fake clack discussion

[P3TC0CK]

If you were OK with Vader caps and the selling of them then you should be OK with what the counterfeiters are doing.

Different things going on...

There's;

1. What these (& other) derps did (in regards to 'scull' caps); created a 'duplicate' mold USING the genuine, related product. Result being a near-exact copy of an identical product (keycap), & even an attempt at color copy. Copying, producing, and selling the 'identical' character/product (CF Skull/keycap) which already exists. Replacing the original artists/company's signature with their own.

Copyright doesn't care what the product is or how you've violated someone's intellectual property. Unless it's protected by fair use, all derivative works are covered by copyright. You can't make anything unless you get explicit permission from the owner to copy that product, whether it be a mug, a statue, or a keycap.

CC violated/ violates copyright willfully, and everyone in this thread acts as if he's any different than the copycats here. He took a previously created character (Darth Vader), put it on his key caps, and then put his own signature on it.

Everyone in this thread is so blinded by their obsession with CC/ novelty keycaps they can't see that. This is a clear cut issue unless CC has gotten explicit permission to do so, it would be impossible to sell his caps under fair use.

If the mods are going to ban/punish people who violate CC's copyright, or Cherry's trademark, why doesn't CC get punished for his continued violation of other's copyright?

2. What Bro Bot did (in regards to BroBot V1); created a mold by re-purposing a completely unrelated* product with minimal sculpting of their own. A toy/figurine re-purposed to create a model, which was used to create the mold, used to create keycaps, a completely unrelated* product to the original toy/figurine. A character/product that did not previously exist in keycap form.

It doesn't matter if it's "unrelated to keyboards", that's not how copyright works. See "fair use" in my previous post as described by the US Government on page 23/ 24 of this thread. He even admitted he was wrong to do so, so there's no reason to argue about the initial run of brobots.

3. What ClackFactory did (in regards to Vader); POSSIBLY SAME AS #2 ABOVE OR, created a mold using an original hand sculpted model, HEAVILY influenced by a completely unrelated* product/character. A character/product that did not previously exist in keycap form.

Heavily influenced? So the fact that CC calls them Vaders, the fact that they look EXACTLY like Darth Vader, isn't enough for you to understand that they are a clear rip-off of Star Wars IP?

Lets say I took Mickey Mouse, made a character "Heavily influenced" by him, called him Mickey, and put him on a product Disney hasn't created before. No one in their right mind would think I'm protected and Disney would sue me into oblivion if I became known to them and ignored their C&D letters.

*unrelated to keyboards

Just because a company doesn't make a product doesn't mean they can't protect their copyright. Copyright protects all derivative works unless under fair use. Whether you're making a Darth Vader toilet scrubber or key cap is irrelevant to the argument.

Of course this is my own interpretation & thoughts on postings I've seen on this forum. Things get even more cloudy if you bring other things into it.

I don't think you have even a superficial understanding of how copyright works and most of the people on this thread don't either. I'm not saying I'm a copyright lawyer, but just reading the rules of what constitutes fair use under copyright it is clear that CC has no ground to talk about counterfeiters.

[Halverson]

He still has a better website than CC though...

Ohhh, harsh!

[madhias]

[noisyturtle]

Show Image

HA! This just made my night. Awesome :)

[StylinGreymon]

Show Image

So that's what was in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction...

[VesperSAINT]

Show Image

So that's what was in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction...

[StylinGreymon]

Oh god  )

[VesperSAINT]

In all seriousness though, I really hope this gets taken care of and dealt with. To think CC only just came back after having to deal with the last event... he really doesn't need this.

[Grim Fandango]

In all seriousness though, I really hope this gets taken care of and dealt with. To think CC only just came back after having to deal with the last event... he really doesn't need this.

Agreed. I know people are having all sorts of complicated discussions about this. But at least I think we can all agree that it is simply a ****ty thing to do.

[Mooby]

If you were OK with Vader caps and the selling of them then you should be OK with what the counterfeiters are doing.

Different things going on...

There's;

1. What these (& other) derps did (in regards to 'scull' caps); created a 'duplicate' mold USING the genuine, related product. Result being a near-exact copy of an identical product (keycap), & even an attempt at color copy. Copying, producing, and selling the 'identical' character/product (CF Skull/keycap) which already exists. Replacing the original artists/company's signature with their own.

Copyright doesn't care what the product is or how you've violated someone's intellectual property. Unless it's protected by fair use, all derivative works are covered by copyright. You can't make anything unless you get explicit permission from the owner to copy that product, whether it be a mug, a statue, or a keycap.

CC violated/ violates copyright willfully, and everyone in this thread acts as if he's any different than the copycats here. He took a previously created character (Darth Vader), put it on his key caps, and then put his own signature on it.

Everyone in this thread is so blinded by their obsession with CC/ novelty keycaps they can't see that. This is a clear cut issue unless CC has gotten explicit permission to do so, it would be impossible to sell his caps under fair use.

If the mods are going to ban/punish people who violate CC's copyright, or Cherry's trademark, why doesn't CC get punished for his continued violation of other's copyright?

2. What Bro Bot did (in regards to BroBot V1); created a mold by re-purposing a completely unrelated* product with minimal sculpting of their own. A toy/figurine re-purposed to create a model, which was used to create the mold, used to create keycaps, a completely unrelated* product to the original toy/figurine. A character/product that did not previously exist in keycap form.

It doesn't matter if it's "unrelated to keyboards", that's not how copyright works. See "fair use" in my previous post as described by the US Government on page 23/ 24 of this thread. He even admitted he was wrong to do so, so there's no reason to argue about the initial run of brobots.

3. What ClackFactory did (in regards to Vader); POSSIBLY SAME AS #2 ABOVE OR, created a mold using an original hand sculpted model, HEAVILY influenced by a completely unrelated* product/character. A character/product that did not previously exist in keycap form.

Heavily influenced? So the fact that CC calls them Vaders, the fact that they look EXACTLY like Darth Vader, isn't enough for you to understand that they are a clear rip-off of Star Wars IP?

Lets say I took Mickey Mouse, made a character "Heavily influenced" by him, called him Mickey, and put him on a product Disney hasn't created before. No one in their right mind would think I'm protected and Disney would sue me into oblivion if I became known to them and ignored their C&D letters.

*unrelated to keyboards

Just because a company doesn't make a product doesn't mean they can't protect their copyright. Copyright protects all derivative works unless under fair use. Whether you're making a Darth Vader toilet scrubber or key cap is irrelevant to the argument.

Of course this is my own interpretation & thoughts on postings I've seen on this forum. Things get even more cloudy if you bring other things into it.

I don't think you have even a superficial understanding of how copyright works and most of the people on this thread don't either. I'm not saying I'm a copyright lawyer, but just reading the rules of what constitutes fair use under copyright it is clear that CC has no ground to talk about counterfeiters.

It's ok to **** on other's copyrights as long as this doesn't hurt Geekhacks keycap economy. Simple rule.

[baldgye]

Mooby, you can infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like, long as you don't get caught. I'm pretty sure good ol'George could - if he know/cared - shut down CC's or anyone else's StarWars caps. But he didn't, and so they stand. It's simple enough to follow.

[Mooby]

Mooby, you can infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like, long as you don't get caught. I'm pretty sure good ol'George could - if he know/cared - shut down CC's or anyone else's StarWars caps. But he didn't, and so they stand. It's simple enough to follow.

I was referring to the moral standpoint as our community sometimes develops a blind spot regarding this topic.

[P3TC0CK]

Mooby, you can infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like, long as you don't get caught. I'm pretty sure good ol'George could - if he know/cared - shut down CC's or anyone else's StarWars caps. But he didn't, and so they stand. It's simple enough to follow.

I don't think George Lucas holds the copy right anymore, Disney does. As for whether you can "infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like" is like saying "you can shop lift as much as you like, long as you don't get caught". It's still an illegal action, and there are no questions it's morally wrong if you consider IP theft a morally wrong thing.

 Just because you don't get caught shop lifting doesn't mean what you're doing is fine.

A lot of people infringe others copyrights, that doesn't make it OK because the company has yet to take action against them.

It's clear CC is fine with stealing other people's IP, so it would stand that he should be OK with other's stealing his. I think that's simple enough to follow don't you think?

I was referring to the moral standpoint as our community sometimes develops a blind spot regarding this topic.

It's pretty ridiculous. Seeing as what I've gleamed from reading past threads a lot of people here including the administration are committed to respecting trademarks, copyright, etc but when it comes to issues like these it's fine. CC counterfeiters are banned but it's fine that novelty keycap makers are violating copyright.

[dustinhxc]

Show Image

So that's what was in the suitcase in Pulp Fiction...

Show Image

"Does Marsalis Wallace look like a *****?!"


Ey man, may I interest you in some clack reps? ****ing street hawks.

These ****ing guys.. 

[dustinhxc]

Mooby, you can infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like, long as you don't get caught. I'm pretty sure good ol'George could - if he know/cared - shut down CC's or anyone else's StarWars caps. But he didn't, and so they stand. It's simple enough to follow.

I don't think George Lucas holds the copy right anymore, Disney does. As for whether you can "infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like" is like saying "you can shop lift as much as you like, long as you don't get caught". It's still an illegal action, and there are no questions it's morally wrong if you consider IP theft a morally wrong thing.

 Just because you don't get caught shop lifting doesn't mean what you're doing is fine.

A lot of people infringe others copyrights, that doesn't make it OK because the company has yet to take action against them.

It's clear CC is fine with stealing other people's IP, so it would stand that he should be OK with other's stealing his. I think that's simple enough to follow don't you think?

I was referring to the moral standpoint as our community sometimes develops a blind spot regarding this topic.

It's pretty ridiculous. Seeing as what I've gleamed from reading past threads a lot of people here including the administration are committed to respecting trademarks, copyright, etc but when it comes to issues like these it's fine. CC counterfeiters are banned but it's fine that novelty keycap makers are violating copyright.

Did Disney make topre or mx key caps?  Different story man. These guys are copying a keycap design. Get the hell out of here.

[bueller]

Has Clack actually ever charged for the Vader caps? If not then he's free to make as many as he damn well pleases.

[P3TC0CK]

Did Disney make topre or mx key caps?  Different story man. These guys are copying a keycap design. Get the hell out of here.

That's not how copyright works. Just because you did not make a product does not mean you lose your ability to do so. The Vader Idea/concept is protected under copyright meaning what CC is doing in producing them is violating someone else's copyright. That means any products that use that image, regardless if they produced a keycap, is protected by copyright.

You are wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to copyright if you think you can that his keycaps are in the clear.

[demik]

Mooby, you can infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like, long as you don't get caught. I'm pretty sure good ol'George could - if he know/cared - shut down CC's or anyone else's StarWars caps. But he didn't, and so they stand. It's simple enough to follow.

I don't think George Lucas holds the copy right anymore, Disney does. As for whether you can "infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like" is like saying "you can shop lift as much as you like, long as you don't get caught". It's still an illegal action, and there are no questions it's morally wrong if you consider IP theft a morally wrong thing.

 Just because you don't get caught shop lifting doesn't mean what you're doing is fine.

A lot of people infringe others copyrights, that doesn't make it OK because the company has yet to take action against them.

It's clear CC is fine with stealing other people's IP, so it would stand that he should be OK with other's stealing his. I think that's simple enough to follow don't you think?

I was referring to the moral standpoint as our community sometimes develops a blind spot regarding this topic.

It's pretty ridiculous. Seeing as what I've gleamed from reading past threads a lot of people here including the administration are committed to respecting trademarks, copyright, etc but when it comes to issues like these it's fine. CC counterfeiters are banned but it's fine that novelty keycap makers are violating copyright.

Did Disney make topre or mx key caps?  Different story man. These guys are copying a keycap design. Get the hell out of here.

Lol what

[Candyflip]

Has Clack actually ever charged for the Vader caps? If not then he's free to make as many as he damn well pleases.

Yes he did around $50 I believe..

[Grim Fandango]

Let's not blow it out of proportion. The keycaps we are talking about, and the ones that Clackfactory mainly sells are his own creation.

Even if we agree that keycapmakers have been wrong when making derivative work without authorization, then that does not mean that someone else is not wrong when they make a similar mistake. Also, subjectively and personally (not legally or theoretically) I felt that making keycaps using images and characters that are trademarked was relatively harmless. Not in the broad, general sense, since god knows how many people make money of these IP's with unlicensed products, but in the context of making a few artisan keycaps and selling them on Geekhack.  In comparison, making an exact copy of an exact product that will actually hurt the original creator of the product feels more harmful, more unfair, and more like imitation for the sole reason to make a quick buck from someone else's work.

I know, who gives a **** about how you feel about something right? But since we always use our own subjective judgment when deciding what is ok and what is not ok on this forum in any other situation (for better or for worse) I will do the same thing here instead of attempting to fulfill the role of some sort of improvised forum supreme court without any legal training.

Though even if you do consider the law in this case, I would think that you would have to at least consider fair use. Things might not be as black and white as people claim. I admit I know very little about it. But it is not like it truly does not matter whether you make a new work using the shape or image from a trademarked character or whether you make a direct copy of something. Law, in most developed countries, is not completely without nuance. People imply it is the same thing, but it does not seem to be. Perhaps the most important thing is that in fair use, a subjective sense of right and wrong is used and it is decided on for each individual case. Someone making a few novelty keycaps? Not so sure what would happen. And I say that knowing that whether or not Disney sells keycaps does not matter, and what matters is how the potential of the market is diminished. Indeed, their intention to sell keycaps is irrelevant. Even then, there are other factors that are of importance.

Not that I personally need a book to tell me what is right and wrong. And what I need even less is some vague idea of the content of a book. That does not sound like something I would use as a moral or a legal compass.

[Mooby]

The reactions on P3TC0CK's last post tell me the book you mentioned would be quite useful.

[baldgye]

Mooby, you can infringe on people's copyrights as much as you like, long as you don't get caught. I'm pretty sure good ol'George could - if he know/cared - shut down CC's or anyone else's StarWars caps. But he didn't, and so they stand. It's simple enough to follow.

I don't think George Lucas holds the copy right anymore, Disney does.

Thanks for playing!

[Fire Brand]

Did Disney make topre or mx key caps?  Different story man. These guys are copying a keycap design. Get the hell out of here.

Lol what

I agree with this last comment  right to the point really

I think this will always be a grey area, my thoughts are I don't like them getting copied but what can you do, I think he should follow through on the copyright and stop them being sold/made but I just hope it does not get stung if the vader key gets brought up down the line.

[riotonthebay]

Why are we talking about copyright when everyone actually frustrated wants people to just act decently? "Go read a book about copyright and then come complain about CC fakes." *whoosh* and the entire point of this discussion goes over someone's head. To make it more clear:

This is not a community of copyright enthusiasts. Right now it's largely a community of folks frustrated that one of their members is being exploited. And while I believe it's safe to say that Disney has little chance of being inflicted with measurable harm by a Vader cap, identical products have a very real chance of harming CC. (And Bro Caps if the guy goes after those as well.)

So when anyone says "copyright infringement," what they really mean is "decency infringement." Frankly I care about that last one a whole lot more.

[SpAmRaY]

I think all the artisan cap makers should just STOP making caps then see what people think about it.

Why are we talking about copyright when everyone actually frustrated wants people to just act decently? "Go read a book about copyright and then come complain about CC fakes." *whoosh* and the entire point of this discussion goes over someone's head. To make it more clear:

This is not a community of copyright enthusiasts. Right now it's largely a community of folks frustrated that one of their members is being exploited. And while I believe it's safe to say that Disney has little chance of being inflicted with measurable harm by a Vader cap, identical products have a very real chance of harming CC. (And Bro Caps if the guy goes after those as well.)

So when anyone says "copyright infringement," what they really mean is "decency infringement." Frankly I care about that last one a whole lot more.

keyword = community 

[JinDesu]

Why are we talking about copyright when everyone actually frustrated wants people to just act decently? "Go read a book about copyright and then come complain about CC fakes." *whoosh* and the entire point of this discussion goes over someone's head. To make it more clear:

This is not a community of copyright enthusiasts. Right now it's largely a community of folks frustrated that one of their members is being exploited. And while I believe it's safe to say that Disney has little chance of being inflicted with measurable harm by a Vader cap, identical products have a very real chance of harming CC. (And Bro Caps if the guy goes after those as well.)

So when anyone says "copyright infringement," what they really mean is "decency infringement." Frankly I care about that last one a whole lot more.

Well I think the whole discussion came up when people were saying that CC should invoke copyright infringement. If it's about decency/protecting artisans from this forums, that's fine - call it what it is. Call for a forum-wide embargo on the fake clacks, and spread the word. But mention copyright infringement, and you will get this turn-about discussion.

I think all the artisan cap makers should just STOP making caps then see what people think about it.

Then suddenly fake clacks become more popular lol

[Xowie]

NOTE:Here is my devil's advocate/argumentative reply. I actually basically agree with you, but I find this to be an interesting discussion.

Why are we talking about copyright when everyone actually frustrated wants people to just act decently? "Go read a book about copyright and then come complain about CC fakes." *whoosh* and the entire point of this discussion goes over someone's head. To make it more clear:

I *think* some people think that it is hard to claim the moral high road on something that originally was possibly not too moral to begin with.

And while I believe it's safe to say that Disney has little chance of being inflicted with measurable harm by a Vader cap, identical products have a very real chance of harming CC. (And Bro Caps if the guy goes after those as well.)

I think that this is an interesting comment for a couple points. The first is that it seems to imply the morality of the situation is dictated by the impact. The second is that there would be more impact to CC than Disney. It is not clear to me that CC will have trouble selling his clacks with the addition of these fakes.

So when anyone says "copyright infringement," what they really mean is "decency infringement." Frankly I care about that last one a whole lot more.

I mean if K3, said he was just doing it to learn about the Cap making process, would everything be cool?

Q: Was V1 just an Optimus Prime head on a cap?
A: Yes, yes it was. The purpose behind that, was a learning one. To understand how the manufacturing process works, to know how different plastics and materials interact to gain the desired effect. I had no plans to go further than this purpose, and I have learned and grown much from the experience.

Again, this post is purposefully contrary. I personally think it is a shame that CC and perhaps Bro have to go through all of this hassle for a hobby that benefits the GH community.

[redskull]

i think the 'community' has some share of blame as well. its one thing if an unknown noob lurker won a cap and wants to flip it x10 the original price, its that the regulars that keep on insisting the 'exclusivity' and 'value' of the said caps at those insane prices that keep things going like it is. how can someone that has never gotten into mechanical keyboards stuff has the balls to demand $200-$300 for a cap? where did he/she get the idea that the piece of plastic he/she WON OUT OF LUCK can be worth that much?

the 'community' needs to man up, make clear notice of the original prices of artisan caps and not let sellers sell them inflated. never recommend and confirm stupid price hikes. decency? walk the talk.

[JinDesu]

i think the 'community' has some share of blame as well. its one thing if an unknown noob lurker won a cap and wants to flip it x10 the original price, its that the regulars that keep on insisting the 'exclusivity' and 'value' of the said caps at those insane prices that keep things going like it is. how can someone that has never gotten into mechanical keyboards stuff has the balls to demand $200-$300 for a cap? where did he/she get the idea that the piece of plastic he/she WON OUT OF LUCK can be worth that much?

the 'community' needs to man up, make clear notice of the original prices of artisan caps and not let sellers sell them inflated. never recommend and confirm stupid price hikes. decency? walk the talk.

I don't think you can stop people bring selling them inflated. You can "not recommend" and "confirm" the prices, but if someone wants a cap and wants to throw a ****load of money at it, you can't stop someone from pricing it in that range.

That being said, I'll never spend the extreme amounts on the artisan caps, and if I sell the ones I have I would price them at what I got them for.

[Rewind]

I think this issue can be compared to movie/software piracy. The only reason I pirate movies is because paying for a movie requires much more effort, I'll either have to go to the movie theater or rent it. Netflix has become a kind of solution, but I still pirate everything I want to see that is not on Netflix.

I never pirate games anymore as everything I desire is available on Steam. I think a lot of people are with me on this. Actually buying the games on steam is easier and a better experience overall - plus you're actually supporting the people who are responsible for your entertainment.

There is more demand than supply. While it is ****ty, I understand why someone would start and supply "fakes".

Personally I'm not interested in fake clacks at all. Mostly because it's awful for the original cap makers. If there was a way for them to supply more, I'm sure less people would be interested in fakes. Keep in mind that when there is enough supply, they will no longer be as exclusive and people would probably lose interest overall. There has to be a balance for it to work.

[redskull]

i think the 'community' has some share of blame as well. its one thing if an unknown noob lurker won a cap and wants to flip it x10 the original price, its that the regulars that keep on insisting the 'exclusivity' and 'value' of the said caps at those insane prices that keep things going like it is. how can someone that has never gotten into mechanical keyboards stuff has the balls to demand $200-$300 for a cap? where did he/she get the idea that the piece of plastic he/she WON OUT OF LUCK can be worth that much?

the 'community' needs to man up, make clear notice of the original prices of artisan caps and not let sellers sell them inflated. never recommend and confirm stupid price hikes. decency? walk the talk.

I don't think you can stop people bring selling them inflated. You can "not recommend" and "confirm" the prices, but if someone wants a cap and wants to throw a ****load of money at it, you can't stop someone from pricing it in that range.

That being said, I'll never spend the extreme amounts on the artisan caps, and if I sell the ones I have I would price them at what I got them for.

this my point exactly. congrats on not supporting insane price hikes, but if we keep on 'insisting' on the high prices, someone else somewhere would 'insist' to justify them copying instead of buying. most of these caps are bought at sales, hence their original prices. so it means, somewhere down the chain, someone decided to jack it up, knowing that they can do since not only the caps are very wanted, but there are some regulars that are willing to throw the money and keep on recommending the said hiked price.

as an example, the nightowl CC was on sale from EK at below $50. after that, none is made anymore, it gets rare. yes, since its rare, the price can go up, but why keep on insisting in the clack valuation thread that the cap is at $200? now, that someone with very little need and desire for it, that WON IT OUT OF LUCK, can go pm people looking for it and demand that price.

[HoffmanMyster]

I think this issue can be compared to movie/software piracy. The only reason I pirate movies is because paying for a movie requires much more effort, I'll either have to go to the movie theater or rent it. Netflix has become a kind of solution, but I still pirate everything I want to see that is not on Netflix.

I never pirate games anymore as everything I desire is available on Steam. I think a lot of people are with me on this. Actually buying the games on steam is easier and a better experience overall - plus you're actually supporting the people who are responsible for your entertainment.

There is more demand than supply. While it is ****ty, I understand why someone would start and supply "fakes".

Personally I'm not interested in fake clacks at all. Mostly because it's awful for the original cap makers. If there was a way for them to supply more, I'm sure less people would be interested in fakes. Keep in mind that when there is enough supply, they will no longer be as exclusive and people would probably lose interest overall. There has to be a balance for it to work.

Really though?  I mean, it's like if your buddy records an album and you pirate it.  That's just insulting.

[eth0s]

Guys, FYI: I invented saying "lol" on the internet.  I have the copyright, but I'm a generous person, so I let it slide when people use my creation.  I just wish I could get a little attribution.

Same thing goes with Disney and the Darth Vader copyright:  they don't want to crack down on an enthusiastic fan for promoting their character.  CC is not cutting into Disney's profit margin, so they don't care.  Also, CC may have an argument that what he's doing is a "parody", which is okay under copyright law, especially the red Vaders.  However, even though I'm sure Disney doesn't give a rat's @ss about CC and his Vader caps, they are worried about losing their copyright, and if they let too many people use it for free, the copyright can actually become part of the public domain, which would hurt their profit margin quite a bit.  So they have to walk a fine line between and losing their copyright protection, but still allowing avid Star Wars (c) fans to continue to be enthusiastic about the Star Wars (c) franchise, which means that they have to allow a certain amount of fan-created items, and even fan fiction.  This in the end helps Disney make even more money by selling more licensed Star Wars (c) merchandise and selling more tickets to the movies.  Lego recently had a similar internal debate, and has recently decided to embrace their fans and their fan-created items, rather than suing them, as they did in the past.

As for CC making Vaders, like I said before, he would probably argue that he made them for his friends as a "parody", which is perfectly legal.  As for CC trying to protect his own copyright, that is also perfectly understandable and totally correct.  CC's caps are distinctive and well-known, which is exactly the type of thing copyright law was invented to protect. 

And finally, please don't feel sorry for Disney or George Lucas.  Please remember that Walt Disney was a virulent anti-semite, a racist, and a Nazi sympathizer before WWII (this is all true, look it up).  And as for George Lucas, he stole the idea for his original 1977 Star Wars IV:  A New Hope  from an Akira Kurosawa samurai movie called: The Hidden Fortress.  Lucas did not steal the entire Kurosawa movie, but he did lift a lot of material including the two comedic servants which became the droids.  Other parts of his movie were lifted from other movies, he was like the original Quentin Tarantino.

[Lurch]

I think this issue can be compared to movie/software piracy. The only reason I pirate movies is because paying for a movie requires much more effort, I'll either have to go to the movie theater or rent it. Netflix has become a kind of solution, but I still pirate everything I want to see that is not on Netflix.

I never pirate games anymore as everything I desire is available on Steam. I think a lot of people are with me on this. Actually buying the games on steam is easier and a better experience overall - plus you're actually supporting the people who are responsible for your entertainment.

There is more demand than supply. While it is ****ty, I understand why someone would start and supply "fakes".

Personally I'm not interested in fake clacks at all. Mostly because it's awful for the original cap makers. If there was a way for them to supply more, I'm sure less people would be interested in fakes. Keep in mind that when there is enough supply, they will no longer be as exclusive and people would probably lose interest overall. There has to be a balance for it to work.

Really though?  I mean, it's like if your buddy records an album and you pirate it.  That's just insulting.

This.

[Rewind]

I think this issue can be compared to movie/software piracy. The only reason I pirate movies is because paying for a movie requires much more effort, I'll either have to go to the movie theater or rent it. Netflix has become a kind of solution, but I still pirate everything I want to see that is not on Netflix.

I never pirate games anymore as everything I desire is available on Steam. I think a lot of people are with me on this. Actually buying the games on steam is easier and a better experience overall - plus you're actually supporting the people who are responsible for your entertainment.

There is more demand than supply. While it is ****ty, I understand why someone would start and supply "fakes".

Personally I'm not interested in fake clacks at all. Mostly because it's awful for the original cap makers. If there was a way for them to supply more, I'm sure less people would be interested in fakes. Keep in mind that when there is enough supply, they will no longer be as exclusive and people would probably lose interest overall. There has to be a balance for it to work.

Really though?  I mean, it's like if your buddy records an album and you pirate it.  That's just insulting.

Personally I'm not interested in fake clacks at all. Mostly because it's awful for the original cap makers.

While I understand where you coming from, I think there has to be an "easy" way to support the creator, otherwise people will just be lazy. It's not so much about the money, more about the convenience.

Look at iTunes, Netflix, Steam. They are successful, people ARE willing to spend money, but it has to be convenient.

If my buddy has recorded an album and only released it on CD and vinyl, I would buy the vinyl and pirate the digital files.

EDIT:

More

Great timing!... new Rustie album just came in!! yeaahh

[IvanIvanovich]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

[Binge]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

[JinDesu]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

[ApocalypseMaow]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

Show Image

Aye!!!

[JinDesu]

Eyepatch has to be part of the key though. Not painted on.

[SpAmRaY]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

DO IT BINGE, then auction if off and put the money towards a good cause.

[Binge]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

DO IT BINGE, then auction if off and put the money towards a good cause.

Or I could give it away and ask the owner to put the money towards a cause they believe in.

[SpAmRaY]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

DO IT BINGE, then auction if off and put the money towards a good cause.

Or I could give it away and ask the owner to put the money towards a cause they believe in.

[Puddsy]

As of right now, CC has my yesterday's work.

I hereby remove myself from this matter.

[HoffmanMyster]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

DO IT BINGE, then auction if off and put the money towards a good cause.

Or I could give it away and ask the owner to put the money towards a cause they believe in.

I will shoulder this burden.

[esoomenona]

A little birdy told me our new favorite keymaker is on the job.



16.16.16!

[demik]

That dude is putting them out in large numbers.

Hired himself some mexican gnomes probably.

See CC, you need mexicans to keep everybody happy!

[Lu_e]

Why are we talking about copyright when everyone actually frustrated wants people to just act decently? "Go read a book about copyright and then come complain about CC fakes." *whoosh* and the entire point of this discussion goes over someone's head. To make it more clear:

This is not a community of copyright enthusiasts. Right now it's largely a community of folks frustrated that one of their members is being exploited. And while I believe it's safe to say that Disney has little chance of being inflicted with measurable harm by a Vader cap, identical products have a very real chance of harming CC. (And Bro Caps if the guy goes after those as well.)

So when anyone says "copyright infringement," what they really mean is "decency infringement." Frankly I care about that last one a whole lot more.

Exactly. Obviously im wasting my time trying to explain morals and having a conscious to copyright law enthusiasts. But if we're doing that; I believe CF has never called the keycap 'vader'. For the record I dont really care about what Bro and CF did (bbv1 & 'vader'), as the product/character never existed before in keycap form.

P3TCOCK, I realize the term 'unrelated product' means near nothing in terms of copyright. But it does mean something in relation to outright copying an existing product, using the existing product as an aid in creation, and selling to the same demographic or market.

Edit; its even more than an 'aid'... If done well it could be an EXACT copy. Im sure theres some fancy term im missing for creating a copy mold using a genuine product.

Theres also the possibility this guy is so accustomed to 'asian counterfeiting' , he believes he is doing nothing wrong as hes said "i just like keycap, i could not buy, so i create for myself". This would probably be fine if it was only for himself, but he is SELLING them. Idiot possibly doesn't have the conscious to know how wrong this is. Especially replacing the signature underneath the keycap.

Or hes just playing dumb.

[MJ45]

I still think it would be baller for someone to make fakes but add an eye patch. Making them in other profiles besides OEM would also be a good move.

*opinion expressed is personal does not reflect in anyway the stance or polices of GH.

Dude that would be a parody and entirely cool IMO.

DO IT BINGE, then auction if off and put the money towards a good cause.

Or I could give it away and ask the owner to put the money towards a cause they believe in.

(Attachment Link)

I don't see any problem with fakes as long as that's what they are sold and marked as. To me they are art like paintings, sculpture, etc. that get reproduced. I think the "Originals" will still be as desirable and valuable as ever (maybe more so) to serious keyboard collectors and connoisseurs. That is how I feel about it and I would rather use a fake "CC" as a esc on my daily driver than wear out a genuine (I press esc a lot). CC's are art and Great work's of art are often imitated duplicated but known to be fake IMHO.

[domoaligato]

It is Contraband plain and simple.