The Soapbox XII: The Convenient Truth

[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).

[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]

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.

[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.