Mr Replacement Parts - Cockpit? Vents?
- Thread starter BrundelFly
- Start date
slave1pilot
Sr Member
I have a question & I'm not trying to start an argument at all.
I really don't understand and I'm just trying to get clarification.
Ready?
Why is this not considered recasting?
I really don't understand and I'm just trying to get clarification.
Ready?
Why is this not considered recasting?
Sweet. Can't wait for the landing gears (hopefully) and lower guns.
fyi. There is a typo at the bottom of the web page.
It should read "Price is for vents ..."
Last edited:
Qrest Fourstar
Sr Member
Paypal sent Frank.
Is not recasting....recasting?
Never knew there were shades of grey in there.
IMHO... you are either recasting someone elses stuff or you are not.
Being a sculptor i know what its like to have my stuff recast. Dont feel very good.
imaginager
Sr Member
Since all of these parts are probably Frank's anyway - as in, he supplied them for the MR Falcon in the first place - I hardly think anyone can consider this recasting. I realize not everyone can participate in every thread, but this isn't new news. Sometimes I think the memories around here are about a week long...
And, not to bring up one of the most fundamental points of the RPF, but... Oh, never mind.
I think this is a great gesture, to offer parts for people who might want to super detail their cockpits, add landing gear, or even correct up some parts. Kudos!
btw, uninformed posts like some of the above go a long way toward killing a kindness. Think about it.
And, not to bring up one of the most fundamental points of the RPF, but... Oh, never mind.
I think this is a great gesture, to offer parts for people who might want to super detail their cockpits, add landing gear, or even correct up some parts. Kudos!
btw, uninformed posts like some of the above go a long way toward killing a kindness. Think about it.
slave1pilot
Sr Member
Welll...
If he did supply them to MR,
Are they not still the property of MR?
And, I don't follow every thread nor every member
I'm far too busy
I really didn't want to start an argument, nor start pointing fingers
I merely wanted to know why this isn't considered recasting
I'm still not clear
perhaps someone more enlightened than myself could help me out.
DARKSIDE72
Sr Member
Since MR no longer has a right to Star Wars I don't see the issue. This is a replica prop forum after all...
Frank is just offering some nice parts, looks to me geared towards the "builder" rather than the MR collector anyway. Nice to see you offering your services again Frank. Nice parts BTW my old friend!
Frank is just offering some nice parts, looks to me geared towards the "builder" rather than the MR collector anyway. Nice to see you offering your services again Frank. Nice parts BTW my old friend!slave1pilot
Sr Member
ohhhhh...
As long as it benefits fellow prop builders, it's ok.
Got It. :thumbsup
As long as it benefits fellow prop builders, it's ok.
Got It. :thumbsup
imaginager
Sr Member
Who exactly do you think is being "robbed" of profit, slave1pilot? It's not as if MR is going to provide any Falcon owners with fixed parts should any damage ever occur. You know, for someone with as many posts as you, and as little time on the board, who claims they don't have time to keep up with all the threads.....you certainly picked a nice one to "stir the pot" in. What board do you think you belong to, anyway? I suppose you don't have a single unlicensed product in your entire collection, right?
I say again, this is exactly the kind of childish behavior that kills a kindness. Frank provides a service for what barely looks like it covers time and materials. It also looks like he plans to offer some goodies that did NOT come with the MR Falcon to accurize or customize it to the owner's liking.
And then there's you...what was it you've done again?
I say again, this is exactly the kind of childish behavior that kills a kindness. Frank provides a service for what barely looks like it covers time and materials. It also looks like he plans to offer some goodies that did NOT come with the MR Falcon to accurize or customize it to the owner's liking.
And then there's you...what was it you've done again?
slave1pilot
Sr Member
Dude,
I don't know you & you really don't know me.
Why are you attacking me? I have no ill-will towards you.
I stand by my statement that I don't have time to follow every thread on this forum.( Do you have any idea how many threads there are?)
I just happened upon this thread and was puzzled.
I didn't say anything about robbing anyone, And I'm not stirring the pot.
BTW-I am fully aware of what forum I'm on. ( the title is at the top of the page, that helps me to remember)
As I said from the beginning, I'm just looking to find out "why".
The Members here never really answered the question ;
"Why is this not considered recasting?"
They just responded with justification as to why it's ok.
Therefore, it appears that it is considered recasting,
but, In this case, it's allowed because prop builders are provided parts that they otherwise do not have.
You called me childish for questioning why? That's ok I've been called worse.
Then you proceed to question my integrity by asking about my "Collection", and asking what "I've done" , as if I have no right to be here because I don't do anything for the members here.
It's all ok man,
I'm not gonna get bent out of shape about it.
Like I said, You really don't know me.
Some people get all bent out of shape when it comes to the distinction between spirit of the law, and letter of the law; they can't handle things which aren't black or white. Unfortunately, this issue requires something other than a reactionary ideolog's barstool take.
Technically, yes, it's absolutely recasting. Something somebody (individual, corporation, whatever) made is being recasted and sold. Letter of the law.
However, the part in question isn't available commercially, never will be, and the offering isn't infringing upon the creator's ability to profit from current or future derivative or similar items, and is thus not in violation of the spirit of the law in regards to recasting. That it is clearly not an especially profitable enterprise lends further weight to the fact that it is simply a convenient and generous offering from a well-respected member.
_Mike
Technically, yes, it's absolutely recasting. Something somebody (individual, corporation, whatever) made is being recasted and sold. Letter of the law.
However, the part in question isn't available commercially, never will be, and the offering isn't infringing upon the creator's ability to profit from current or future derivative or similar items, and is thus not in violation of the spirit of the law in regards to recasting. That it is clearly not an especially profitable enterprise lends further weight to the fact that it is simply a convenient and generous offering from a well-respected member.
_Mike
Last edited:
slave1pilot
Sr Member
Thanks Mike
imaginager
Sr Member
Not to take anything away from Mike's eloquent and succint post (It should be included in the New Members Orientation Packet), but these kinds of explanations have been hashed and rehashed here so many times that posts such as yours, slave1pilot, just come off as trolling to me.
I asked about your collection because I've found that so many people that beat the drum about recasting and license infringement don't seem to understand that they've already supported both of those activities many times over with their own collections. Yet, that never seems to stop them from crusading. I asked if you knew what forum you were on and what you've done because what Mike stated, very respectfully for you, is THE fundamental justification for the existence of the entire Replica Prop Forum. And I was, frankly, staggered that you were ignorant of this fact.
When I wrote:
I was about to launch into the kind of explanation Mike provided you. But, then I thought, this guy is just being obtuse for the sake of stirring trouble, so why bother. Now, perhaps you really did just fall off the turnip truck, so bygones and all that. However, you really should make the effort to educate yourself (try searching for recasting, or ask someone by PM) BEFORE you go posting in a well-respected member's thread. Also, it wouldn't be out of order for you to issue an apology to Frank. Not because you directly accused him of 'robbing', but because you derailed his thread and colored it with a stigma that other members, who might also have chosen not to educate themselves about fundamental board principles, may misunderstand.
And, I apologize to Frank for further derailing his thread. However, I've found that it's better to confront your type of posts head-on than let them go unanswered, which can result in other less-informed members misunderstanding, as well.
I asked about your collection because I've found that so many people that beat the drum about recasting and license infringement don't seem to understand that they've already supported both of those activities many times over with their own collections. Yet, that never seems to stop them from crusading. I asked if you knew what forum you were on and what you've done because what Mike stated, very respectfully for you, is THE fundamental justification for the existence of the entire Replica Prop Forum. And I was, frankly, staggered that you were ignorant of this fact.
When I wrote:
I was about to launch into the kind of explanation Mike provided you. But, then I thought, this guy is just being obtuse for the sake of stirring trouble, so why bother. Now, perhaps you really did just fall off the turnip truck, so bygones and all that. However, you really should make the effort to educate yourself (try searching for recasting, or ask someone by PM) BEFORE you go posting in a well-respected member's thread. Also, it wouldn't be out of order for you to issue an apology to Frank. Not because you directly accused him of 'robbing', but because you derailed his thread and colored it with a stigma that other members, who might also have chosen not to educate themselves about fundamental board principles, may misunderstand.
And, I apologize to Frank for further derailing his thread. However, I've found that it's better to confront your type of posts head-on than let them go unanswered, which can result in other less-informed members misunderstanding, as well.
