Rated X wrote:Juvenile ? Were two grown ass men who collect toy robots. Lighten up...
I can't believe I'm continuing to get caught up in this. I guess I just like to argue too much.
It's juvenile because it appears that the argument you are making about supporting KOs is some sort of flaunting of authority. That's how it reads. You didn't use my exact words, but it felt like it was one tiny step away from asking me if I do everything my parents tell me to do. Again, that's how it read.
My argument against KOs is that copying someone else's work and making money off of it is both illegal and unethical. The justifications put forth about there being enough time lapsed so it should resort to the community is flawed as it is the legal system that determines this time limit, not some gut feeling from someone on the Internet.
And this isn't about having an opinion or not. It's about well justified reasoning.
Rated X wrote:Hasbro should have made one. But guess what ? They didnt. Instead they made you a green puke BAPE version, a bizzare purple SG version, and a blinged out YOTH version with an invisible trailer. Doesnt that frustrate you just a little bit ? It would frustrate the hell out of me.
That's evident. No, it doesn't frustrate the hell out of me. It doesn't frustrate me even a little. Perhaps I have gotten to the stage in my collection that I am happy to wait for what is coming and am choosing my purchases more carefully. If Hasbro chose to put this out, I would seriously consider it more so I can have a version of MP-10. But even then, I might not get it.
Rated X wrote: KOs exist because of people like me. And theres a lot of us. Thats fact, not fiction my friend.
Well, I'd counter that KOs exist because someone can take advantage of people like you and make some ill-gotten money. And I am actually conflicted about this some because I'm more of a free market guy. Why shouldn't someone be able to choose to compete by making something for cheaper? The problem lies in the idea of fair competition and fraudulent claims. The original IP owner spent time and money developing a product. Then someone else comes along, doesn't have to spend nearly the time and money to copy it, and sells it for cheaper because of it. That isn't fair to the person who spent all the time and money initially. This is a basic idea within the realm of IP. If we allowed this to happen, it would stifle innovation as no one would have any incentive to create anything to sell anymore.
Add to this the thing that really, really bothers me... It's one thing for a company to KO a product, making it in remarkably different colors or materials (i.e. a bright orange and lime green Megatron). It is a whole other level of sleaze when the KO is passed off as an original. I once purchased an Encore Metroplex. I got the box, and it didn't seem right. I did some checking, and sure enough, the box had all the signs of the KO version, but those signs were very, very subtle. The seller claimed that the product was legit from a source they trust. I was afraid to open the product to make sure because the seller may not have taken it back or claim I had substituted a KO for the real thing. I have a Human Alliance Barricade that I want to sell, but how can I assure buyers that I bought it at Target and it is not one of the well made KOs?
In my opinion, KOs are wrong and I will not support them. If you want to convince me otherwise, X, then reasonably refute what I have said here to back my opinion up. I am not saying this UM is a piece of crap. I am not saying it is not well done. (In fact, I think I have been really clear in stating the opposite.) But, show me the flaw in my reasoning.
And here I said I wasn't going to rehash this whole KO argument again. I guess I just cannot help myself...
)
.
im right there with ya Ag 
[ Click to attempt signal recovery... ]
