[CUSTOM] not-Hasbro
Posted by RedAleseides
| March 21, 2012 11:20AM |
| March 21, 2012 02:17PM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> I apologise if that seemed like an unwarranted ad
> hominem, but unfortunately in my experience in
> most copyright-related discussions someone will
> bring up this point and suggest that if a judge in
> country X (where X is usually the US, sometimes
> the UK, and more rarely others) it should also
> apply to other countries.
Well, it's important to note that international rulings DO affect other countries with sympathetic legal frameworks, as a general guideline that judges may consider... the American political right may want American courts to be thoroughly blind to rulings from Canadian or European courts, but they can't effectively prevent it.
This discussion is only moot for as long as there is no legal action being taken, so I don't think there's a problem with discussing it in terms of the law of one country or another, so long as it's clear which country's law is being considered in any individual statements.
> The point I was trying to make is that a court
> case might result in a product ban only in a
> certain geographic area.
Well, yes, that's always the case. It really depends, though, what countries the producers of these items are in - are they entirely in China, or are they only manufacturing there, and running their business from Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or somewhere else? Do they only import into the United States through independent retailers, or do they have a warehouse (or just someone's basement) in California that could place them under U.S. jurisdiction? All this not only determines whether the sale of these products could be stopped, but what punitive actions could be taken. If they've placed any substantial portion of their business in a jurisdiction which, unlike China, favors the enforcement of copyright, they could open themselves up to financial damages.
> But copyright experts are rather strict
> in deciding what is allowed and what isn't because
> being too lax would open the door to mass-sueing
> and endless court battles. Let's have a look at
> super heroes: How many of them are rather similar
> and inspired by each other? Making a point of that
> would surely kill the industry faster than it is
> currently doing.
Ah, yes, but if you examine the Medieval Spawn / Dark Ages Spawn case (and thanks to Ken A. for reminding us of that) you'll see that there is precedent in American law for drawing an infringing correlation between two characters that's about as close as these not-Devastators are to Devastator. There have been other such cases in the comics industry (though not many are actually litigated); for example, Rob Liefeld's attempt to publish his "Agent America" character, followed by his purchasing and revamping of the Fighting American character, which Marvel forced him to revise further.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> I apologise if that seemed like an unwarranted ad
> hominem, but unfortunately in my experience in
> most copyright-related discussions someone will
> bring up this point and suggest that if a judge in
> country X (where X is usually the US, sometimes
> the UK, and more rarely others) it should also
> apply to other countries.
Well, it's important to note that international rulings DO affect other countries with sympathetic legal frameworks, as a general guideline that judges may consider... the American political right may want American courts to be thoroughly blind to rulings from Canadian or European courts, but they can't effectively prevent it.
This discussion is only moot for as long as there is no legal action being taken, so I don't think there's a problem with discussing it in terms of the law of one country or another, so long as it's clear which country's law is being considered in any individual statements.
> The point I was trying to make is that a court
> case might result in a product ban only in a
> certain geographic area.
Well, yes, that's always the case. It really depends, though, what countries the producers of these items are in - are they entirely in China, or are they only manufacturing there, and running their business from Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or somewhere else? Do they only import into the United States through independent retailers, or do they have a warehouse (or just someone's basement) in California that could place them under U.S. jurisdiction? All this not only determines whether the sale of these products could be stopped, but what punitive actions could be taken. If they've placed any substantial portion of their business in a jurisdiction which, unlike China, favors the enforcement of copyright, they could open themselves up to financial damages.
> But copyright experts are rather strict
> in deciding what is allowed and what isn't because
> being too lax would open the door to mass-sueing
> and endless court battles. Let's have a look at
> super heroes: How many of them are rather similar
> and inspired by each other? Making a point of that
> would surely kill the industry faster than it is
> currently doing.
Ah, yes, but if you examine the Medieval Spawn / Dark Ages Spawn case (and thanks to Ken A. for reminding us of that) you'll see that there is precedent in American law for drawing an infringing correlation between two characters that's about as close as these not-Devastators are to Devastator. There have been other such cases in the comics industry (though not many are actually litigated); for example, Rob Liefeld's attempt to publish his "Agent America" character, followed by his purchasing and revamping of the Fighting American character, which Marvel forced him to revise further.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| March 21, 2012 04:02PM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
<snip>
>
> > The point I was trying to make is that a court
> > case might result in a product ban only in a
> > certain geographic area.
>
> Well, yes, that's always the case. It really
> depends, though, what countries the producers of
> these items are in - are they entirely in China,
> or are they only manufacturing there, and running
> their business from Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or
> somewhere else?
Nitpick: Hong Kong and Taiwan both are part of China.
I think it is quite telling that even companies that have Hong Kong branches (e.g. Bandai) seem quite incapable of stemming the flow of bootlegs from HK/China. One problem seems to be that some bootleg items are actually items from the official factories that didn't pass QC.
Do they only import into the
> United States through independent retailers, or do
> they have a warehouse (or just someone's basement)
> in California that could place them under U.S.
> jurisdiction? All this not only determines whether
> the sale of these products could be stopped, but
> what punitive actions could be taken. If they've
> placed any substantial portion of their business
> in a jurisdiction which, unlike China, favors the
> enforcement of copyright, they could open
> themselves up to financial damages.
Yes, but unless they actually have bank accounts in the US or the US branch is directly related to the mother company I doubt a conviction will do more than kill the US branch. AFAIK they will have to sue the legal representative of the company in each country separately to get a complete ban.
Another option would be trying to obtain an import ban in different countries, but that might require that the third-party products are actually counterfeit (i.e. imitation of actual HasTak items, not original designs).
> > But copyright experts are rather strict
> > in deciding what is allowed and what isn't
> because
> > being too lax would open the door to
> mass-sueing
> > and endless court battles. Let's have a look at
> > super heroes: How many of them are rather
> similar
> > and inspired by each other? Making a point of
> that
> > would surely kill the industry faster than it
> is
> > currently doing.
>
> Ah, yes, but if you examine the Medieval Spawn /
> Dark Ages Spawn case (and thanks to Ken A. for
> reminding us of that) you'll see that there is
> precedent in American law for drawing an
> infringing correlation between two characters
> that's about as close as these not-Devastators are
> to Devastator. There have been other such cases in
> the comics industry (though not many are actually
> litigated); for example, Rob Liefeld's attempt to
> publish his "Agent America" character, followed by
> his purchasing and revamping of the Fighting
> American character, which Marvel forced him to
> revise further.
In that case it is likely that in the US HasTak could win a court case regarding character infringement. It also depends on whether the third-party manufacturer itself actually says "This is Devastator.", or whether it is the fans that say "This toy by third-party company X is Devastator.". The latter will probably be chucked out in court.
Whether a court ruling on character likeness would make the actual toy illegal I don't know: although the color scheme and general looks are that of Devastator, the transformations and details are original. This is important because it also explains why a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an infringement of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both looking very similar.
-------------------------------------------------------
> thomas Wrote:
<snip>
>
> > The point I was trying to make is that a court
> > case might result in a product ban only in a
> > certain geographic area.
>
> Well, yes, that's always the case. It really
> depends, though, what countries the producers of
> these items are in - are they entirely in China,
> or are they only manufacturing there, and running
> their business from Hong Kong, or Taiwan, or
> somewhere else?
Nitpick: Hong Kong and Taiwan both are part of China.
I think it is quite telling that even companies that have Hong Kong branches (e.g. Bandai) seem quite incapable of stemming the flow of bootlegs from HK/China. One problem seems to be that some bootleg items are actually items from the official factories that didn't pass QC.
Do they only import into the
> United States through independent retailers, or do
> they have a warehouse (or just someone's basement)
> in California that could place them under U.S.
> jurisdiction? All this not only determines whether
> the sale of these products could be stopped, but
> what punitive actions could be taken. If they've
> placed any substantial portion of their business
> in a jurisdiction which, unlike China, favors the
> enforcement of copyright, they could open
> themselves up to financial damages.
Yes, but unless they actually have bank accounts in the US or the US branch is directly related to the mother company I doubt a conviction will do more than kill the US branch. AFAIK they will have to sue the legal representative of the company in each country separately to get a complete ban.
Another option would be trying to obtain an import ban in different countries, but that might require that the third-party products are actually counterfeit (i.e. imitation of actual HasTak items, not original designs).
> > But copyright experts are rather strict
> > in deciding what is allowed and what isn't
> because
> > being too lax would open the door to
> mass-sueing
> > and endless court battles. Let's have a look at
> > super heroes: How many of them are rather
> similar
> > and inspired by each other? Making a point of
> that
> > would surely kill the industry faster than it
> is
> > currently doing.
>
> Ah, yes, but if you examine the Medieval Spawn /
> Dark Ages Spawn case (and thanks to Ken A. for
> reminding us of that) you'll see that there is
> precedent in American law for drawing an
> infringing correlation between two characters
> that's about as close as these not-Devastators are
> to Devastator. There have been other such cases in
> the comics industry (though not many are actually
> litigated); for example, Rob Liefeld's attempt to
> publish his "Agent America" character, followed by
> his purchasing and revamping of the Fighting
> American character, which Marvel forced him to
> revise further.
In that case it is likely that in the US HasTak could win a court case regarding character infringement. It also depends on whether the third-party manufacturer itself actually says "This is Devastator.", or whether it is the fans that say "This toy by third-party company X is Devastator.". The latter will probably be chucked out in court.
Whether a court ruling on character likeness would make the actual toy illegal I don't know: although the color scheme and general looks are that of Devastator, the transformations and details are original. This is important because it also explains why a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an infringement of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both looking very similar.
| March 21, 2012 05:00PM |
I love these third party shenanigans TFW2005.com
__________________
MoonBaseTom Season tickets available. Call now.
__________________
MoonBaseTom Season tickets available. Call now.
| March 21, 2012 05:05PM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> Nitpick: Hong Kong and Taiwan both are part of
> China.
They both effectively self-govern, and copyright enforcement is handled differently there, which was my point.
> a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an infringement
> of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both looking
> very similar.
I don't think that's a great example of suspiciously similar designs. Yeah, Classics Jetfire is a jet with two red boosters, but that's really all.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> Nitpick: Hong Kong and Taiwan both are part of
> China.
They both effectively self-govern, and copyright enforcement is handled differently there, which was my point.
> a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an infringement
> of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both looking
> very similar.
I don't think that's a great example of suspiciously similar designs. Yeah, Classics Jetfire is a jet with two red boosters, but that's really all.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| March 21, 2012 09:07PM |
| March 22, 2012 03:46AM |
asterphage Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an
> infringement
> > of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both
> looking
> > very similar.
>
> I don't think that's a great example of
> suspiciously similar designs. Yeah, Classics
> Jetfire is a jet with two red boosters, but that's
> really all.
Sigh. Macross VF-1S = G1 Jetfire. Classics Jetfire represents the same CHARACTER and looks similar. They are not the same toy DESIGN. AFAIK, this would represent two separate court cases because one applies to the (worded) media representation of the character, and the other to the actual design.
The same applies to the not-Constructicons. Let's have a look at the G1 Constructicons:
- Cement Mixer, transforms by folding out cab and sliding out arms.
- Dump Truck, fold out truck bed, slide out arms, fold down front half, flip up head.
- Back Hoe, slide out arms, flip up head, fold out legs and do something to the feet
- Crane, slide out both halves, fold out legs, flip up head, slide out arms, slide both halves back
- bulldozer, flip out legs, slide out arms, do some other stuff.
- The other one, slide out arms, flip out legs.
Basic vehicle designs (i.e. car, bulldozer, crane, etc.) are commonalities that are exempt of copyright. The transformations are so insanely simple that they are also common - they can be found on many, many transforming toys.
There's enough court cases in history where some company tried to assert they were the only ones to have the right to use some word that they invented as a trademark and that joined the common popular language of the people - these cases are pretty certain te be lost. Which is why we don't see Google throw a hissy fit anytime anyone uses the word "googling" instead of "searching".
Third-party Devastator has the same basic types of vehicles, but a completely different transformation.
So AFAIK HasTak could get a third-party company convicted of character infringement, but for the toy DESIGN to be banned they would have to explicitly prove that the DESIGN was explicitly *created* to represent Devastator. If they can do that, the third-party company is hosed.
I think the third-party Megatrons would be a much better target for a lawsuit, because it a) has to be a certain type of gun, b) has to have a certain transformation, and c) has to have a very recognisable character design.
And then they'd have to repeat the process for every single different third-party TF design... :S
Also, TF:CR Build Boy is totally a rip-off of Bandai's CG Robo Dozer (Takara should be sued!):
[counter-x.net]
[www.tfu.info]
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> > a toy like Classics Jetfire is not an
> infringement
> > of the Macross VF-1S design, despite both
> looking
> > very similar.
>
> I don't think that's a great example of
> suspiciously similar designs. Yeah, Classics
> Jetfire is a jet with two red boosters, but that's
> really all.
Sigh. Macross VF-1S = G1 Jetfire. Classics Jetfire represents the same CHARACTER and looks similar. They are not the same toy DESIGN. AFAIK, this would represent two separate court cases because one applies to the (worded) media representation of the character, and the other to the actual design.
The same applies to the not-Constructicons. Let's have a look at the G1 Constructicons:
- Cement Mixer, transforms by folding out cab and sliding out arms.
- Dump Truck, fold out truck bed, slide out arms, fold down front half, flip up head.
- Back Hoe, slide out arms, flip up head, fold out legs and do something to the feet
- Crane, slide out both halves, fold out legs, flip up head, slide out arms, slide both halves back
- bulldozer, flip out legs, slide out arms, do some other stuff.
- The other one, slide out arms, flip out legs.
Basic vehicle designs (i.e. car, bulldozer, crane, etc.) are commonalities that are exempt of copyright. The transformations are so insanely simple that they are also common - they can be found on many, many transforming toys.
There's enough court cases in history where some company tried to assert they were the only ones to have the right to use some word that they invented as a trademark and that joined the common popular language of the people - these cases are pretty certain te be lost. Which is why we don't see Google throw a hissy fit anytime anyone uses the word "googling" instead of "searching".
Third-party Devastator has the same basic types of vehicles, but a completely different transformation.
So AFAIK HasTak could get a third-party company convicted of character infringement, but for the toy DESIGN to be banned they would have to explicitly prove that the DESIGN was explicitly *created* to represent Devastator. If they can do that, the third-party company is hosed.
I think the third-party Megatrons would be a much better target for a lawsuit, because it a) has to be a certain type of gun, b) has to have a certain transformation, and c) has to have a very recognisable character design.
And then they'd have to repeat the process for every single different third-party TF design... :S
Also, TF:CR Build Boy is totally a rip-off of Bandai's CG Robo Dozer (Takara should be sued!):
[counter-x.net]
[www.tfu.info]
| March 22, 2012 10:02AM |
[twitpic.com]
Jetfire is a weird case because he was originally authorized by Tatsunoko, unlike the Battletech stuff.
Jetfire is a weird case because he was originally authorized by Tatsunoko, unlike the Battletech stuff.
| March 22, 2012 12:57PM |
thomas Wrote:
>
> Sigh. Macross VF-1S = G1 Jetfire. Classics Jetfire
> represents the same CHARACTER and looks similar.
This is a gross oversimplification. Classics Jetfire represents the G1 cartoon and comic Jetfire design, which was created specifically to NOT look like a VF-1 - the entire purpose of the cartoon/comic Jetfire design was to distance the character from the toy to the point that it would no longer be infringing. The fact that Classics Jetfire has a vaguely F-14ish jet mode and two big red boosters doesn't change that.
As for the Devastator thing, I'm not really interested in playing out the entirety of the argument of a potential court case in this thread. I think we've discussed the general legalities of it enough to make it clear that an actual U.S. court case would be anyone's game, as long as both sides could afford competent representation.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> Sigh. Macross VF-1S = G1 Jetfire. Classics Jetfire
> represents the same CHARACTER and looks similar.
This is a gross oversimplification. Classics Jetfire represents the G1 cartoon and comic Jetfire design, which was created specifically to NOT look like a VF-1 - the entire purpose of the cartoon/comic Jetfire design was to distance the character from the toy to the point that it would no longer be infringing. The fact that Classics Jetfire has a vaguely F-14ish jet mode and two big red boosters doesn't change that.
As for the Devastator thing, I'm not really interested in playing out the entirety of the argument of a potential court case in this thread. I think we've discussed the general legalities of it enough to make it clear that an actual U.S. court case would be anyone's game, as long as both sides could afford competent representation.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| March 22, 2012 01:07PM |
[counter-x.net]
Bandai should sue Takara (or that pretty designer guy or Don F.) for copying Skyjack
Bandai should sue Takara (or that pretty designer guy or Don F.) for copying Skyjack
| March 22, 2012 05:14PM |
VF5SS Wrote:
> [counter-x.net]
>
> Bandai should sue Takara (or that pretty designer
> guy or Don F.) for copying Skyjack
I am STUNNED at how much that Gobot looks like Classics Jetfire.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
> [counter-x.net]
>
> Bandai should sue Takara (or that pretty designer
> guy or Don F.) for copying Skyjack
I am STUNNED at how much that Gobot looks like Classics Jetfire.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| March 22, 2012 06:02PM |
It kinda looks like G2 Cyberjet Jetfire...
-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
-Ginrai
Golden Gate Riot on dead trees at: [www.destroyallcomics.com]
| March 22, 2012 06:02PM |
| March 22, 2012 06:23PM |
|
Sanjeev (Admin)
|
March 22, 2012 10:32PM |
| March 23, 2012 06:36AM |
|
Sanjeev (Admin)
|
March 23, 2012 10:34AM |
| March 23, 2012 02:12PM |
VF5SS Wrote:
>
> like guys
>
> [toyboxdx.com]
>
> stop doing this
Ahahah I can't argue with that jet mode comparison
but which of those toys has a cuter backpack in robot mode
and yeah jet mode underside is super important when you whoosh it around the room
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
>
> like guys
>
> [toyboxdx.com]
>
> stop doing this
Ahahah I can't argue with that jet mode comparison
but which of those toys has a cuter backpack in robot mode
and yeah jet mode underside is super important when you whoosh it around the room
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
| March 23, 2012 02:32PM |
like just look at Ben's review of Classics Sky Shadow
I know the original Thunderwing toy and the Classics did that too but guys even in the comic he never used that stupid jet mode
you guys basically made one of those semi-transforming Action Master Elites from Europe again
also Paul you could probably make Sky Dive much better while retaining the adorable minijet backpack
I mean I love the Aerialbots (I mean look at me come on!) but their gimmick didn't even justify their shittiness
I know the original Thunderwing toy and the Classics did that too but guys even in the comic he never used that stupid jet mode
you guys basically made one of those semi-transforming Action Master Elites from Europe again
also Paul you could probably make Sky Dive much better while retaining the adorable minijet backpack
I mean I love the Aerialbots (I mean look at me come on!) but their gimmick didn't even justify their shittiness
| March 23, 2012 03:28PM |
[twitpic.com]
damn you, Floro Dery!
maybe what the toys need is more anime magic
ps this episode is pretty Toei-tastic
also Slingshot has the same shitty underside as his toy yet the other have faux realistic jet modes
your life sucks, Slingshot
damn you, Floro Dery!
maybe what the toys need is more anime magic
ps this episode is pretty Toei-tastic
also Slingshot has the same shitty underside as his toy yet the other have faux realistic jet modes
your life sucks, Slingshot
| March 25, 2012 10:12AM |
| March 27, 2012 03:24AM |
Okay, okay I give up.
Here, have some vegetable rip-off: [www.google.com] (total failure).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 03:25AM by thomas.
Here, have some vegetable rip-off: [www.google.com] (total failure).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 03:25AM by thomas.
| March 27, 2012 07:47AM |
[www.tfw2005.com]
vehicle modes that aren't just green lumps?
must be inferior to the more expensive toy
[www.tfw2005.com]
is Hench a real mensch
this is the image of addiction
vehicle modes that aren't just green lumps?
must be inferior to the more expensive toy
[www.tfw2005.com]
is Hench a real mensch
this is the image of addiction
| March 27, 2012 03:30PM |
That dump truck robo actually feels fairly original to me. I like the robot mode proportions.
Nice to see a third party Sharkticon toy that's just as crappy as the G1 Sharkticon, and in most of the same ways.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 03:31PM by asterphage.
Nice to see a third party Sharkticon toy that's just as crappy as the G1 Sharkticon, and in most of the same ways.
-Paul Segal
"Oh, the anger is never far, never far." -SteveH
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/27/2012 03:31PM by asterphage.
| March 28, 2012 07:03PM |
| March 28, 2012 07:50PM |
| March 29, 2012 09:57AM |
| April 03, 2012 11:35AM |
| April 03, 2012 12:19PM |
| April 03, 2012 12:31PM |
from TFW2005
"We have received word that artists that booked an artist alley table for BotCon 2012 are now being told that any fan art that may infrige on Hasbro's intellectual property or trademarks can not be sold at BotCon.
The wording from the BotCon brochure advertised "that you can get single tables to show-and-sell your custom Transformers art for $200", but it would appear that Hasbro has reversed this now resulting in more table cancellations at the Texas convention scheduled for later this month."
"We have received word that artists that booked an artist alley table for BotCon 2012 are now being told that any fan art that may infrige on Hasbro's intellectual property or trademarks can not be sold at BotCon.
The wording from the BotCon brochure advertised "that you can get single tables to show-and-sell your custom Transformers art for $200", but it would appear that Hasbro has reversed this now resulting in more table cancellations at the Texas convention scheduled for later this month."
| April 03, 2012 03:06PM |
| April 03, 2012 03:12PM |
|
Sanjeev (Admin)
|
April 03, 2012 03:57PM |
Well, sure bootlegging is exploitive...but is that a bad thing? I just see it as "it is what it is."
Consumers get MORE of what they want (the characters and styles of toys these 3rd partyers are offering). I see no problem with bootlegging a bootleg: Fansproject may bitch on the surface, but they have no substantial grounds to complain when all of their profit comes from someone else's IP.
Consumers get MORE of what they want (the characters and styles of toys these 3rd partyers are offering). I see no problem with bootlegging a bootleg: Fansproject may bitch on the surface, but they have no substantial grounds to complain when all of their profit comes from someone else's IP.
| April 03, 2012 04:26PM |
| April 06, 2012 11:44AM |
| April 06, 2012 11:51AM |
| April 07, 2012 12:29AM |
ITT: Crusader Jin's self-inflated ego takes a pin to center mass:
[www.tfw2005.com]
Parts of the Transformer collecting community make me as mad as the vinyl community.
Highlights include:
-TF fans not knowing who Jin is or caring what he has to say
-Jin not seeing his own hypocrisy over profiting off of Hasbro/Marvel/TF IPs with customs
-Jin being racist against Chinese industry even though he supports it through his purchases
-Jin crying free speech when nobody cares what he has to say
-Jin calling someone who disagrees with him a Nazi
This is my new favorite thing on the whole internet.
Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2012 12:44AM by Prometheum5.
[www.tfw2005.com]
Parts of the Transformer collecting community make me as mad as the vinyl community.
Highlights include:
-TF fans not knowing who Jin is or caring what he has to say
-Jin not seeing his own hypocrisy over profiting off of Hasbro/Marvel/TF IPs with customs
-Jin being racist against Chinese industry even though he supports it through his purchases
-Jin crying free speech when nobody cares what he has to say
-Jin calling someone who disagrees with him a Nazi
This is my new favorite thing on the whole internet.
Introducing Prometheus Rising Studio.
[prometheusrising.net]
I make 3D printed mecha action figures.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2012 12:44AM by Prometheum5.
| April 07, 2012 02:13AM |
Prometheum5 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> Parts of the Transformer collecting community make
> me as mad as the vinyl community.
>
> Highlights include:
>
> -TF fans not knowing who Jin is or caring what he
> has to say
> -Jin not seeing his own hypocrisy over profiting
> off of Hasbro/Marvel/TF IPs with customs
> -Jin being racist against Chinese industry even
> though he supports it through his purchases
> -Jin crying free speech when nobody cares what he
> has to say
> -Jin calling someone who disagrees with him a
> Nazi
>
> This is my new favorite thing on the whole
> internet.
You mean you only discover this now?
Overly inflated egos have always been a 'critical' part of the Transformers fan community.
Although I love it that someone asks "who are you?" in the 3rd post already...
-------------------------------------------------------
<snip>
> Parts of the Transformer collecting community make
> me as mad as the vinyl community.
>
> Highlights include:
>
> -TF fans not knowing who Jin is or caring what he
> has to say
> -Jin not seeing his own hypocrisy over profiting
> off of Hasbro/Marvel/TF IPs with customs
> -Jin being racist against Chinese industry even
> though he supports it through his purchases
> -Jin crying free speech when nobody cares what he
> has to say
> -Jin calling someone who disagrees with him a
> Nazi
>
> This is my new favorite thing on the whole
> internet.
You mean you only discover this now?
Overly inflated egos have always been a 'critical' part of the Transformers fan community.
Although I love it that someone asks "who are you?" in the 3rd post already...
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
