LEPIN ripping off STAR WARS MOCs

[mortesv]

No matter how you try to justify it, the business practices of Lepin is illegal and if there wasn't laws to protect against such companies everyone's job would be in constant jeopardy. And stating the Lepin does not hurt Lego sales is simply being naive.

Furthermore, Lepin is owned by the second richest man in China with strong ties to the central government - which is why the criminal prosecution keeps being halted. He could buy TLG if he wanted to, so your agenda to defend the little person is somewhat misguided.

In the end, this is a forum for Lego fans, and while you are entitled to your opinion, it is not a forum for defending illegal company practices - no matter how evil you feel TLG is.

 

[anothergol]

28 minutes ago, mortesv said:

Furthermore, Lepin is owned by the second richest man in China with strong ties to the central government - which is why the criminal prosecution keeps being halted.

sources?
I've tracked Lepin being owned by "MZ Model", couldn't find much more info.

 

31 minutes ago, mortesv said:

In the end, this is a forum for Lego fans

There's a difference between being a fan of Lego parts (which I am) and a fanatic of the Lego company, and being blind about Lego's history & practices.
 

[brobert]

26 minutes ago, mortesv said:

No matter how you try to justify it, the business practices of Lepin is illegal and if there wasn't laws to protect against such companies everyone's job would be in constant jeopardy. And stating the Lepin does not hurt Lego sales is simply being naive.

Furthermore, Lepin is owned by the second richest man in China with strong ties to the central government - which is why the criminal prosecution keeps being halted. He could buy TLG if he wanted to, so your agenda to defend the little person is somewhat misguided.

In the end, this is a forum for Lego fans, and while you are entitled to your opinion, it is not a forum for defending illegal company practices - no matter how evil you feel TLG is.

 

Some of your points are fair, but as you said, this forum shouldn't be about ranting at LEGO knockoffs. Yes this practice is malicious without a question, yes it is bad practice, we probably all agree on that, but let's face it, China is a "little" world in itself, and "legal" is a very flexible term I think you'll find. You're right, laws are defending these kinds of things - between similarly thinking countries. None of our European, or even international laws mean a thing for them, in this topic.

And it's not about defending David against Goliath, nobody said they are saints, but just like TLG, or any other company, they are doing whatever it takes to make profit. They just do it a bit more...well disgusting for the western eye. And they get away with it.

But none of this is new, China has always manufactured cheap knockoffs of everything, big companies just realized that there's nothing to do about it. BMW sued a car manufacturer because they made a car that looked just like theirs. They've lost. They had to accept it.

And you're right, this is a LEGO fan forum, but being a fan doesn't mean you have to be a yes man and refuse to be informed about all sides of a story. Especially that no one is saying that what they do is fully OK.

[olympicknight12]

On 4/18/2017 at 2:07 AM, DarthTwoShedsJackson said:

I've been notified that LEPIN is now stealing MOCS from AFOLs to potentially make into sets.

https://www.reddit.com/r/lepin/comments/65c5o7/what_moc_would_you_love_to_see_lepin_make_next/

 

This is new for me, and I don't know if this has been done before, but it is pissing me off, seriously! Many of us make MOCS and post instructions for free, others make MOCS and sell instructions - you can have your opinion on each of the two ways to go about this, but a third party openly planning to make money from the work LEGO-fans have put into models for fun and the community is plain disgusting.

Have you seen this before? Has something been done about this in the past, or what can we do about this now? Removing LDD-files is an option, but this will also affect people who are fans themselves and would like to build other fans' models with their own LEGO-collection. I see LEPIN actively taking the fun out of MOCing here, and this needs to stop!

 

Man I hope these lepin people didin't ruin my chance of getting a really sweet u wing.

[Brikkyy13]

Backtracking a bit to the reddit post linked at the start of the thread: it's not the first I've seen on that subreddit. Very regularily someone will ask "what MOC do you want to see lepined" 

What gets me the most is the army of people who are asking a company to steal someone's work. Those threads are essentially "steal this design please!" I doubt any of the people realize how it would feel to have your designs stolen. 

[anothergol]

9 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

I doubt any of the people realize how it would feel to have your designs stolen. 

I don't know for others, but I know I'd be honored.
It's for that reason that I've put stuff on Lego Ideas - certainly not for what Lego pays (doesn't seem to be much).

I'm pretty sure many would be honored. It's like music.. a few famous musicians are getting paid for what they do, while all the rest would be ready to pay just to be heard.

[DarthTwoShedsJackson]

1 hour ago, anothergol said:

There's a difference between being a fan of Lego parts (which I am) and a fanatic of the Lego company, and being blind about Lego's history & practices.

Care to explain what makes one a 'fanatic'? You see, you are the only one in this discussion throwing such loaded terms around, and in my experience, this often is an indicator for projection. As a matter of fact, one could label your point (not you as a person) as being borderline fanatical (which I don't), because as of yet you fail to address or have deliberately ignored some major points made against your apologetics for LEPIN. Also, what are the bad 'practices' and history you are talking about? LEGO having copied kiddycraft is known by most by now, and a counterpoint has been presented (investments to improve the copied product in a major way - see my post earlier).

 

11 minutes ago, anothergol said:

I'm pretty sure many would be honored. It's like music.. a few famous musicians are getting paid for what they do, while all the rest would be ready to pay just to be heard.

Speak for yourself. I for myself would tell them to *brick* off, if they'd ask at all.

 

It puzzles me to see someone argue that a company who made huge investments into creating the quality product we enjoy as squeezing money out of people, and at the same time apologizing for a knock-off who benefits from all those investments - not having to make those themselves because they can now copy the product of these investments - for bringing joy to the poor. I'd not be surprised if the profit margin for LEPIN is higher per product than that of LEGO.

 

All that being said, no hard feelings, please - I think despite differing opinions on this one particular matter we are all decent people here, and I'd hate it if things would be taken or intented to be personal in a discussion about LEPIN's practices.

[AntocMerrick]

To be honest with you guys, i don't have anything against LEPIN for making knockoff sets. Some people usually don't have enough money to buy a legit LEGO set ( a couple of my good friends have been through this in their childhood and i don't think that i can call them criminals for it (as some of you state))

But borrowing the MOC designs is the real crime.. 

I feel sorry for @DarthTwoShedsJackson  ....

[anothergol]

1 hour ago, DarthTwoShedsJackson said:

Care to explain what makes one a 'fanatic'? You see, you are the only one in this discussion throwing such loaded terms around, and in my experience, this often is an indicator for projection. As a matter of fact, one could label your point (not you as a person) as being borderline fanatical (which I don't), because as of yet you fail to address or have deliberately ignored some major points made against your apologetics for LEPIN. Also, what are the bad 'practices' and history you are talking about? LEGO having copied kiddycraft is known by most by now, and a counterpoint has been presented (investments to improve the copied product in a major way - see my post earlier).

 

Speak for yourself. I for myself would tell them to *brick* off, if they'd ask at all.

 

It puzzles me to see someone argue that a company who made huge investments into creating the quality product we enjoy as squeezing money out of people, and at the same time apologizing for a knock-off who benefits from all those investments - not having to make those themselves because they can now copy the product of these investments - for bringing joy to the poor. I'd not be surprised if the profit margin for LEPIN is higher per product than that of LEGO.

 

No one has excused Lepin, and it's not about Lepin, it's about loving the Lego company so much to be blinded about everything.

Lepin steals, that's obvious. What's weird is how you are discovering this now, while it's a common practice in China to counterfeit luxury, to the point that it's simply normal there. You're seeing this with your european (or american eyes), but it's China. You're using a naive speech about "legality" when there is no such thing as a worldwide concept of legality. While it's true that China is part of the "WIPO" (& only since the 80's, apparently), it's eventually up to their country to decide to fight counterfeits seriously or not. If it's not a priority to that country, it shouldn't be you to judge, you're not chinese. Yeah, surprisingly enough, the laws of the country you live in, don't apply everywhere.
Even your morals don't apply everywhere, surprisingly. And the chinese have many other, much more legitimate reasons to be blamed about their morals - talking about the way they treat animals, for ex. And freedom of speech. Surely China isn't a perfect country & has better to care about than intellectual property.

If Lepin sets were being sold in european stores, yeah, things would be moving pretty differently and there would be more serious lawsuits. So, again, the real source of the problem here is Aliexpress, which makes it easy for everyone to remotely buy counterfeit. Perhaps another reason for Lego to care is that China is starting to become a real market itself, some parts of it are rich now, and they're missing on that.

As for the poor Lego company who has invested sooo much and is now threatened by Lepin, let's read this together
https://www.lego.com/en-us/aboutus/news-room/2017/march/annual-results-2016
..and we'll get back to it in 2018 to cry about how Lego's profits only increased by 7.8% instead of 7.9% for this year.
Lego certainly has reasons to care about this, but I wonder what your reasons really are. Surely you're not concerned about Lego being threatened to disappear because of Lepin, are you?
All I know is that I'm certainly not the fanatic here, because I'm not on either side. They're both companies & their #1 goal is to make money. If one has a problem with the other, it's their business.

Edited April 19, 2017 by anothergol

[mortesv]

2 hours ago, anothergol said:

sources?
I've tracked Lepin being owned by "MZ Model", couldn't find much more info.

 

There's a difference between being a fan of Lego parts (which I am) and a fanatic of the Lego company, and being blind about Lego's history & practices.
 

The case is featured in the Danish media a lot - I do not have a have an English source. The owner has gone on record and dismissed Lego as a thing of the past, saying Lepin's way of doing business (stealing IPs and designs) is they way of the future.

If you think I am a fanatic for not condoning practices that could be the end of Lego, well then go right ahead. Lepin, are getting faster and faster copying sets. If they are not stopped, they will eventually be able to put sets in the stores mere weeks after TLG has launched them - for a price TLG will never be able to compete with.

The case is ongoing and the Chinese administration is taking it seriously, but because of Lepin's ties to the government the normal seize and desist policies under international laws are not being upheld.

But please stop to think about it. Because you can get a set cheaper here and now, you are condoning a business practice of stealing. You may not care about TLG, but if unchecked these practices will eventually hurt the businesses of you own community.

That Lepin would also steal from moc'ers underline their moral bankruptcy. And to be honest, I find it paradoxical that Lepin's actions are being justified because TLG is a "bad" company just wanting to earn money. If every company were as unscrupulous in the quest for profit as Lepin, we would all indeed be ...

 

[anothergol]

19 minutes ago, mortesv said:

 

The case is ongoing and the Chinese administration is taking it seriously, but because of Lepin's ties to the government the normal seize and desist policies under international laws are not being upheld.

I'm sure you're mixing things. The second richest in China that you're talking of, it's Jack Ma - the owner of Alibaba/express, which I was talking of, and he's indeed the one responsible for the real problem, making chinese crap easily available to everyone (but well, that's internet). And yeah, he surely has influence, with the money he has.

Now -perhaps- Lepin also belongs to Jack Ma, I don't know, but I can't find anything saying it.

19 minutes ago, mortesv said:

And to be honest, I find it paradoxical that Lepin's actions are being justified

No one has justified Lepin's business, all we're saying is that it's old & common. Lepin isn't doing anything special in China, it's one of the country's main business to counterfeit. It's certainly lame, but how are you surprised about it, have you never heard of other counterfeit brands than Lego? I'd say this applies to pretty much all brands.

I don't know, let's check my desk. Bose QC25 headphones. They're pretty expensive, and Bose is more or less a luxury brand, they're sitting on their name. The chinese counterfeit their headphones. Should I care? -Yeah-, because when I got to buy it on the internet, I had to pay attention to who was selling it, because unknown vendor+low price was a too high risk (unlike with Lego, headphones are harder to counterfeit, & Bose copies are shit). Other than that, do I care for Bose? Hell no, it's their problem. When they sell replacement earpads for 40eur!, while they tear up after a couple of months, I'm not gonna cry for that company.

Edited April 19, 2017 by anothergol

[mortesv]

I have never argued that it is not an old problem. I am arguing that you should care, because by buying counterfeit products you are in the end hurting the businesses you pose to like and some day the businesses someone you know or even yourself work for.

If you do not understand this, I can't help you.

And yes, I am talking about Jack Ma.

[anothergol]

2 hours ago, mortesv said:

I have never argued that it is not an old problem. I am arguing that you should care, because by buying counterfeit products you are in the end hurting the businesses you pose to like and some day the businesses someone you know or even yourself work for.

If you do not understand this, I can't help you.

And yes, I am talking about Jack Ma.

I've bought one Lepin set, the super star destroyer that Lego isn't selling anymore. So Lego, not hurt. If anyone is hurt, it's so-called investors, but even them aren't, because I wouldn't have shelled 700 for it. But let's pretend they were hurt, I'm happy with that. And if they think doubling an investment in only 5 years these days is without risks, the risk of people going for a counterfeit instead of the original one they're sitting on, they were wrong.

I was working on software. IF something is hurt by piracy out there, it's software! But you know what, despite what I was doing being actually purchased by 1 out of 100 users maybe, there was still enough money for me to live, so I don't care. Could be much richer without piracy, but it was a fun job.
And as my boss was saying, if someone has enough money to buy the software and isn't, he's an a**hole. But if he only has enough money for food, we shouldn't be taking his money, there are priorities in life..

Edited April 19, 2017 by anothergol

[mortesv]

No one forced you to buy a pirated set, but as your boss said, if someone only has money for food, who cares about piracy. However, I am not sure that is really your situation.

In the end, I do not understand why you feel you need to defend buying pirated sets on a Lego fan-site and then begin to call people fanatics when they call you out on it.

(I work in software myself)

[Obi1by1]

Since it involves two large businesses, there are, of course, lots of aspects to this that complicate things, but I have to say that it always bothers me when people say that they don't care about intellectual property rights. The issue affects me directly, and when something I've published is translated into another language without my consent and/or made available in a format that deprives me of royalties (as has happened more than once), it is far from inconsequential to me. Perhaps as a result of that, I'm more inclined to be on the side of IP laws, whether they pertain to a large company or a single author, artist, or designer trying to make a living for himself or herself in the field which those IP laws cover. If we only ever cared about things that affect us directly, where would we be, exactly, in terms of civil rights, human rights, environmental law, and more? Intellectual property law is part of the same discussion. The fact that Lego is a large company does not mean that IP laws should protect them any less than they protect me (in as much as they do, that is). I admit that the converse is also true - those laws should never protect a large business more than they protect others - but that is absolutely not what is at issue in this particular discussion.

[dmaclego]

19 hours ago, anothergol said:

When they sell replacement earpads for 40eur!, while they tear up after a couple of months, I'm not gonna cry for that company.

 

Oh, but you will. Because when some Chinese crap company kicks real Bose out of market - which is quite possible; low prices can do miracles - you will end up with Chinese crap.

 

I can't believe some of you guys can't understand the most basic rules. I will try just once (without much hope, since Mortesv and DarthTwoShedsJackson already tried in vain): 

1) You steal - you are a thief.

2) You buy/sell stolen stuff - you are a fence.

3) Lepin steals intellectual property. You buy Lepin - you knowingly buy stolen goods. Which makes you a..... ? Yes. A fence. A criminal (at least in my country).

That's it from me. There is absolutely nothing to discuss. It's really, really bizarre how some people claim that black is white or at least gray.

 

And that's not even touching the problem of copied MOCs. Do you realize, for instance, that we are facing a threat of ALL decent LDD files disappearing from public sites? MOC builders will not wait for Lepin to steal their designs.

Unlike you, I may have a taste of what's it like to be robbed by Lepin. They copied 10212 based on my design. The LEGO designer who created 10212, by the way, is a good friend of mine. How do you think we feel right now?

 

[anothergol]

2 hours ago, dmaclego said:

Oh, but you will. Because when some Chinese crap company kicks real Bose out of market - which is quite possible; low prices can do miracles - you will end up with Chinese crap.

Pff come on, there is a market for chinese crap, and there is a market for high-end stuff.
The only way Bose could disappear would be if they started to do crap themselves, relying too much on their brand.

Has Rolex disappeared? For how many decades have there been fake Rolex?

 

Quote

3) Lepin steals intellectual property. You buy Lepin - you knowingly buy stolen goods. Which makes you a..... ? Yes. A fence. A criminal (at least in my country).

Yeah, and? I don't see anyone having argued about this.
You put your trash bags on the street before 8PM the day before, you're a "criminal" as well.

BTW, since you seem to care more about the legal aspect: Legally speaking, I'd say Lepin does 2 things wrong, they copy the manuals, and the minifigs. Surely they can be legally attacked on this. However they could simply get rid of both. Manuals are unnecessary when you can check them online, and their minifigs suck anyway (the prints do). What's left: bags of random parts. That's really what you get, bags of random parts (they don't number them btw, that sucks as well). Can't be attacked on that.

And I will remind you how everyone now consider Megabloks (or whatever it's now called) "not a ripoff", ONLY because they are now LEGALLY allowed to produce copies. Like a Megablock brick isn't the same as a Lego one..
So much about morals, when it's laws that dictate yours.

Lepin is lame for ripping off designs. Megabloks is lame for ripping off Lego. Lego is lame for ripping off Kiddicraft. And none of them ever credited authors of the sets. The only difference between Lego & Lepin is that Lego paid the designers.
Morally speaking they're all equally lame to me. But that also to do with the fact that, over a certain size, a company doesn't care about morals. It's all about making money, not exactly "legally", but by all means that allow you to get away with it. Like, tax evasion. Or producing in countries where it's cheaper. Legal, yes.

 

2 hours ago, dmaclego said:

Do you realize, for instance, that we are facing a threat of ALL decent LDD files disappearing from public sites? MOC builders will not wait for Lepin to steal their designs.

Not all. Because, not mine.

 

2 hours ago, dmaclego said:

Unlike you, I may have a taste of what's it like to be robbed by Lepin. They copied 10212 based on my design. The LEGO designer who created 10212, by the way, is a good friend of mine. How do you think we feel right now?

I don't even understand what you're saying, they copied it based on your design, and the designer is a friend of yours(?)

Anyway, the imperial shuttle.. well don't forget that there IS a designer behind it, that is, behind the "real" one. Does Lego even credit him?  Let me check... I can't find anywhere, box or manual, where it credits 1. the artist(s) behind the imperial shuttle 2. the designer of the set. Oh, the irony!

Crediting "Lego" and "Disney", yeah, like that's fair. You can talk about money losses, that's fair, but don't nag about crediting authors when none of these companies do. And that's how the industry works, generally all the credits go to 1. the producing company, 2. the producer, 3. the actors. All the rest who worked hard, they're lucky if they get their name in tiny in the middle of a credits scroller that absolutely no one cares about. And it's normal, they can't all be known.

This is why I'd be honored if Lepin used any of my designs (& btw, I've shared them with whoever asked, this is also why I wouldn't be pissed - I'm not selling them): they wouldn't credit me directly, -just like Lego-, but it would still be known, for whoever wants to know, thanks to the internet.

 

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by anothergol

[dmaclego]

2 hours ago, anothergol said:

I don't even understand what you're saying
 

Well, that much is painfully clear.

But then you say you'd be honored to be stolen from, so I understand our points of view are fundamentally different. I don't publish building instructions anymore but when I did it, it was in the spirit of sharing, not in the spirit of making some rich Chinese mf even richer. So, unlike you,  I wouldn't be honored.

 

P.S. I designed the shuttle. Then, with my permission, my friend at LEGO re-designed it to meet UCS set criteria. Then Lepin stole OUR intellectual property. Of course, technically it belongs to LEGO, but it's still OUR design.

[Tariq j]

3 hours ago, anothergol said:

 

Anyway, the imperial shuttle.. well don't forget that there IS a designer behind it, that is, behind the "real" one. Does Lego even credit him?  Let me check... I can't find anywhere, box or manual, where it credits 1. the artist(s) behind the imperial shuttle 2. the designer of the set. Oh, the irony!

 

 

 

[anothergol]

So, has Lego credited you anywhere on the box, manual, or online?

From what you're saying, it's all about money, Lego paid you, Lepin didn't, but none of them credited you.

Edit: ah ok there are credits online (& Lego only does this for some UCSes). That's better than nothing I suppose, but there's really nothing in the manuals or on the box, where it belongs?

Btw in that video the guy starts with "I designed the Imperial Shuttle". And how he's presenting it doesn't really sound like "I designed it and my friend re-designed it".
..meanwhile, someone at Lucasfilm really designed.. the Imperial Shuttle. And you're both taking credits for it. I know how hard it is, I've spent a lot of time on AT-ST's & AT-AT's. But I would never claim they're fully my design (on the other hand, I also know it's much harder to follow a blueprint than to be guided by the brick in an original design).

Maybe Lepin should have called me, I'd have designed a shuttle for them, and everyone would be happy :) (except Disney I guess)
Or course, if a *guy* came up and claimed to have designed something I did, I would have a problem with that. I don't think that's what Lepin does. I'd blame them for not asking permissions, for not paying anything, but not for "taking credit".

Edited April 20, 2017 by anothergol

[agrof]

7 hours ago, anothergol said:

BTW, since you seem to care more about the legal aspect: Legally speaking, I'd say Lepin does 2 things wrong, they copy the manuals, and the minifigs. Surely they can be legally attacked on this. However they could simply get rid of both. Manuals are unnecessary when you can check them online, and their minifigs suck anyway (the prints do). What's left: bags of random parts. That's really what you get, bags of random parts (they don't number them btw, that sucks as well). Can't be attacked on that.
 

There is the key: "what is left: bags and random parts". What You don't see, that these parts was carefully selected, built up in a specified order, to be able to get a good looking and "must-have" object, meanwhile delivering a flow in build. Believe or not: to achieve this, it requires manpower, creativity and lot of time. This is the spirit, and this is what being stolen. The Intellectual Property. Why don't they sell just bricks in buckets? Because people want to have the result, not just parts. This is the reason, why You see assembled models in the advertisements, and not part lists. Strange, right?

Imagine, this is the situation for every, by human created stuff. Cars, phones, computers, everything. Just because it is not materialized, it is still there, and still a value, which on companies rely. If it is stolen, it is reason to be attacked on. Even worse, if a company steals from individuals (MOCers), who are much more naked and weaponless against them, as another mega company.

People don't realize, and/or accept, that things just don't exist from themselves, and just don't pop-up on the shop's shelves. A living entity must be killed to be find it's piece (steak - yummi, right?) nicely packed in your fridge. You don't see it happening, but believe me, it is happening.

7 hours ago, anothergol said:

Lepin is lame for ripping off designs. Megabloks is lame for ripping off Lego. Lego is lame for ripping off Kiddicraft. And none of them ever credited authors of the sets. The only difference between Lego & Lepin is that Lego paid the designers.
Morally speaking they're all equally lame to me. But that also to do with the fact that, over a certain size, a company doesn't care about morals. It's all about making money, not exactly "legally", but by all means that allow you to get away with it. Like, tax evasion. Or producing in countries where it's cheaper. Legal, yes.

Ripping of the brick design is already an old story, and actually no patent for it for years. The way you combine the parts is what makes the difference - see above mentioned. Megablocks, Oxford can create their own design, which means a healthy competition.

Also don't forget: legality not equals morality. In an idealistic world, yes, there should be a strong relation, but we are all aware about the current situation worldwide. WE, people represent morality in the world, if the law doesn't act like, than we still can and should. Otherwise we are lost. Calming the conscience by covering it with inproper law (or worse: law, wich serves certain individual power interests) is a bad move, and destroys universal values, like respect, solidarity, empathy. Burns out the soul.

Here in the forum, we are humans, a community, not lawyers. If you don't feel the difference, than continuing this discussion makes no sense.

Edited April 20, 2017 by agrof

[Robianco]

When I saw someone bring up that Lego has made a lot of money so it doesn't matter I think a point was missed. So what if Lego makes a lot of money?.. It's a business. But to be successful in that business it works to build a portfolio of products and licenses to help it create shelves full of toys that people want, at a quality that people trust.

Lego has worked with Lucasfilm and Disney to acquire the rights to produce brick based merchandise for their properties. In the case of the Imperial Shuttle. A designer was paid to come up with that design, whether that be McQuarrie or not. Lucasfilm then owned the rights to that design. Lucasfilm then licensed Lego to build Star Wars sets and in doing so allowed the shuttle's likeness to be used. This is a mutually beneficial relationship. Lego as the world's biggest toy manufacturer, trusted for it's quality of design and product and Lucasfilm, now Disney, for being the largest creator of Child orientated media in the world with HUGELY popular properties.

The designer of the shuttle for Lucasfilm was paid... and did his job... the designer of the Lego shuttle was paid... and did his job. There is nothing in the world that says a designer working for a company gets to have his name credited on something. I've designed corporate identities for companies and even a currently circulating £2 coin produced by the Royal Mint. My name isn't on it. That's fine. I know that's not how things work. That's just what being a designer for a company is like. Yeah, people know it was you at that company... and your name might even get circulated a bit in the related press but most of the time it doesn't. It doesn't mean I don't take pride in what I created and it also doesn't mean that I feel the need for my name to be on it to be validated in some way.

The designer of 10212 doesn't need to be credited... nice if he is in some way but he was paid for his work and that's that. It doesn't make a copy of that work by Lepin any more valid if he isn't credited.

Lepin doesn't have a license agreement to recreate those designs either by Lego or Disney so they can't. That's regardless of how cheap it is and what market it's aimed at. Yes, AliExpress has made the western world able to buy these things and maybe, just maybe if these were just contained to the Asian market they were intended for as a very low price alternative to genuine Lego we wouldn't be having this discussion because we wouldn't really know about them and Lepin wouldn't have got so much attention, but that's a different conversation.

I just don't think we can take the argument that company A makes a lot of money so therefore it's OK for company B to copy it to make it cheaper for some people because A are already rich. If Lepin's brick quality is actually that good... and I've seen Youtube reviews of things such as the Porsche GT set claiming they can be, why not just pay for some designs and release your own sets. Release modulars that are compatible with Lego if you want... just pay for them... pay a MOCer to make some for them and go form there. Make a product that even Lego builders might want as a compliment to their existing modular set up. You just can't make Star Wars, DC, or Marvel sets to name but a few.

[Darkdragon]

6 hours ago, anothergol said:

The only difference between Lego & Lepin is that Lego paid the designers.

 

2 hours ago, anothergol said:

That's better than nothing I suppose, but there's really nothing in the manuals or on the box, where it belongs?

You seem to not understand how working for a company works. A designer that works for LEGO (for instance) isn't there to get his/her name out on all the designs he does for the company, everything done for the company belongs to the company. That's how real life works, there is nothing immoral or illegal about it. That is what he is getting paid to do.  Producing something and not paying the designer (via money or credit as agreed upon by the two parties) is where the immoral and illegal parts come in.

35 minutes ago, Robianco said:

The designer of the shuttle for Lucasfilm was paid... and did his job... the designer of the Lego shuttle was paid... and did his job. There is nothing in the world that says a designer working for a company gets to have his name credited on something.

This guy gets it.

[Slegengr]

6 hours ago, anothergol said:

The only difference between Lego & Lepin is that Lego paid the designers.

3 minutes ago, Darkdragon said:

 

You seem to not understand how working for a company works. A designer that works for LEGO (for instance) isn't there to get his/her name out on all the designs he does for the company, everything done for the company belongs to the company. That's how real life works, there is nothing immoral or illegal about it. That is what he is getting paid to do.  Producing something and not paying the designer (via money or credit as agreed upon by the two parties) is where the immoral and illegal parts come in.

As a design engineer, I can completely relate to this.  My job is to produce designs for my company.  When I get paid, the company is buying my design.

The one thing I will note is that I do get credit for what I have done: every time my design is not perfect, I will hear about it.  Designers are the origination of every design, so there is no one else to blame for a problem in the design.  The return from this is that I am compelled to fix my mistakes and consider how to avoid them in the future.  This brings positive effects in the future, which should increase my value as an employee, which also will likely increase my pay as my designs improve.  This is what it is probably like for every designer for LEGO (or for every design company, for that matter).  When someone steals a design, the designer should be somewhat flattered since the design was good enough to be stolen, but the effect is more negative when the profitability of the designer's company falls due to competition with the stolen design.

As @Robianco noted, if a competitor's quality of bricks is good enough, then they should hire designers and purchase IP's to allow for fair and legal competition to LEGO.  This is how the free market should work.  I just do not understand how anyone can support a company that steals a design and just tries to duplicate it at a much lower price point due to lack of design costs and IP's.  Taking someone else's idea and improving upon it, as LEGO did with Kiddicraft, is not the same as stealing (not to mention that Kiddicraft made bricks, which have existed for thousands of years).  Kiddicraft made a new innovation with the brick, making it from plastic and adding a method of interlocking the bricks together to produce a toy.  LEGO used the simple concept of interlocking bricks for beginning, but really became who they are today because of the stud-and-tube coupling system that was developed within their own company.  This innovation is what opened up the complex possibilities that allowed them to be a competitive toy manufacturer.  Now that patents have long-since run out on the brick with stud-and-tube coupling, any company is allowed to produce the same bricks, even with the same dimensions. They should not be allowed to steal the unique designs made with those bricks.
This is truly how every design works, as no modern product is made without copying some form of previous innovation, but it is stealing if there is no new or unique improvement made using other innovations.  The car would not exist today if the wheel had never been made.  How does the wheel work?  It is a simple concept of physics, which really cannot be owned by anyone.  The perfect world would see all designers, scientists, mathematicians, engineers, etc. working together and sharing what they learn so that others can use the knowledge for new innovations and improvements rather than people stealing other's designs to make money off someone else.

If IP is not respected, all businesses would struggle to survive, as the input required would set each business behind the competition when the resulting product would become open to anyone to produce.  The company that produces the design would lose out as the invested money to produce the design will return no profit if the design is just stolen and produced by some other company that only invested in the manufacturing equipment.

I personally have a high respect for any company that attempts to compete with LEGO by creating similar designs under their own IP's and with their own designs.  To be able to produce a similar product takes great skill, and to be able to achieve competent quality is quite an achievement.  This competition is necessary to keep the quality of a product on a continual cycle of improvement.  Competition is what compels LEGO to maintain and improve quality of product and design rather than allowing them to let quality slip.  LEGO does not have a monopoly on construction toys, as there are other competitors that look nothing like LEGO with their own unique construction methods (such as K'Nex and Erector).  This adds to legal competition that benefits the consumer.  MegaBlocks has added to the competition with their own unique innovations as well as taking advantage of popular IP's with which LEGO is not willing to become associated (such as Halo or World of Warcraft).  I still prefer the LEGO products and have little to do with the competing companies, but that is a matter of personal preference.

I hope this stealing of MOCs does not harm the LEGO MOC community.  Sharing of design and techniques is how all of us learn to improve our own skills utilizing aspects and techniques from other builders.
As Isaac Newton said, "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."  The importance here is in using what others can teach us so we can innovate improvements to our benefit and the benefit of others.

 

 

[anothergol]

1 hour ago, Robianco said:

There is nothing in the world that says a designer working for a company gets to have his name credited on something.

I didn't say that, -you- all did.

You're all complaining about 2 different things, and I countered them both.

1. morals, and credits. As you're saying, stolen or not, authors are rarely credited, *anyway*. If Lepin had properly licensed MOCs, they would still not credit anyone. If that doesn't counter the "it's lame because they ripoff MOCers without crediting them", I don't know what will.
 

2. laws. "Lepin doesn't have a license agreement to recreate those designs either by Lego or Disney so they can't"
You don't own China, it's them to decide what they're allowed to do or not, don't forget that. While yes, China has signed worldwide agreements about intellectual property, it's ulitimately THEM to decide how much effort they put into fighting counterfeit. And it's other countries to decide if they should penalize China for not enough efforts being made, but it's not YOU (nor Lego, nor foreign lawyers) to decide what's legal or not in China. Do you get it - your/our laws don't apply everywhere. What's a crime here isn't necessarily a crime in another, even neighboring country.
Say, if north korea wanted to copy Lego sets, there would be absolutely nothing illegal about it, because your laws don't apply there, and they have not agreed with other countries about anything.

If you find a Lepin set sold in a shop in your country, yeah, that's very different, and that will surely put the shop in troubles.

There are things you could complain about, though. As I wrote many times, the problem is more Aliexpress than Lepin. And you may indeed wonder, if it's proven to be counterfeit stuff, why they all pass custom inspections. It's your country's customs's job to seize counterfeit stuff before it gets delivered.

Edited April 20, 2017 by anothergol