The Soapbox XII: The Convenient Truth

[dirge]

I can't find the difference between the two statements above. How could a KO threaten to take away potential revenue but an accessory not threaten to do exactly the same?

1) How many times have HasTak released accessory sets for Transformers? The probability of HasTak releasing an upgrade kit for Classics Ultra Magnus is essentially zero - with or without fan kits. The 3rd party kit just wont affect HasTak's bottom line. The probability of a Sunstreaker reissue drops significantly with the fake on the market. Before it might have been something they were looking at - but now it wouldn't be anywhere near as likely.

2) How many consumers buy a second version of a Transformer with a hat? Sure many fans do, but not all - because of the expense. And I'm betting fewer kids would but the same toy again - many parents won't buy the same toy twice if they can help it.

3) I doubt that the kids would buy the 3rd party upgrade kit in significant numbers, whereas more might buy the KO in the market stall. The KOs have a much wider reach.

Then there's this...

how can accessories made by a third party be illegal and an infringement on copyright?

for example it is not illegal to by accessories for my car, like roof racks, cd player, mags, lights, spoiler(i think you get the picture).

So how can a toy be any different to a car??

my whole problem with Knock Off transformers is that they are marketed as the real thing like the box and toy are trying to replicate and deceive people so they think they are buying the real thing,

The fact remains that 3rd party accessories are just that. They're not marketed as genuine, nor are they trying to dupe anyone into thinking that they are. The recent KOs are released in packaging that is trying to trick the unaware into thinking it's a HasTak product. Granted, many will be looking on the secondary market, but the flood of KO Sunstreakers on the market now means less chance of income for HasTak if they release an Encore Sunstreaker next year. Some will make the informed decision to buy the third party product, many wont. Many who make the decision not to buy fakes could well end up with them unwittingly.

[GoktimusPrime]

Now, this is where the title of this thread was borne out of. It's very convenient to say that. Fact is, you have to remember, almost everything Takara produces is for its domestic market. Yes, people are able to export but primarily its dominant market is Japan. However, as we all know everyone has imported stuff from japan. Encore isn't meant for us. Henkei isn't meant for us. Alternity isn't meant for us. It's supposed to be primarily for its main market. Japan.

Absolutely.

Now to twist that on its head and say oh this exclusive is only meant to be for Japan so some customiser in Hong Kong has no effect on it is ridiculous. Look at all the other "exclusives" like Henkei and Encore. Guess what, all the major US/HK online stores have all somehow had stock of those. They flood eBay too and sellers from Singapore and Malaysia have them in spades too. I'm really sorry, but to me this is the convenient truth. People are all too willing to rationalise and rationalise their reasons with arguments that they make their convenient truth. If you think about it, all exclusives have made it beyond Japanese shores. Bet you that BBTS will have it up for preorder, no doubt. Fans Project DIA for Asia, same thing. It's up for pre-order at BBTS. It's a very weak argument and you've got to remember, fans in Japan are also able to by the crown accessory kits too.

The reasoning just doesn't stand up against anecdotal evidence yet that argument is raised. Why? Because it's convenient.

Don't forget that Hasbro and TakaraTOMY have a contractual agreement between each other that expressly forbids them from trying to cross-contaminate each other's market. This means that even though a lot of collectors outside Japan may be interested in TakaraTOMY's Transformers, they are not allowed to cater for that market. They _have_ to exclusively target their own market. Likewise Hasbro can only exclusively target their own markets too and cannot attempt to infiltrate TakaraTOMY's market. This can be exempted if one company gives the other company permission. For example, Hasbro Australia would have imported Masterpiece Ultra Magnus and MP Convoy w/ trailer with TakaraTOMY's permission. To do otherwise would be a violation of their agreement.

I know this because when I was organising the Sabretron convention I called Takara and asked them if they would be willing to make exclusive toys for an Australian convention, and they told me that because Australia is a Hasbro market they could only do it with consent from Hasbro Australia.

So likewise Hasbro cannot market their exclusives to the Japanese market.

[STL]

how can accessories made by a third party be illegal and an infringement on copyright?

for example it is not illegal to by accessories for my car, like roof racks, cd player, mags, lights, spoiler(i think you get the picture).

So how can a toy be any different to a car??

my whole problem with Knock Off transformers is that they are marketed as the real thing like the box and toy are trying to replicate and deceive people so they think they are buying the real thing,

It's quite different here. This is an accessory wholly and completely dependent on the intellectual IP of Hasbro/Takara. It takes their IP in the form of a character and produces a product that predicates its success on that character. Look at the colour scheme, look at the successive weapons sets. They all go to confirm the very same thing. It's not like a general transforming toy or accessory. It has its success completely based on its likeliness to something that does not belong to them.

A car has many makes, many differences. Transformers are purely and completely the property of Hasbro/Takara. To produce an item whose appeal is completely dependent on the IP of Hasbro/Takara is where the transgression

As I've put forward before, if the armour hadn't even remotely resembled Ultra Magnus, would anyone have been interested? I think not and therein lies the transgression. For custom accessories, it becomes even more obvious in the case of something like the Grimlock's crown, that directly competes with something Takara intends to offer.

I'm sure each of us would appreciate it even more if we were the ones in the position of Hasbro/Takara and someone produced something that directly competes with what we created in the 1st place, something we put the money and time investing into or takes away an opportunity to produce something ourselves. We'd be pretty upset.

And again, don't get me wrong, I'm not in favour of KOs by any stretch of the imagination. But the ground we're treading on is one and the same - the ripping off of someone's IP, IP they've developed over time. Just b/c we like the product doesn't make it necessarily acceptable and how can we condemn one and not the other when fundamentally they both exist b/c of the same transgression? So we need to rethink our position on the matter as landscape of TF collecting changes and more and more custom products are made.

[GoktimusPrime]

The crown is easier to get away with. First of all, it was Marvel who initially put the crown on Grimlock, not HasTak - so they don't even technically own the rights to that crown. I suspect that because it's a fairly generic looking crown, and probably Marvel never copyrighted it, that TakaraTOMY were able to replicate it. I long for the day that Death's Head and Circuit Breaker may appear again in Transformers again. (pipe dream, I know)

[Sky Shadow]

The crown is easier to get away with. First of all, it was Marvel who initially put the crown on Grimlock, not HasTak - so they don't even technically own the rights to that crown. I suspect that because it's a fairly generic looking crown, and probably Marvel never copyrighted it, that TakaraTOMY were able to replicate it. I long for the day that Death's Head and Circuit Breaker may appear again in Transformers again. (pipe dream, I know)

Unlike Circuit Breaker, Death's Head would actually be owned by Hasbro and not Marvel (if Hasbro cared enough to do some research about it.)

It's alleged by Marvel that 'High Noon Tex' was a one-page strip that (like Circuit Breaker's appearance in Secret Wars II) appeared in other Marvel UK books before Death's Head's first appearance in Transformers UK #113. This is, however, untrue. 'High Noon Tex' was never published anywhere before Transformers #113 in May 1987 (in fact, '...Tex' didn't even exist back then.) The one-page 'High Noon Tex' strip didn't run until well over a year later - in September of 1988. It was damage control - well after Death's Head's popularity in his Transformers appearances - that 'High Noon Tex' was produced as an argument that he was a Marvel character rather than a Hasbro one (so the Marvel UK Death's Head series could run without Hasbro having a hand in it.) This is further evident by the fact that 'High Noon Tex' was drawn not by Geoff Senior, who - as we know - created Death's Head and drew his first appearances in Transformers comics, but by Bryan Hitch, who drew the Death's Head series as of December of 1988. The signature in the corner of 'Tex' even says "Hitch '88". If 'High Noon Tex' was in fact done in, say, April of 1987 then it would also be Hitch's first published comics work, predating his supposedly 'actual' first comics work by a couple of months, back when he was seventeen years old. In the Incomplete Death's Head #1 from 1993 it states Re: 'High Noon Tex' that "the main energies behind this historic page were Simon Furman, Bryan Hitch and former UK Editor Richard Starkings". Richard Starkings was not the editor of Transformers UK #113 - Ian Rimmer was; Bryan Hitch was not the artist of Transformers #113 - Geoff Senior was. However, both Richard Starkings and Bryan Hitch perform those roles over a year later on Death's Head the series.

The claims that 'High Noon Tex' came first are either accidentally misremembered or deliberately misleading because Marvel realised they needed to secure the ownership of Death's Head. Also unlike Circuit Breaker, whose Transformers appearances always contained the disclaimer "CIRCUIT BREAKER and the distinctive likenesses thereof is a trademark of the Marvel Entertainment Group Inc" none of Death's Head's Transformers issues had a similar disclaimer - he was always under the blanket of the Hasbro. Surely if Marvel had gone to all the 'High Noon Tex' trouble to secure Death's Head for their own then they would have stuck it in the legal blurb at the beginning of the comics. At worst, 'High Noon Tex' was a Marvel Comics smokescreen attempt to anachronistically secure copyright for a character that they wouldn't otherwise have in order to begin the Death's Head solo comic.

'High Noon Tex' was not published before Transformers #113 (May, 1987) - nobody has ever seen '...Tex' in anything published before September 1988; it's signed 'Hitch 1988' and Hitch was a seventeen year-old who wasn't working in comics at the time of Transformers #113. There is no physical evidence that a teenager with no comics work who wasn't Geoff Senior drew 'High Noon Tex' before May of 1987 and that that particular teenager coincidentally ended up drawing Death's Head as a series one-and-a-half years later. 'High Noon Tex' was not published before Transformers #113 - nobody has ever seen a copy printed in 1987 and it's even signed 1988. It's an 'urban' legend.



(The '88 signature from 'High Noon Tex'. And yes, if you just read my whole rant above, I am kind of obsessive about this issue - it's a personal pet peeve of mine, thanks. )

[jaydisc]

1) How many times have HasTak released accessory sets for Transformers? The probability of HasTak releasing an upgrade kit for Classics Ultra Magnus is essentially zero - with or without fan kits. The 3rd party kit just wont affect HasTak's bottom line. The probability of a Sunstreaker reissue drops significantly with the fake on the market. Before it might have been something they were looking at - but now it wouldn't be anywhere near as likely.

Nice excuse, but still an excuse.

2) How many consumers buy a second version of a Transformer with a hat?

Enough. Obviously. That's why they make it

Then there's this...

how can accessories made by a third party be illegal and an infringement on copyright?

for example it is not illegal to by accessories for my car, like roof racks, cd player, mags, lights, spoiler(i think you get the picture).

So how can a toy be any different to a car??

I completely understand this argument, but these ARE NOT original accessories. It's like someone besides Mercedes selling Mercedes logos for Mercedes bonnets. If you want to come up with an original likeness, that's fine. The fan made stuff being alluded to in this soapbox are NOT original accessories.

my whole problem with Knock Off transformers is that they are marketed as the real thing like the box and toy are trying to replicate and deceive people so they think they are buying the real thing,

To someone unaware that could be deceiving, but a very large part of the KO market is create by those that are aware, and have thus created much of the demand for this market.

The recent KOs are released in packaging that is trying to trick the unaware into thinking it's a HasTak product.

Or to grant cheapasses the cheaper minter replica product they want.

The crown is easier to get away with. First of all, it was Marvel who initially put the crown on Grimlock, not HasTak - so they don't even technically own the rights to that crown. I suspect that because it's a fairly generic looking crown, and probably Marvel never copyrighted it, that TakaraTOMY were able to replicate it. I long for the day that Death's Head and Circuit Breaker may appear again in Transformers again. (pipe dream, I know)

I assure you that Marvel does not maintain ownership of enhancements to the Hasbro IP they've licensed just because it doesn't exist in toy form. Regardless, another excuse.

[dirge]

Nice excuse, but still an excuse.

I don't buy 3rd party stuff. There's no excuse here.

HasTak don't do accessory kits for Transformers. So the potential for loss of revenue is miniscule, if at all. The potential for loss of revenue is MUCH greater from KOs.

The majority of fan-produced items are not produced with any intention to compete with HasTak for market (leaving aside stuff like Drift). KOs clearly are. Sure, some of the fan-produced items will end up overlapping the retools, but they're certainly not designed with the intention of stealing HasTak's potential market.

I completely understand this argument, but these ARE NOT original accessories. It's like someone besides Mercedes selling Mercedes logos for Mercedes bonnets.

How is it like selling a Mercedes Logo? Where are the registered trademarks on fan produced items? If you want to bring branding into it, show us the branding on the fan produced items which are designed to take the place of HasTak products. Otherwise you're drawing a very long bow.

Most if not all fan accessories do NOT use copyrighted or trademarked images/names on their packaging. Copyright does not extend to items designed to work with a branded item, unless they mislead the consumer into believing the item is genuine or licensed. City Commander is specifically designed to fit a HasTak branded item, just as a Calidad cartridge is designed to work in a HP printer. It will _refer to_ HP on the packaging, and is directly competing with HP for business. If anything, the producer of the generic cartridge is closer to a copyright infringement, since they've reverse engineered the print head and such. And that's wholly dependent on HP's patented product and IP.

Either way, producing a product to fit another specific product is not, in itself, violating copyright. If it were, the generic printer cartridge manufacturers would have been out of business a LONG time ago.

To someone unaware that could be deceiving, but a very large part of the KO market is create by those that are aware, and have thus created much of the demand for this market.

Yeah and those who are actively buying KOs, while fully aware that they're buying KOs, aren't able to point the finger at KO producers. I don't think anyone's disputing that. What we're discussing is the KOers intention to deceive. Sure, most of us know that the KOs are just that, but the producer is setting out to produce something deceptive, and are flagrantly using HasTak's IP to do it..

You're pointing to the fact that many KO buyers are aware of the fact it's a KO. That doesn't get the producer off the hook, since the producer's intention still remains to produce something that's counterfeit.

There's a huge difference between the deliberate and blatant counterfeiting of a KO producer and a producer of a fan item who is producing something that is designed to work with a product, who takes care to avoid violating copyright. IP protection does cover using the names and trademarks of productions in fiction. It doesn't extend to reverse engineering a product to work with someone else's product. The proliferation of generic printer cartridges proves that. And yes, that HAS been tested - printer companies have gotten into trouble for denying warranty repairs for use of 3rd party cartridges.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that (most) fan produced items are anywhere near level of IP abuse as the KOs. The analogy on about Mercedes logos is a poor argument when most fan items aren't setting out to take the place of HasTak items, they specifically ensure they're not confused for HasTak merchandise, and avoid any sort of official branding while KO producers flagrantly use trademarks and patented items that doesn't belong to them. They're one ones using the logos.

As for the ethical arguments presented, there's a huge gulf in intention between a fan item produced to supplement a HasTak item and a KO designed to take the place of one. The fact remains most fan items - while produced for profit - aren't designed to take the place of HasTak products as KOs are. Sure there are fan items which do take the place of HasTak items/step on IP (the Drift toy is an example), but that's closer to a KO, the way it deals with HasTak's IP.

STL asked the question about is there a difference, and pretty much everyone who who has responded has said yes - including many such as myself who buy neither (and aren't looking to make any sort of excuse for themselves). I don't see why those who claim there is a difference are being shot down with such determination. Why encourage a discussion only to dig one's heels in when presented with alternate points of view? Those defending the original viewpoint are heading further and further into legal hypotheses to defend the original point of view, which was more about ethics than legality.

STL doesn't see the difference between KOs and fan items, and he's welcome to that stance. But this thread feels more like an attempt to convince the world of this opinion than to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not there is a difference.

I'm not trying to point the finger at STL (and it's nothing personal), by the way, but this thread feels more like a crusade to put across one viewpoint than an attempt to generate meaningful discussion. I'm generally a fan of the soapboxes, but in this case I can't help but feeling the original argument just doesn't stack up at all - no matter how it's reworded. So yeah, I'm done with it. Bring on XIII.

[Kyle]

Bring on XIII.

+1.

[STL]

STL asked the question about is there a difference, and pretty much everyone who who has responded has said yes - including many such as myself who buy neither (and aren't looking to make any sort of excuse for themselves). I don't see why those who claim there is a difference are being shot down with such determination. Why encourage a discussion only to dig one's heels in when presented with alternate points of view? Those defending the original viewpoint are heading further and further into legal hypotheses to defend the original point of view, which was more about ethics than legality.

STL doesn't see the difference between KOs and fan items, and he's welcome to that stance. But this thread feels more like an attempt to convince the world of this opinion than to have a meaningful discussion about whether or not there is a difference.

I'm not trying to point the finger at STL (and it's nothing personal), by the way, but this thread feels more like a crusade to put across one viewpoint than an attempt to generate meaningful discussion. I'm generally a fan of the soapboxes, but in this case I can't help but feeling the original argument just doesn't stack up at all - no matter how it's reworded. So yeah, I'm done with it. Bring on XIII.

I have to vehemently disagree there.

While the Soapbox exists for the purpose of generating discussion, its daft to say it can’t propogate a point of view. And it always does. It’s just that on this particular issue there’s a large schism and comes way too close to home than most would like. It attacks the convenient truths, it challenges the paradigms that we currently hold.

There’s nothing wrong in that, is there?

It’s like an opinion piece that tries to put a point of view out there. It does so by considering multiple facets. And in each and every response, I’ve raised many countering moral quandaries but few have been responded to. I should note, Dirge, that that includes yourself. You’re willing to make baseless accusations like that this is completely a legalistic approach that I’ve ignored others viewpoints when I’ve endeavoured to respond to each and every response with careful reasoning. I haven’t been facetious, I’ve tried to highlight some very large moral issues but convenient truths should not obscure.

No one’s still answered the fundamental moral questions.

Is it okay to steal as long as you steal from someone if their a multi-national corporation?

Is it okay to steal as long as you derive some benefit from it and it’s not to your detriment?

Is it okay to steal as long as what is stolen wasn’t going to be used anyway?

Is it okay to make that decision to steal based on your own subjective probabilities of whether that something isn’t going to be used in the future?

And really I don’t mind that no one has responded to those points. Because I think that itself underlines some critical points and goes to the heart of some core issues about the activity of collecting itself. How collectors can adopt convenient truths provided it gives them what they want. But that’s neither here nor there. It annoys me that it can even asserted that I’ve ignored others viewpoints when I have myself been ignored.

I certainly don’t for a moment have a single misgiving about people ignoring me but it I do have a misgiving about people telling me I’ve ignored others.

It only bothers me that someone can sit there and suggest that for a moment I’ve ignored all other viewpoints, Dirge. I’ve worked though them carefully, offering reasoned counterpoints in depth and at length. Do look over the entire thread again. To suggest that I’ve ignored the views of others illustrates misrepresents me and the nature of this thread when I’ve embraced all points though I don’t necessarily agree. That is crude. That is unfair. That is disappointing.

[dirge]

There’s nothing wrong in that, is there?

Not, nope at all.

No one’s still answered the fundamental moral questions.

They have been addressed, but many questions whether or not you're even asking the right question.

You're right that items like the fan Drift are stepping all over Hasbro's IP toes. Items like City Commander make a deliberate effort to _not_ do that. They're selling an item designed to work with Hasbro's items, not intended to compete with Hasbro. In terms of right and wrong, they're making an effort to _not_ steal from Hasbro. The KOers are not making that same effort. Which is the answer many people have provided to your questions.

It annoys me that it can even asserted that I’ve ignored others viewpoints when I have myself been ignored.

On the contrary, your viewpoint has been considered, but I still don't believe that your assertion that Hasbro's rights are being violated in the same way by both fan projects and flagrant KOers. Fan items such as Drift are stealing Hasbro's IP and the IP of the company that created Drift in their publication (I don't know who that is, sorry), and your point is perfectly valid there.

Can you provide us with specific proof that items such as the Ratchet/Ironhide heads, City Commander and the Cliffjumper set _are_ too close to Hasbro's IP as to violate Hasbro's rights? Those disagreeing with you are mainly questioning your claim that this IP is being used in an unauthorised manner. You made that claim, we're calling you on it -as I did with my Calidad refence.

I certainly don’t for a moment have a single misgiving about people ignoring me but it I do have a misgiving about people telling me I’ve ignored others.

That was more directed at some of the comments such as "this is an excuse", above. Which wasn't yours. Sorry I should have been more specific.

It only bothers me that someone can sit there and suggest that for a moment I’ve ignored all other viewpoints, Dirge.

Again, this mainly relates to comments from jaydisc. My apologies - I'm trying to not make it personal, but I was too sweeping.

Having said that, noone has responded to my point about the fan items which specifically avoid IP, as well as my reference to the printer cartridge companies, whose reverse engineering has been proven to be legally valid (and which offers a strong parallel).