Sidkit and me, racprops

[philippes]

Not to add any additional fuel to this fire, but I believe a more extensive history might contribute to a better understanding of the issue, regardless of whose "side" the reader eventually takes...

That was a great recap. What a superb historical account. Thanks for that.

My first run-in with Siderio was when he posted an eBay auction for one of those Leon concept pistols I believe he used to sell and cited my Mother's Defender article in his description. That led to an email tirade from Stephen Dane who accused me of stealing his design. I subsequently went off on Stephen, with whom I'd previously had a great relationship, telling him to look more carefully at the auction before shooting off nasty emails. I don't recall if I fired an email to Siderio, but I believe that I did, requesting that he never associate my name with any of his projects in the future. Suffice it to say, I never had a very high opinion of either Siderio or Stephen Dane after that experience.

And in case anyone doesn't know this, I essentially financed the C&S blaster project (in addition to naming the model and creating the logo). I originally contacted Rick Ross first. But when he didn't respond to my email, I turned to Richard, who gladly took up the challenge.

Richard, aren't you glad I got no response from Rick?

Rick later told me he lamented the fact we didn't connect, as he apparently never received my email.

Additionally, the Blade Runner freeware font I created all those years ago has been poached and used by countless BR blaster folks who never even wrote to thank me.

In all seriousness, we're just bootleggers, so no one should be whining or complaining about anything. Otherwise, I'd still be asking for my residual and royalty checks from everyone while complaining that no one's sending me my money...

Phil

 

[defstartrooper]

Hi Rich,

sorry for my part of the trouble in your thread.

Created stuff myself i completly understand your feelings, even when i have a slighly different opinion on some aspects. And i think you understand my point of view that every single one of us draws his lines on the details slighly different - and that you don´t blame me for that, as i don´t blame you for your view that is slighly different from mine.

It´s just that i´m still upset when the herolds of both sides, black and white, come one the field - and start yelling at the opponent side, while stopping to listen. So there is no exchange of ideas, only stupid barking.

Again, sorry.

You're right every individual does draw the line in slightly different places but it's pretty much universally agreed by anyone that has a line that ripping off someone elses work if they have an issue with it is the wrong side of the line wherever that line may fall.

 

[androidandy]

Phil, Wasn't it yours and Craig Kovach's "expensive" gun parts that were used to make these to begin with? I am curious to what Rich paid you for the use and research you did for him. Like you said, you should be at least making some residuals for it, especially since your name is still on it.

Andy

 

[tommin]

And in case anyone doesn't know this, I essentially financed the C&S blaster project (in addition to naming the model and creating the logo). I originally contacted Rick Ross first. But when he didn't respond to my email, I turned to Richard, who gladly took up the challenge.

...and that's a great re-cap! Thanks Phil. This thread has been a great read. It's like coming home.

Not sure about all the intricacies of the 'recasting' subject. I prefer to build or fab things from metal. But as an artist, cutting up two perfectly good guns is a big dealio and admirable for the purpose of offering a superior replica. Based on the info presented, I don't think Sid had to incur those expenses to offer his kit. Must be nice for him.

I am sorry for his passing, if that is the truth. In any event, utilizing the news of his "absence" as a defense does not set well with me. (I'm a casual reader/researcher)

 

[propstuf]

Phil, thanks much for contributing that additional bit of history. I had no idea that you'd essentially financed the production of the C&S Blaster, or that you'd contacted Rick first! (Next time, call me! - I'm kidding...nobody call me!:lol) I hope you feel that my account gave you your due, as BR blaster collectors unquestionably owe you a significant debt.

-Josh

P.S. Next up, my history of Pulse Rifle replicas, starting with SD and Ed M., on through to Jim L., most recently to Matt W., and HCG. Actually, I'm not touching that one, ever (read Phil's website if it is still up)! Everybody have a good night.

 

[racprops]

Andy I think Phil was talking about his Font, not our deal.

We are still friends and we worked out a deal back then and I believe I fulfilled it fully.

I am sure if there was anything left undone, I would hear from Phil personally, not have him call me out here.

Rich

 

[philippes]

Andy I think Phil was talking about his Font, not our deal.

We are still friends and we worked out a deal back then and I believe I fulfilled it fully.

I am sure if there was anything left undone, I would hear from Phil personally, not have him call me out here.

Rich

Richard, you and I are cool. But considering this project still helps put food on your table after over a decade, I'd accept a residual check...just kidding! If I had an issue, I'd contact you privately.

Everyone else, I was just illustrating how we're all sinners (some more than others), and that we're all standing on the shoulders of other great men.

Phil

 

[philippes]

Phil, Wasn't it yours and Craig Kovach's "expensive" gun parts that were used to make these to begin with? I am curious to what Rich paid you for the use and research you did for him. Like you said, you should be at least making some residuals for it, especially since your name is still on it.

Andy

Andy,

Richard and I were well on the way with the C&S project before Craig came along and decided to create the SL-DAPAS. In fact, several parts in his model are metal recasts of C&S components...used with Richard's permission, of course.

If you read my old Blade Runner blaster article, you'll notice that I indicate Craig came along later and pushed us to do even more research to make the C&S blaster better.

Phil

 

[racprops]

I have to say; this has gone far better that I thought it would.

I fully expected to be a ASH by now…

I learned details I did not know about some of the other Blasters, and found support of a (to me) important issue: recasting.

Thanks everyone that took a part in this trip.

Rich

 

[KramStaar]

If I may make a suggestion… I think that this thread should be edited so that it includes only:

1) Rich's opening statement
2) Andy's extremely detailed and knowledgable history
3) Propstuf's brilliant addition and especially level-headed summary
4) Phil S' contributions
5) Rich's closing point.

I believe that without the name calling and petty schoolyard behaviour what resulted here was an excellent compilation and in the above cases, knowledgeable document of this blaster's troubled history. Rich started this thread in order to re-state his strong objections - for newbies - regarding his differences with Sid and in the end, almost everyone here came out enlightened and educated.

Without delving into the complex world of the definition of 'recasting' and the raised tempers that inevitably result, this thread can stand on its own as Rich's permanent platform for his objection. In addition to this, the detailed and informative history contained herein can enlighten any new members who are looking for the answers - without going through yet another tedious war of words..

Kind regards

MARK

 

[racprops]

I kind of agree with this idea, I do think a few of the others viewpoints should be kept as well.

And as my permanent platform/statement that is all well and good, but if these kinds of posts carried forward I don't think this one would have been needed. (For indeed almost all has been said at lease three times before...)

Sadly within a year of two all will be for gotten and some newbe will post his discovery of some great prop he found and it will be a recast model adn we will be off to the races again....

Rich

 

[KramStaar]

Not at all Rich...

You could ask the Mods if they would sticky the modified thread and even if they don't, you could bookmark the thread and simply refer any new batch of questions or hysterics straight back here.

That way you don't need to waste your time and it preserves the nub of your objection as well as a concise history and list of transgressions in a clear and informative manner..

Regards

MARK

 

[racprops]

Good point, I personaly have copy and saved the better part of it myself, for such times.

Rich

 

[Firefoxm31]

I totally second the sticky, there's a lot of explaining to this thread

Will

 

[racprops]

Of a side note and of interest to this:


apollo
Mr. Hankey wannabe posted:

"In the 70's I tried to get a license and his response to me was,"If you are making money, god bless you, you don't need a license. "

To some, He was the great bird, to others...... "


I called the studio back around 1983/4 and asked for the license dept.

And Then I asked them about a license to make Phasers, and was told I don't need no license to do them!!

Years later I thought I had misremembered that, but I have run into a couple of others whom was told the same thing.."We do not license those, go ahead and just do them.

Any others?

Rich

 

[Apollo]

Yeah they did'nt care back then.

How times change! :lol

Of a side note and of interest to this:


apollo
Mr. Hankey wannabe posted:

"In the 70's I tried to get a license and his response to me was,"If you are making money, god bless you, you don't need a license. "

To some, He was the great bird, to others...... "


I called the studio back around 1983/4 and asked for the license dept.

And Then I asked them about a license to make Phasers, and was told I don't need no license to do them!!

Years later I thought I had misremembered that, but I have run into a couple of others whom was told the same thing.."We do not license those, go ahead and just do them.

Any others?

Rich

 

[racprops]

True but I would think we were give a "license" by that very statemant.

Rich

 

[SurferGeek]

While I agree that there are many valuable posts here I disagree with creating a "sticky" post out of it. There are tons of subjects that should or could qualify as candidates for "sticky" status. Eventually the first page would be filled with such threads. Currently there's contests, welcome, party and other threads stuck to the top.

Maybe archiving or creating a subsection to hold informative threads such as this.

 

[rollerboi]

Hm, there used to be an archived section. I wonder where it went.

I disagree with making the mods choose whose words are worthy of archiving and whose aren't. For some, even the negative posts are helpful - they help remind us that there are others who think differently, who disagree, and who support recasting.

 

[Pappy]

apollo
Mr. Hankey wannabe posted:


Any others?

You've made me spilled my coffee sir!:lol