Hot Toys- Batman Begins:Batman Demon & Scarecrow spec and pics

[Maglor]

Also, I think there's a bit of a moral difference between casting something you own, for your own personal, hobbyist purposes, vs. casting something you didn't originally make, on a large scale and for profit.

True, but like I said, I'm just paying him to do something I don't have the means/ability to do, but would have the "right" to do if I could. That's my justification.



However, that doesn't really justify what he's doing...


...I think I need to stop thinking about this.

 

[haytil]

True, but like I said, I'm just paying him to do something I don't have the means/ability to do, but would have the "right" to do if I could. That's my justification.



However, that doesn't really justify what he's doing...


...I think I need to stop thinking about this.

Yup. Again, I agree with you - if I were in your place, I wouldn't feel weird at all. But I wouldn't feel OK about doing what he's doing, in his place.

 

[haytil]

The data, though, is a physical thing that must be stored. The information transmitted by the data is a physical thing--either soundwaves, or images, or whatever.

No.

By definition, information is not physical. It is not a physical thing.

Data can be represented by a physical thing (like the grooves on a record) and data can itself represent a physical thing (musical data represents the amplitudes of physical soundwaves). But that does not mean data itself is a physical thing - those are just the conceptual links between physical things and data.

Think of it this way - can you point to raw data and say "This is data?" No.

I can point you to a chair and say "That is a chair." But I can't point to data and say "That is data." I can only point to a CD and say "That contains data, but is itself not data" or a movie on a screen and say "That is a movie, and is represented by data, but it is itself not data."

It's a subtle distinction, but an important one, which is why it has its own branch of law.

Things only have an existence when perceived

That's not true. Things can exist without being perceived (the aforementioned chair exists in a dark closet, even if the door to the closet is closed and we can't see or perceive it).

Similarly, ideas can "exist" without being perceived. They exist in our heads. If they didn't exist, we couldn't think about them or discuss them.

They are not tangible or physical, but being physical is not necessary for something to exist.

You could be right that there is a legal distinction, but I don't necessarily think there should be

So if you buy a DVD and it later gets scratched, do you think that you should have to buy a brand new one, at full price?

Or if you have a VHS tape but don't have a VCR anymore, do you think you shouldn't be allowed to copy the VHS to a DVD so you can watch it on your DVD player (assuming you paid for the machine that does the conversion)?

These things can only make sense, legally, if the distinction between IP/data and physical objects is legally made.

 

[Pennyworth]

if I were in your place, I wouldn't feel weird at all. But I wouldn't feel OK about doing what he's doing, in his place.

I think I'm leaning this way myself...

I reviewed his feedback, most of his customers are happy with his products: 95.7% positive over 373 transactions.
3 incidents of negative feedback over the last 12 months:

"Have not rambo head inventory, confuse the customer, very unprofessional"

"A ten-cent item, but it charges $16.90. STAY AWAY from the unethical seller"

"nn consigliabile"

 

[karamazov80]

Haytil, here's something I ran across:

https://www.rkmc.com/files/Physical-But-Not-Tangible-Electronic-Data-Losses.pdf

"the rearrangement of atoms or molecules of a disc or tape is a “physical” change." If that's the case, then data that can saved or deleted is a physical thing. They make the distinction between physical and tangible, but you are making a distinction between physical and intellectual property. Intellectual property doesn't apply to physical things, by your definition. As such, it doesn't apply to electronic data.

 

[haytil]

Haytil, here's something I ran across:

https://www.rkmc.com/files/Physical-But-Not-Tangible-Electronic-Data-Losses.pdf

I checked that link, and it actually bears out my point. Specifically, from that article:

"To date, insureds have not been able to convince the courts that data stored in computers constitutes “tangible property” unless the policy has specific coverage for data."

Thus, there is a distinction between tangible property and data (even when the data is stored on tangible property).

There, they are discussing the liability of insurance companies - if they cover damages to a CD, for instance, are they also liable for the expense put into making the data on that CD, if it is unique and needs to be reconstructed from scratch (since there are no other copies)?

It looks like the courts ruled "No, insurance companies are not liable, unless their insurance policy specifically covers the IP and the data and not just the physical objects [containing that IP]."

Note that IP and data are not exactly the same thing - but both are not physical or tangible.

 

[DiFabio]

@everyone on the end of page 69 and this last page of 70.

TL;NR

 

[haytil]

@everyone on the end of page 69 and this last page of 70.

TL;NR

Fair enough, I don't blame you.

 

[Maglor]

Bought the recast.

I am forever damned.

 

[Maglor]

TL;NR

Had to look that one up. I love it!

 

[karamazov80]

Note that IP and data are not exactly the same thing - but both are not physical or tangible.

As others are saying, we've had our fun with this so I'll make my last post--the law defines the terms, and the law via legal judgment apparently says that electronic data are physical since they have physical properties (which they do--you can't write information to a disc without making a physical change representing the data). It is really about degrees of physicality, but ultimately, there is a physical thing inside a disc that constitutes data. Take that change away, and the data do not exist. As such, it is physical.

If you want to make a rebuttal, you can do that and that'll be the last word. But let's move on.

 

[haytil]

As others are saying, we've had our fun with this so I'll make my last post--the law defines the terms, and the law via legal judgment apparently says that electronic data are physical since they have physical properties (which they do--you can't write information to a disc without making a physical change representing the data). It is really about degrees of physicality, but ultimately, there is a physical thing inside a disc that constitutes data. Take that change away, and the data do not exist. As such, it is physical.

If you want to make a rebuttal, you can do that and that'll be the last word. But let's move on.

I just want to say that, in my initial response to you, I combined IP and non-physical data as one "category" of things under the law, and as distinct from physical property. It was an oversimplification, made for the sake of simply pointing out the flaw in your argument - but that oversimplification seems to have lead to confusion and misunderstanding within the discussion.

So don't take everything that I wrote to be literally true, just the general idea of it - when you get to legal semantics, there are even more fine-grained differences than what I mentioned, and some inaccuracies in what I said, for the sake of simplifying things. But for all intents and purposes, it's the fact that you buy the code (not the cartridge) that makes it OK to download a copy of a video game you own (but not one you don't own), since it's being used for backup purposes. The cartridge itself is just the medium, and not the product of value.

 

[Maglor]

Learning to tie a noose is hard when you are knot tying impaired!



Watched about 6 different videos and still couldn't get it!

Finally this got through to me: https://www.realknots.com/knots/noose.htm

 

[haytil]

Learning to tie a noose is hard when you are knot tying impaired!

Really? I would think that learning to tie a noose would be hard only if you were tying impaired.

 

[Maglor]

I see what you did there. Bad pun. -__-

 

[EdwardNashton1]

Learning to tie a noose is hard when you are knot tying impaired!



Watched about 6 different videos and still couldn't get it!

Finally this got through to me: https://www.realknots.com/knots/noose.htm

I'm almost an eagle Scout but I hate all those knots, lashings and crap.

 

[Wor-Gar]

Let's just see it already.

You know, I never even noticed the horse had a noose. That's kind of silly. When did Scarecrow have time to decorate his horse?

 

[Maglor]

You know, I never even noticed the horse had a noose. That's kind of silly. When did Scarecrow have time to decorate his horse?

It is a bit silly. But it does add to the feel of the scene. And it's a way to "customize" this display.

Let's just see it already.

I'm not done!

I did a coffee dip to try to get the rope the right color. Then I have a bit of futzing to do. But I will post pics of the finished product tomorrow.

In the meanwhile The Batman Professor posted pics of his horse with the noose if you wanna dig those up.

 

[haytil]

I see what you did there. Bad pun. -__-

Thank you! I'll be here all week!

 

[Geil]

Bought the recast.

I am forever damned.

Scarecrow will await you in 1:6 hell