LEPIN brings out Monster Fighters HAUNTED HOUSE (16007)

[Jedi-Bendu]

28 minutes ago, H3ssian said:

 

IN regards to Illegal, no I would not buy anything that was deemed as Illegal in the Nation I live in, but that would be taken in to consideration when deciding whats the next best thing was.

 

Lepin violates copyright. That's illegal in most countries.

[H3ssian]

5 minutes ago, Jedi-Bendu said:

Lepin violates copyright. That's illegal in most countries.

Well that all comes down to international and local copyright laws, patents, IP's etc etc  its not as black and white as you make it out to be sadly.  I'm guessing that's why its going to take at least a year for Lego to take Lepin to court. give's both party's time to build cases etc It looks like it might be tough work for Lego to crack the clone market, but if they manage to get their hooks into Lepin, it might set precedence for all the other set and minifig clone company's, heck Warner Bros, Disney etc might start chasing people using their IP's on clone figs and sets also. could be a huge clean up....

But thank goodness that's what lawyers and courts are paid to sort out and decide on... I just play with plastic bricks :)

[agrof]

4 hours ago, Florian_Wayne said:

 

Yes thats true. Better spend 2000,00€ for the LEGO UCS Millennium Falcon than 160€ for the LEPIN one. 

Or:

LEGO Haunted House: 350,00€, LEPIN: 58,00€
LEGO Imperial Flagship: 600,00€, LEPIN: 59,00€
LEGO Super Star Destroyer: 700,00€, LEPIN: 100,00€
LEGO Café Corner: 600,00€, LEPIN: 52,00€
LEGO Green Grocer: 550,00€, LEPIN: 55,00€
LEGO Taj Mahal: 1500,00€, LEPIN: 170,00€
LEGO Star Destroyer: 1600,00€, LEPIN: 113,00€
LEGO Death Star 2: 1500,00€, LEPIN: 119,00€
LEGO Black Pearl: 350,00€, LEPIN: 42,00€

All LEPIN prices including fast shipping via DHL Express


Sorry, but your comment makes no sense
 

Florian, I see You don't understand the message of my comment. I am not talking about scalpers on aftermarket, who are in the same Shameless Pot as thieves, in my opinion.

Nobody forces us to buy neither LEGO nor Lepin. Honestly living doesn't requires either. It is You, who press yourself to fullfill a whish. If this happen, based on personal preferences.

For me there is too much additional negative effects and questionably behaviour. Reminder: look at the big picture, don't think only in LEGO vs Lepin relation and in Euros.

+ 1 thing I never understood: why people always come up with MISB sets when it comes about discontinued sets and prices, what is wrong with second-hand LEGO? You can make great deals on them too, just needs a little hunting effort to look up the internet. I made it several times already.

Edited October 12, 2016 by agrof
grammar as usual... I am lame + addition

[wilson3a10]

 

Lepin starting to replicate MOCs.....

[Lord Insanity]

I think there is an important cultural gap that most people seem to be missing here.  In most countries based on "Western Values" copyright and patent laws tie into an underlying cultural value.  If someone creates a new idea or invention they "own" it.  If you share a picture online or make a product as a company and someone else copies that, it is similar to stealing and highly offensive.  In Chinese culture if someone shares a picture online or makes a product as a company it is considered flattery and good business if it gets copied or improved upon.  The notion that someone "owns" an idea is completely crazy.  Needless to say these two cultural attitudes are diametrically opposed.  If you grew up with one the other would seem completely alien and baffling.

On a personal level, I have no problem with coping retired sets that command crazy aftermarket prices. I think it is silly Lego doesn't do that themselves.  Of course when they started to recently (Winter Toy Shop, Death Star) there was a lot of negative flak.  Go figure.  The Ideas sets that were not (or will likely not be) released being copied is another gray area.  It is a bummer if the original designer doesn't like it and wasn't compensated but they did give up the rights when they posted it to Lego Ideas.  (Seriously read the terms and conditions.)  A few hundred AFOLs picking up sets like this is nothing compared to the thousands if not millions they will sell in China itself.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Lord Insanity
Gramatical Correction

[Jedi-Bendu]

6 hours ago, H3ssian said:

Well that all comes down to international and local copyright laws, patents, IP's etc etc  its not as black and white as you make it out to be sadly.

A court has already ruled that the Lego minifigs are trademark protected......so, like I said, what Lepin does is illegal......so it IS as black and white as I make it.

http://www.toynews-online.biz/news/read/lego-wins-minifigures-trademark-courtroom-battle/044741

2 minutes ago, Lord Insanity said:

The notion that someone "owns" an idea is completely crazy. 

Never heard of copyright and patent I guess?

[Captain Pirate Man]

So... If the Minifigure is indeed copyright protected, how are ANY sort of bootleg minifigures somehow considered less bad?

Edited October 12, 2016 by Captain Pirate Man

[Robianco]

Each minifigure that is produced by a bootlegger will have some very minor differences in the moulding from a Lego figure. Whether that be from shoulder shape, hip piece, torso to hip connector etc. Whether this is enough to circumvent copyright I'm not sure. A small figure compatible with the Lego system can't be copyright protected so I'm not sure how much of a difference you need to make it to get round this.

[dr_spock]

12 minutes ago, Jedi-Bendu said:

A court has already ruled that the Lego minifigs are trademark protected......so, like I said, what Lepin does is illegal......so it IS as black and white as I make it.

http://www.toynews-online.biz/news/read/lego-wins-minifigures-trademark-courtroom-battle/044741

Never heard of copyright and patent I guess?

It is not black and white.  Legally, there are shades of grey technicalities.  Copyright, patent, IP laws are country specific. Court ruling in one country may not have any legal enforcement in another country if the other country didn't sign an international treaty or trade agreement to abide by similar IP laws or the IP wasn't copyrighted or patented in that other country.  Best a country can do sometimes is to block the other country's bootleg products from entering into their country by having their customs search and seize at ports of entry.

 

[H3ssian]

37 minutes ago, Jedi-Bendu said:

A court has already ruled that the Lego minifigs are trademark protected......so, like I said, what Lepin does is illegal......so it IS as black and white as I make it.

http://www.toynews-online.biz/news/read/lego-wins-minifigures-trademark-courtroom-battle/044741

Never heard of copyright and patent I guess?

Its a tad more complicated than that. but look I'm not going to argue the complexities of IP's and infringements and international law as you seem to have a very simplistic view on the matter. Just enjoy ya bricks and worry about important things

[Jedi-Bendu]

7 minutes ago, H3ssian said:

Its a tad more complicated than that. but look I'm not going to argue the complexities of IP's and infringements and international law as you seem to have a very simplistic view on the matter. Just enjoy ya bricks and worry about important things

Real class. Bravo.

[Lord Insanity]

1 hour ago, Jedi-Bendu said:

Never heard of copyright and patent I guess?

Generally speaking quoting someone out of context is considered intellectually dishonest.  Thank you for illustrating the difficulty people have understanding cultural values diametrically opposed to the ones they were raised with though.

[Jedi-Bendu]

3 minutes ago, Lord Insanity said:

Generally speaking quoting someone out of context is considered intellectually dishonest.  Thank you for illustrating the difficulty people have understanding cultural values diametrically opposed to the ones they were raised with though.

I should have added the word "They": "They never heard of copyright and patent I guess?" (and yes, thats a rhetorical question)

[agrof]

1 hour ago, Lord Insanity said:

I think there is an important cultural gap that most people seem to be missing here.  In most countries based on "Western Values" copyright and patent laws tie into an underlying cultural value.  If someone creates a new idea or invention they "own" it.  If you share a picture online or make a product as a company and someone else copies that, it is similar to stealing and highly offensive.  In Chinese culture if someone shares a picture online or makes a product as a company it is considered flattery and good business if it gets copied or improved upon.  The notion that someone "owns" an idea is completely crazy.  Needless to say these two cultural attitudes are diametrically opposed.  If you grew up with one the other would seem completely alien and baffling.

On a personal level, I have no problem with coping retired sets that command crazy aftermarket prices. I think it is silly Lego doesn't do that themselves.  Of course when they started to recently (Winter Toy Shop, Death Star) there was a lot of negative flak.  Go figure.  The Ideas sets that were not (or will likely not be) released being copied is another gray area.  It is a bummer if the original designer doesn't like it and wasn't compensated but they did give up the rights when they posted it to Lego Ideas.  (Seriously read the terms and conditions.)  A few hundred AFOLs picking up sets like this is nothing compared to the thousands if not millions they will sell in China itself.

I am not sure about the cultural differences nowadays. What You describe, was correct in the past, but today's China is more capitalist than the Western world. I am sure, they have the numbers behind their company strategy, and their production is not based on respect.  Also for me it is not about protecting or owning the idea. There is a LOT of hard intellectual and physical work of lot people behind, what chinese companies just take over, so they do save this costs basically. Most people can't imagine how many people works how many hours till a simple thing will be realized - name literally any product.

You are right with Ideas, it is indeed a huge mix. Law and such is a big gray border zone for me, I am too simple to comment on that. 

Edited October 12, 2016 by agrof

[Alpinemaps]

Bottom line - Lepin is using someone else's intellectual property to make money.(without obtaining a license to do so).

Is there anyone that can argue against that point?

[Adamskii]

7 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

Bottom line - Lepin is using someone else's intellectual property to make money.(without obtaining a license to do so).

Is there anyone that can argue against that point?

If I buy a Lego kit, doesn't that imply I have been given access to that IP? I know Lego haven't made anyone sign a EULA, and so have really let their product be used in any way the customer so deam's fit.If your answer to that question is no, then keep reading my dilemma.  So once owning the kit (and implied legally acquired access to the IP used to create it - they gave me an instruction book with the kit) if I duplicate it using my existing Lego pieces, have I not only employed the toy as it was designed to be used, but used the IP to recreate a Lego product that they will never get paid for? Isn't that the point of Lego ? anything can be duplicated using the same bricks? 

So for example If I bought the Lego fire station, and used my spare parts to build a second one the same, then didn't I prevent that hardworking designer from gaining some kind of recognition for his IP rights? So taking that a step further I decide to sell my duplicate kit, because I need the money more than a second fire station, I am now a criminal engaging in illegal copyright activity, because, the Bottom Line is, I would have used someone else's intellectual property to make money, without obtaining a license to do so. (Better not buy any instructions on Bricklink anytime soon- Peeron will be history soon, sharing IP from others, file sharing.. sounds familiar)

I'M not a Lawyer, I can only imagine the arguments they employ to counter Lego's suit. I cant argue your point, but I doubt the court case will be over after Lego's lawyers read your Bottom line out to the presiding Chinese Judge. And if the court rules it quite legal, wow consider those implications. Certainly will ruin any argument that it is illegal. Once a case goes to court, I always assumed there were two sides to a story and a third impartial party ruled on it. No one was engaged in illegal activity until after the ruling. And if it is illegal, why is Lego not issuing cease and dissist orders globally recognized. Nike does it, Apple is very good it, Lego has resources those companies would be comparable too.. Nope cannot argue against your point. But then Lego doesn't seem to be making much of an effort in arguing for it either.

[Alpinemaps]

So good and interesting points that you bring up, @Adamskii.  There's a couple of points I'd like to discuss:

1 hour ago, Adamskii said:

If I buy a Lego kit, doesn't that imply I have been given access to that IP?  I know Lego haven't made anyone sign a EULA, and so have really let their product be used in any way the customer so deam's fit.

You've been given access to that IP.  Not access to profit from that IP.  But access to use that IP with the instructions that have been provided.  I don't believe it's reasonable to assume that being granted access to the IP assumes that you been granted access to profit from a direct copy of that IP (e.g., mass produce that same set the same way that LEGO has put it into market).  You can buy and sell it (to a point - LEGO does come after people who buy from them and resell product, if they catch you).  But that's the product you've purchased.  Not a copy.

Quote

So taking that a step further I decide to sell my duplicate kit, because I need the money more than a second fire station, I am now a criminal engaging in illegal copyright activity, because, the Bottom Line is, I would have used someone else's intellectual property to make money, without obtaining a license to do so.

Are you creating a new box?  Are you creating new blocks?  Or are you selling the other one you bought off the store shelf?  Those are two different things.  In the example that you cite, you are free to do that.  You can sell your spare copy.  You disposing of property.  You aren't mass producing a copy of the item.

Quote

Once a case goes to court, I always assumed there were two sides to a story and a third impartial party ruled on it. No one was engaged in illegal activity until after the ruling

This statement raises an eyebrow.  Certainly, if someone commits murder, they've committed an illegal activity, haven't they?  Even before the case goes to court?  The question really should be that the person (or company) hasn't been convicted of any wrongdoing until a ruling has occurred.

Quote

And if it is illegal, why is Lego not issuing cease and dissist orders globally recognized. Nike does it, Apple is very good it, Lego has resources those companies would be comparable too.

Economy of scale.  LEGO can chose to go after (or not go after) whomever they choose.  I can't speak for LEGO, I can only guess.  I would guess that LEGO isn't going to go after individuals using their IP to make creations and sell them, because it isn't financially reasonable to do so.  Why spend tens of thousands on a lawyer to issue a C&D and prosecute a case against an AFOL, who is making a couple of hundred dollars on selling LEGO creations. A company spends money to make money.  There's no money to be made going over small potatoes.  But big companies that threaten to eat into your profits (e.g., Lepin) - that's who you go after.

I've always wondered why LEGO didn't go after companies like this previously.  I'm guessing they didn't see them as a big enough threat, or figure out a way to make their case as buttoned up as possible to ensure that they're going to come a financial winner.  Who knows?  Maybe LEGO is using this as a way to get Lepin to negotiate a licensing fee from them.  Or maybe they're trying to get some financial consideration out of them.  (In other words, sue them with the intent to force them to the table).  Or maybe they truly want to shut down this operation.

[rodiziorobs]

 

2 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

Are you creating a new box?  Are you creating new blocks?  Or are you selling the other one you bought off the store shelf?  Those are two different things.  In the example that you cite, you are free to do that.  You can sell your spare copy.  You disposing of property.  You aren't mass producing a copy of the item.

Your questions here do raise an interesting point: LEPIN is perfectly within their legal rights to create new bricks and sell them. They can even advertise them as "compatible with major brands". The goods they produce and sell are completely legal, and there can be no legal repercussions for that.

As for the IP, that is a tricky issue, and not black and white as some have argued. They obviously want buyers to be reminded about the name-brand good and draw the comparison, seeing their own set as a replacement good or a substitution for the name-brand. This practice is also not illegal, as Captain Pirate Man demonstrated with his generic cereal example. Whoever makes Honey-O's wants you to look at the box, compare the two, and see it as a substitution for the name-brand good. This is perfectly legal. As for the good itself, in most instances it can be identical--bricks, cereal, it doesn't really matter.

Who is to even say that a specific configuration of bricks constitutes an IP? As has been pointed out, the system of play is designed to be open-source, and while talent and investment is needed to create certain designs, does the fact that the bricks are stacked a certain way constitute a copyrighted design? Is my MOC of two 2x4s stacked considered a legally defensible creation, unique to me? How many more bricks or complex techniques would need to be present for that answer to be yes? At what point do I have a unique enough creation that it is protected by copyright? This is why the courts need to make a decision for the activity in question to be considered illegal. Note that this doesn't even concern intent to sell or profit, but rather the simple ownership of an idea.

Even then, when/if an IP has been copied, there has been no infraction until the good distributed--which still does not need to include sale or profit to be an infraction.

The difficulty arises from how closely the generic brand markets itself to the original, and whether the buyer would be deceived into thinking they were buying the name-brand article or officially licensed product. Honey-O's knows it needs to have a different looking box than Cheerios to avoid a lawsuit, and so it does.

Again this is why the courts need to intervene before a pronouncement of legality/illegality can be made. How close is too close? Us westerners can say with surety that the box art on the Nemerald Night is a rip-off; Chinese courts may decide that the logo change and a few extra Ns constitute enough of a difference that, like the Honey-Os in your kitchen, the product is different enough to be legit.

Is it ethical? To most people, no. Are they ripping people/companies off? Yes. Are they reaping the rewards of others' work (R&D, aesthetic talent, etc.)? Absolutely.

 Is it illegal? No, at least not yet.

This is why LEGO is pursuing litigation, to get it declared illegal, because otherwise they will have to rely on economic tools* which will take more work and frankly isn't as succinct or airtight as a legal position.

 

Somewhat off topic: it really grates on me when people say that producing and selling custom licensed characters is more acceptable than what LEPIN is doing. Does Christo or whoever else have a contract from Marvel or DC or whoever to produce and distribute goods based off of their IPs? No? No. In my mind that is even less legitimate than LEPIN, whose "rip-offs" are essentially generic bricks in a similar configuration, whereas customizers are trying to mimic likenesses and images with zero variation. Yet somehow they get praise for their verisimilitude--for how well they can rip off others' IP.

I am not saying I would buy either one or condemn those that do, but there is a clear double-standard with people who pretend to value copyright sanctity in some cases but not others; both instances are equally reproachable.

*TLG could certainly rerelease older sets to satisfy the unmet demand--production schedules and warehouse space notwithstanding--but the reasons they don't is a whole other can of worms that strays way too far off topic to discuss here. The reason they are going after LEPIN is that basically a legal barrier to entry is an easier way to protect their market share than actually fighting for it.

[Alpinemaps]

Completely agree with everything you've said.

54 minutes ago, rodiziorobs said:

*TLG could certainly rerelease older sets to satisfy the unmet demand--production schedules and warehouse space notwithstanding--but the reasons they don't is a whole other can of worms that strays way too far off topic to discuss here. The reason they are going after LEPIN is that basically a legal barrier to entry is an easier way to protect their market share than actually fighting for it.

I agree your statement goes way off topic, but to bring it back to a degree - there are those that argue that this is the only way to (affordably) purchase sets that LEGO has retired.  The problem is - LEGO can do whatever they want with an IP.  If they decide not to make it available, that's their decision.  Sucks that you've missed out, but that's the way it is.

I would *love* to own a VW Bus.  But VW doesn't produce it anymore.  They own the IP.  So...should I see if there's a "knock-off" brand that's available?  Should I buy a used one at a price I don't like?  Or do I have to live with VW's decision not to market that product anymore?

[H3ssian]

1 hour ago, rodiziorobs said:

 

Your questions here do raise an interesting point: LEPIN is perfectly within their legal rights to create new bricks and sell them. They can even advertise them as "compatible with major brands". The goods they produce and sell are completely legal, and there can be no legal repercussions for that.

As for the IP, that is a tricky issue, and not black and white as some have argued. They obviously want buyers to be reminded about the name-brand good and draw the comparison, seeing their own set as a replacement good or a substitution for the name-brand. This practice is also not illegal, as Captain Pirate Man demonstrated with his generic cereal example. Whoever makes Honey-O's wants you to look at the box, compare the two, and see it as a substitution for the name-brand good. This is perfectly legal. As for the good itself, in most instances it can be identical--bricks, cereal, it doesn't really matter.

Who is to even say that a specific configuration of bricks constitutes an IP? As has been pointed out, the system of play is designed to be open-source, and while talent and investment is needed to create certain designs, does the fact that the bricks are stacked a certain way constitute a copyrighted design? Is my MOC of two 2x4s stacked considered a legally defensible creation, unique to me? How many more bricks or complex techniques would need to be present for that answer to be yes? At what point do I have a unique enough creation that it is protected by copyright? This is why the courts need to make a decision for the activity in question to be considered illegal. Note that this doesn't even concern intent to sell or profit, but rather the simple ownership of an idea.

Even then, when/if an IP has been copied, there has been no infraction until the good distributed--which still does not need to include sale or profit to be an infraction.

The difficulty arises from how closely the generic brand markets itself to the original, and whether the buyer would be deceived into thinking they were buying the name-brand article or officially licensed product. Honey-O's knows it needs to have a different looking box than Cheerios to avoid a lawsuit, and so it does.

Again this is why the courts need to intervene before a pronouncement of legality/illegality can be made. How close is too close? Us westerners can say with surety that the box art on the Nemerald Night is a rip-off; Chinese courts may decide that the logo change and a few extra Ns constitute enough of a difference that, like the Honey-Os in your kitchen, the product is different enough to be legit.

Is it ethical? To most people, no. Are they ripping people/companies off? Yes. Are they reaping the rewards of others' work (R&D, aesthetic talent, etc.)? Absolutely.

 Is it illegal? No, at least not yet.

This is why LEGO is pursuing litigation, to get it declared illegal, because otherwise they will have to rely on economic tools* which will take more work and frankly isn't as succinct or airtight as a legal position.

 

Somewhat off topic: it really grates on me when people say that producing and selling custom licensed characters is more acceptable than what LEPIN is doing. Does Christo or whoever else have a contract from Marvel or DC or whoever to produce and distribute goods based off of their IPs? No? No. In my mind that is even less legitimate than LEPIN, whose "rip-offs" are essentially generic bricks in a similar configuration, whereas customizers are trying to mimic likenesses and images with zero variation. Yet somehow they get praise for their verisimilitude--for how well they can rip off others' IP.

I am not saying I would buy either one or condemn those that do, but there is a clear double-standard with people who pretend to value copyright sanctity in some cases but not others; both instances are equally reproachable.

*TLG could certainly rerelease older sets to satisfy the unmet demand--production schedules and warehouse space notwithstanding--but the reasons they don't is a whole other can of worms that strays way too far off topic to discuss here. The reason they are going after LEPIN is that basically a legal barrier to entry is an easier way to protect their market share than actually fighting for it.

Fantastic post, and far better written that what I could ever do.

 

43 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said:

Completely agree with everything you've said.

I agree your statement goes way off topic, but to bring it back to a degree - there are those that argue that this is the only way to (affordably) purchase sets that LEGO has retired.  The problem is - LEGO can do whatever they want with an IP.  If they decide not to make it available, that's their decision.  Sucks that you've missed out, but that's the way it is.

I would *love* to own a VW Bus.  But VW doesn't produce it anymore.  They own the IP.  So...should I see if there's a "knock-off" brand that's available?  Should I buy a used one at a price I don't like?  Or do I have to live with VW's decision not to market that product anymore?

The car argument baffles me, You do know that most Shelby cobras driving around today are full kit copy's due to the price of originals right? In fact the reproduction and kit market for classic sport cars is a booming market. 50k for a kit Cobra and 1mil + for an Original. everyone wants an orignal but due to the price most are just happy with a copy. 

[Peppermint_M]

This thread has been locked. Updates to the site guidelines and the site-wide announcement are as follows: 

Clone Brands, Competitor Brands and Bootlegs:

A Clone brand or competitor brand, is a product manufactured by a legitimate company. For Example Oxford,Mega Blocks. Kreo or Character Building. These are companies that do not infringe copyrights and provide a competitor product, such as licenses and themes LEGO do not produce.

It is fair to discuss, compare and share these brands and their products in the Community section of the Forum. 

Bootlegs, Rip-Offs, Fakes:

Bootlegs, fakes, rip-offs. These manufacturers copying LEGO and other legitimate companies set designs and minifigures. Using stolen designs of sets and figures, they produce replicas of the real deal and sell them at knock down prices. There are hundreds of names attached to these products and varied quality between them. 

We will no longer accept discussion and sharing of these products on Eurobricks. Most of these "brands" are facing legal cases and are not something we want on Eurobricks