00 EUR EUR for a blue ray disc which then gathers dust on the shelf as he didn't really like the film? What then, eh, what then?

there will always be a "what then" for your kind

'How do the morality police feel about the custom deprived from businesses by the second-hand/used goods market?'

auction
auction
auction
auction

All on ebay now. I own the copyright, I make them, I sell them, I have no objection to people selling second hand ones.

I would object to people selling pirates and I do object to people describing any as OOP.

oop?

What's with all the deleted posts?

OOP = Out of Production, ie you can't get them except on 'this' auction.

Thanks. I thought it meant 'out of packaging'.

Timecast if you want I'll hold the perps down and you can kick them to death.