The Soapbox XII: The Convenient Truth

[GoktimusPrime]

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.

This is what I was trying to say back in post #7:

Garage kits are kinda like software and hardware that people make that just happen to be compatible with products made by companies like IBM, but not actually made by those companies. How many of us have "IBM compatible" PCs?

Same with car parts. My mechanic always asks me if he wants me to replace parts with the same manufacturer as my car or a cheaper generic brand part that is compatible with my car's make/model. I personally don't feel the urge to pay extra money for an oil filter just because it has my car maker's logo on it; I'll happily buy a cheaper unknown brand.

[jaydisc]

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.

This is arguable. Hasbro re-release toys with new accessories. And when you're talking about a $100 toy with a new movie accurate accessory, the potential of loss of revenue is more than miniscule. KOs rarely affect Hasbro revenue directly, rather the second hand market. So, depending on the KO and the custom you're discussing, that's simply not true.

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.

Because they're selling a likeness that is owned by someone else. However, I concede that logo was a poor example in that it's now being confused by the branding/packaging, which was not the intention. Just because accessory industries are welcomed, that does not give the accessory manufacturers license to infringe. Interoperability? Fine. We're not talking about interoperability though.... yet...

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.

The cases you're referring to, as I remember it, was about interoperability (and I remember it being Lexmark, not HP ). As I recollect it, Lexmark was a printer manufacturer that started putting microchips in their cartridges. The printer would then authenticate the cartridges as genuine and allow their use. It was done to block out competing cartridge manufacturers. In America, there is something called the DMCA, which I have referred to a few other times in different discussions. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act forbids the reverse engineering of a system intended for security. This was the claim Lexmark used against the competitor who reverse engineered the protocols occurring between their chips and their printers. It was already a stretch because it was clearly designed as an anti-competitive measure, not for security, but regardless, in the end, the competitor won, and I believe that the DMCA was even later amended to include this exception, which is that reverse engineering is acceptable, granted it is for the goal of interoperability. So, it was not a case of Lexmark saying you stole our design or likeness, but rather that their security protocol was reverse-engineered.

There have been similar cases with Lego trying to block other brick makers from making their bricks fit with Lego. However, I'm not as aware of those results.

It is readily possible to make accessories that provide interoperability without stealing likeness (at least that I'm aware of), like the Fans Project Gas Can.

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.

But I'm not trying to get anyone off the hook. I think this is the disconnection between us. On the surface, I would not disagree with any one of your statements focused at either industry (for want of a better word). Where the disagreement arises from me, is that I feel that any claim against or defense of either, can easily and readily applied to the other. So, again, it's not the actual position that any one is taking for one or the other that I disagree with. We're all welcome to those opinions. It's what I see as a lack of consistency.

I buy fan-made items. I love them. I look forward to Fans Project stuff more than I look forward to Hasbro stuff.

I don't buy KOs. I don't really buy vintage toys either. But I think that for me to publicly deride KOs is hypocritical because there are folks who buy KOs for the same reasons I buy fan-made customs.

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.

(bolding mine)

KO Sunstreaker, Springer and others are also not designed to take the place of any [currently or expected to be available] products from HasTak.

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.

I don't see any difference in the "heel digging" from either side. I just see continuous disconnected. My interpretation of the original point was not that it was about the ethics and legality of either, but the lack of consistency we apply. So, as you continue to try and show a differentiation between the two, I'm giving you conflicting examples of similarity.

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.

I think this opinion is just the result of you disagreeing.

This topic was always going to be problematic for a few reasons.

1. People are really emotional about KOs.
2. The topic suggests that people are rationalizing an inconsistency due to a deep seeded belief. That's always going to be difficult to discuss.

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).

I don't believe that reverse engineering for interoperability is comparable to profiting from the likeness of someone else's character. No one is suggesting that because City Command FITS SNUGGLY around Hasbro's toy, it is an infringement. The claim is that its sales have benefited because it represents someone else's copyrighted character.

[jaydisc]

Same with car parts. My mechanic always asks me if he wants me to replace parts with the same manufacturer as my car or a cheaper generic brand part that is compatible with my car's make/model. I personally don't feel the urge to pay extra money for an oil filter just because it has my car maker's logo on it; I'll happily buy a cheaper unknown brand.

This is the same rationale used by those that buy KOs.

[Hereticpoo]

So are you saying that the ends justify the means?

Sorry Gok I looked at that link but its so long....I didnt read it
In answer to your question......
Um....Yes? At least for me they do. Society trys to tell us otherwise!

Okey dokey STL.....
Is it okay to steal as long as you steal from someone if their a multi-national corporation?
Society would say no....

Is it okay to steal as long as you derive some benefit from it and it’s not to your detriment?
Stealing in general? Like anothers kids toys? No....not okay.

Is it okay to steal as long as what is stolen wasn’t going to be used anyway?
Like a garden gnome? Society says no, I say YES!

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?

At the end of the day its not okay to steal in any situation. Whether you're starving or homeless or rich or poor. (Yes, I would steal to survive) Everyone will justify their own actions according to their own values. So STL I agree that mass customisers and KOers do infringe on HasTak. It is wrong. But if I like something I see and I can afford it....I'll buy it whether its official or not.

[blackie]

At the end of the day its not okay to steal in any situation. Whether you're starving or homeless or rich or poor. (Yes, I would steal to survive) Everyone will justify their own actions according to their own values. So STL I agree that mass customisers and KOers do infringe on HasTak. It is wrong. But if I like something I see and I can afford it....I'll buy it whether its official or not.

well that summed up my whole stance, and i didnt have to do a thing :P

[Paulbot]

When I see what I want, I'm going to take it. If it's against some law, you can bet I'll break it.

[kup]

When I see what I want, I'm going to take it. If it's against some law, you can bet I'll break it.

That would be awesome as the slogan in a Decepticon techspec

[STL]

Not, nope at all.
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.

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.

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).

While not entirely the same as your cartridge (which I must concede I'm not well versed in), this is the premise of it.

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.

So I put it out there again. Are both not originating from the same transgression. The fundamental basis of the IP is maybe not the toy itself but the character upon which the custom attempts to capture. With all of your examples, it is absolutely and entirely clear that those customs are supposed to represent characters that are the IP of Hasbro/Takara. Characters they've invested time and money into building up, That is unauthorised use. That is stealing. KOs rely exactly on the same fundamental transgression.

Otherwise, they'd be out there KOing Gobots. They're not and that's b/c TFs are inherently more valuable. Why not create customs for GoBots then? Same reason. The IP of Hasbro/Takara is far more interesting and valuable. It's something people care about and it's only something people care about b/c Hasbro/Takara have invested heavily into it to make us care about them. That IP whether it be in the form of a toy, book, character, statue, merchandise is that of Hasbro/Takara's.

For that reason, is there really a valid distinction? And I think not. But as I alluded to above, I suspect as with all geekdoms, we rationalise in order to get what we want. That's why geeks have little credibility on many issues. There's a degree of hypocrisy out there and in my view, that's what I'm trying to illustrate.

When I see what I want, I'm going to take it. If it's against some law, you can bet I'll break it.

This is the view I take now. And whether its legal or ethical it doesn't matter.

[GoktimusPrime]

That would be awesome as the slogan in a Decepticon techspec

Pretty much. This thread has got me thinking that the Decepticon cause is much Consequentialistic; believing that the ends justify the means. Whereas the Autobot cause is more deontological. The moral values of a society greatly vary depending on which society you live in! (e.g. Totalitarianism etc.)

[Bartrim]

Sorry if this has been asked but I've been away for the best part of 2 weeks and can't be arsed reading 12 pages. But what about the argument that things like "City Commander" have increased Hasbro's sales? I mean how many people didn't want a classics Magnus because it was another white Prime repaint? (God knows I was very close to selling mine) Then when news of "City Commander" came out how many people said "Awesome... now only if I had a classics Magnus"?

It's something I've thought about for a while and I would like to hear Hasbros retort.