How to deal with the thieves

[Wolf_Zipp]

Yes it´s Jeroens crane , they copied also his Video (channel : biao jun ) with the same sign as vonado !

It seems , Jeroens Intervention hold only a few weeks !

Edit: The Mamoet pics are copied from @nigel1975 

Edited May 13, 2019 by Wolf_Zipp

[Maaboo the Witch]

Vonado appears to have gone down. Mission accomplished. 

[Dave42]

Hi all together, after a few years of only reading i take this post to sign in.

I'm the buddy from efferman that has pissed on the leg of vonado.com ( we say so in german ? ) 

I don't know how long this brand is stopped, but by now i hope they know that they can't do anything they wanted.

It was just a little letter to facebook and their commercial was offline about an hour later, so it seems that

everyboby of us AFOL's is able to do something against the thieves, if we only have our eyes open and spend a few minutes.

I'd like to get BI's from other MOCcers, but if i had to spend money for it, i will make sure that i goes to the right one,not to thives.

At last, sorry for my bad english, the lessons are MANY years away.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Dave42

[Arnoob]

Sorry for Jeroen, but Vonado is still here (and so is his crane): LM11200

By the way: I am a very fresh user here and very impressed by this build!

 

[Mechbuilds]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1y0TNEXQrc

It seems that he's giving credit to jeroen ottens but still selling the instructions. 

[Dave42]

...well if i write what i feel now, i'll be kicked out in lightspeed .....

@Jeron Ottens maybe it could help to ask Liebherr what they think about abuse their name- they have A LOT more money &lawer power than anyone of us. Or go to TLC, cause they write ...." bricks like LEGO" ... thats also makeing money with another companys name

but this can also hit you, and that i DON'T want

Edited May 14, 2019 by Dave42

[ozacek]

Once again I probably have different opinions than the majority, but if it were to happen to me I would probably feel more proud than anything else that they would actually pick a design of mine, out of all those out there. Plus you have to consider that yes, they steal the design itself, but they still have to produce all the bricks, package, marketing, sell. It probably can't be qualified as a "quick buck".

In any case, I definitely think it shouldn't prevent you from release public instructions for all the others! Like @vectormatic puts it, "Lego designs by their very nature are open source" and I like that idea. For that very reason I also make public everything that I build, even if it sometimes takes a lot of time. I take from the community, I give to the community :)

Edited May 14, 2019 by ozacek

[Dave42]

The Website is down again ...

That tell us ; bomb this page with Comments in their post-office as soon as they come back again ( i've done this ) 

[NKubate]

Others have profit from my work as well, and although it is upsetting, there is not much you can do about it, except adding the usual disclaimers, so that they are clearly made aware what they do is wrong. In those cases I'm like: "Fine, if you want to be a jackass, be my guest."

What actually bothers me more is the double standards that many seem to use these days. They get upset and think it's outrageous when others take advantage of their intellectual property, but apparently these same people think that it's fine to (ab)use registered trademarks and brands for commercial/ financial gain without having the proper license to do so. Even though they seem to be perfectly aware that TLG needs licenses to develop their IP related product lines, they apparently are exempt themselves, claiming the fair-use policy. How is this fair? This type of reasoning I find extremely peculiar and upsets me a lot more!

[brunojj1]

OP´s question: „How can one stop a thief?“ Answer: „You just can`t, he can stay.“

„Should I learn to accept the parasite?“ „No, it´s you the parasite, even worse.“

„Should I offer instructions anyway?“ „No, you´re taking profit of them.“

„Should that bother me at all?“ „No, enjoy the sunshine and yourself.“

„How can one survive as a professional otherwise?“ „You shouldn´t, it´s a hobby after all.“

Wow  

[nerdsforprez]

While I don't completely agree with the above sentiment there were some comments that seemed to reflect actual fault on Jeroen's part.  Which is completely ludicrous.  I think many have really misinterpreted what it means to to "share."  Just because Jeroen, or anyone, chooses to share it does not mean they desire to be taken advantage of.  There is such thing as share with intended purpose.  Which does not mean going out and selling for a profit.  Can people do that? Sure.  But just because people technically can do something does not mean they should.

And accusing Jeroen or anyone who shares as greedy or "controlling" because they get hurt when others misuse or use other than intended purpose what they share is just arrogance at its peak.  It reflects the "I can take if I want because you put it out there" mentality that IMO puts us in this position of having to discuss this crap in the first place. 

If someone exposes a vulnerability they can be helped and appreciated for sharing it or they can be taken advantage of.  I would hope that the folks in this forum would comprise the former, not the latter. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by nerdsforprez

[Erik Leppen]

I think that's the problem with things that are based on trust. If 999 people follow it and act nicely, and 1 doesn't, you're still screwed.

[Lipko]

16 hours ago, brunojj1 said:

OP´s question: „How can one stop a thief?“ Answer: „You just can`t, he can stay.“ - there were some ideas in the thread

„Should I learn to accept the parasite?“ „No, it´s you the parasite, even worse.“ -

„Should I offer instructions anyway?“ „No, you´re taking profit of them.“

„Should that bother me at all?“ „No, enjoy the sunshine and yourself.“ -

„How can one survive as a professional otherwise?“ „You shouldn´t, it´s a hobby after all.“

Wow  

I don't think anyone (seriously) told what one must/should do or mustn't/shoudln't. Many of us just expressed it would be sad for the community if the talented guys, like you, would stop sharing (for me, giving instructions for money is also sharing) or even stop building, just like Madoca did (okay, I'm only speculating). But it's your decision. I'm okay with it, my medicore models can compete finally in the SEOC market 

Plus another important thing that you forgot to mention in your summary and was an important point in the thread, is that most of you probably don't pay any lincenses after your models, yet you have great advantage making profit with models of brands. These models sell much better than unlicenced models (maybe there are like 4 designers who's custom designs sell well). 

Edited May 17, 2019 by Lipko

[n7zhang]

After reading this post and found out about that Vonado's warehouse is in Shenzhen, China. I can barely say anything other than apologizing for what happened to those creators. 

Quote from @Clawp , "People who really like your work and really wanna support you, are gonna find a way to do it (donations or paying for instructions). The only noble reward you might get... is that someone is happy with your creation in their living room, based on your instructions :).", I totally agree with that and I am willing to pay for authentic lego parts and MOC instructions.

[nerdsforprez]

2 hours ago, Erik Leppen said:

I think that's the problem with things that are based on trust. If 999 people follow it and act nicely, and 1 doesn't, you're still screwed.

Yea I am not sure I see things that way.  That is why I suggested looking at it like a formula. Most things in life, I think are this way. On one side you have the folks that appropriately benefit, play nice, follow rules, - what have you, and on the other side you have folks that do the opposite.  If I have 999 people that don't abuse a privilege, and 1 that does, well, I am more than okay with that formula.  I win 99.9% of the time.  I'll take those odds any day of the week. 

Now, I know it can be more complicated than that.  If the .001% of the time I lose, but that lose is so egregiously intolerable, then no, I don't continue.  Only Jeroen, in this scenario, knows how much the .001% (to stay true to the example) really affects him. 

[Phleep]

If you're making really good stuff, it will be copied. That's the internet and it's both good and bad, but the one doesn't come without the other. That's not a value statement, just how it works.

Having your designs being used is a sign your work is good. If your designs are just meh, people aren't going to use those designs. It's also a useful validation that your work might have some commercial viability, or that there is a thirst for a service that doesn't exist.

So while it is seductive and justifiable to get outraged if someone is using your designs, if you take the internet as it comes, with over 4 billion web users, it is more empowering that way.

Thinking that all people (4 billion+) are going to play by your rules is insane. You don't get to share on your terms, even with well written copyright laws in place and even when those laws are followed. What is incumbent in sharing is that it is a loss of control. Most of the time this results in a net gain.

Illegitimate Lego based businesses are not sustainable and surely don't turn a massive profit. It's distracting to get hung up on those businesses.

While we should police against bad actors, I find it dispiriting to see people respond by deciding to limit the sharing of their work or obsessing over dodgy sellers, it's an ego driven response that detracts from the overwhelming beneficial effects of sharing on the internet.

Expect to be copied if you post really excellent stuff. Anticipate it. Hope for it. Aim for it. If you can produce such work, then you have additional choices and status that most other creators don't have. Such as the ability to sell your designs to a market that apparently exists, or to undermine dodgy businesses by offering your work for free.

[nerdsforprez]

2 hours ago, Lipko said:

 

Plus another important thing that you forgot to mention in your summary and was an important point in the thread, is that most of you probably don't pay any lincenses after your models, yet you have great advantage making profit with models of brands. These models sell much better than unlicenced models (maybe there are like 4 designers who's custom designs sell well). 

Sorry but this is a stretch.  Building a Lego model after the likeness of a licensed real-life vehicle versus the actual copying of something, piece for piece in the same materials is NOT the same thing.  Also, you can't compare the work that goes into building a real car or machine versus the work that goes into building a model.  Nor is the ownership linearly divided.  In a real vehicle you have hundreds of people that contribute to the product and technically "own" it.  In a Lego model, except in rare cases where there may be multiple contributors, there really is only one owner. 

Lastly, and I think folks forget this, but no one is out there building and making instructions to make cash.  At least no one in their right mind. The supposed "profit" out there is nothing but a pipe dream.  This has been brought up before, but asking for money to recover the costs of a very expensive hobby is much different than profiting off one's models.  One of the most successful builders out there in terms of popularity has voiced on multiple occasions (Sariel) there is no real profit to make in Lego building.  And I think he is dead-on in that evaluation.  

 

 

[Lipko]

23 minutes ago, nerdsforprez said:

Lastly, and I think folks forget this, but no one is out there building and making instructions to make cash.  At least no one in their right mind. The supposed "profit" out there is nothing but a pipe dream.  This has been brought up before, but asking for money to recover the costs of a very expensive hobby is much different than profiting off one's models.  One of the most successful builders out there in terms of popularity has voiced on multiple occasions (Sariel) there is no real profit to make in Lego building.  And I think he is dead-on in that evaluation.  

 

 

One main point (stated also in the OP) was that someone else is making money from one's design.
This hobby is not that expensive to mean finantial crisis to a first world citizen. If it is, then one of the main points of the topic IS about making cash.

One of the biggest issues with theft (which, in my opinion, is the most valid problem) is the low quality, especially with konck-off parts. Because it ruins the designers reputation and cause actual harm. But this wasn't even brought up in the thread.

Edited May 17, 2019 by Lipko

[Mechbuilds]

Personally, if i figure out something cool, i'd be okay with TLC using my idea to make money. It would be a great honor seeing my own personal moc being sold so everybody could enjoy it. 
But then again, i don't sell my instructions. I give them out for free. 

If some chinese knock off company takes my idea and starts making cash with it, fine, i honestly don't care. 

To me, lego is a hobby. It's a money sink and it makes me happy. If you truly wanted to make a profit with your hobby, then you should try everything you can to be employed by TLC. If you truly are a masterbuilder and your mocs are heaps better than the rest of us then you deserve to be working for lego so the public could get to enjoy your models. 


But i do agree that what the chinese knock off companies are doing is a shitty and trashy move to make. 

[aol000xw]

It is easy calling someone a thief, but how it works is really way more complicated than that.

First, there is no thief, as there is no robbing, because there is no property subtraction. We are talking of intellectual property infringement, and things get very messy from that point on.

If they are using some verbatim copy of someone's instructions then yes...its is obvious, Maybe you can fill a DMCA complaint or similar... not always the case. But if they are making a new set of instructions even with the same exact steps...well it is not obvious then.

Furthermore, when we are talking about reproductions of comercial models, there is a previous IP Infringement as the models aren't licensed. and the Lego designer can hardly make any claims about the design as he is not the rights holder. Then the implementation of the mechanisms isn't patented either so there isn't a way there else

What law exactly are they breaking? Who are they "robbing"? It may not be as easy.as that, so the answer may very well, no, they can't be stopped, even no, the Lego designer has no lawful claims at all

Unethical? Rightly so.. or not, up to the individual. Unlawful? Maybe... Maybe not.

The fact is there is not a single answer of right and wrong here.

 

 

 

 

[Meatman]

On 5/16/2019 at 11:33 AM, brunojj1 said:

OP´s question: „How can one stop a thief?“ Answer: „You just can`t, he can stay.“

„Should I learn to accept the parasite?“ „No, it´s you the parasite, even worse.“

„Should I offer instructions anyway?“ „No, you´re taking profit of them.“

„Should that bother me at all?“ „No, enjoy the sunshine and yourself.“

„How can one survive as a professional otherwise?“ „You shouldn´t, it´s a hobby after all.“

Wow  

I am assuming that you didn't get McLaren's permission to use their name correct? Would you be upset if they took legal action against you because you are profiting off of their name by selling instructions?

[nerdsforprez]

1 hour ago, Meatman said:

I am assuming that you didn't get McLaren's permission to use their name correct? Would you be upset if they took legal action against you because you are profiting off of their name by selling instructions?

Its comments like this that make me think there are actual apologists for copy-cats brands.  Could this be possible?  As I mentioned earlier, the comparison you are trying to make is inaccurate and unfair at best, irresponsible and perhaps even disingenuous at worst.  I don't think you can compare a mimicking or creating something in the likeness of something else, on a total different scale, in totally different materials, internals, etc. to a direct copy-cat of something in the same materials, scale, piece-by-piece. If we want to paint with such broad strokes then the whole world, literally the whole world, is guilty of copying something from someone else at some point in their lives and the issue becomes moot. 

[Mechbuilds]

Just now, nerdsforprez said:

Its comments like this that make me think there are actual apologists for copy-cats brands.  Could this be possible?  As I mentioned earlier, the comparison you are trying to make is inaccurate and unfair at best, irresponsible and perhaps even disingenuous at worst.  I don't think you can compare a mimicking or creating something in the likeness of something else, on a total different scale, in totally different materials, internals, etc. to a direct copy-cat of something in the same materials, scale, piece-by-piece. If we want to paint with such broad strokes then the whole world, literally the whole world, is guilty of copying something from someone else at some point in their lives and the issue becomes moot. 

But he has a point... Think about it logically. 

[nerdsforprez]

Feel free to spell it out for me then, logically.  Because no, I don't think he does.  That was MY point.  If we think strictly logically, the comparison does not make sense.  The logic I think you are hinting at is the supposed idea of hypocrisy behind the post.  I think your thinking goes something like this - "it is hypocritical to accuse others of copying when you are doing the same" - or something like that.  But my point is we are comparing apples to oranges.  If we paint the definition of "copying others work" with such a broad brush that we call building something in the likeness of something, in a different scale, different materials, etc.   as "copying" then we really are all guilty at some point in time.  It would be inevitable - because, well that is a such a broad brush.  If that is the case then we are all hypocrites, and pointing it out is a moot point because we become guilty of the exact thing we are accusing others of.  Which, like I said, makes the whole point moot....

So no, I don't think the logic holds at all....

[nerdsforprez]

10 hours ago, Lipko said:

One main point (stated also in the OP) was that someone else is making money from one's design.
This hobby is not that expensive to mean finantial crisis to a first world citizen. If it is, then one of the main points of the topic IS about making cash.

 

Yes, this is a valid point.  That was a main reason for the post, but either way, I think my point stands is that the idea of someone making gobs of money off these models is just not a realistic POV.  And I mean this with all due respect, but perhaps a point that Jeroen can take to heart.  Here is what I mean:

I can see someone getting real upset about the idea of someone making gobs of money off the back of someone else's work.  I truly can.  But in reality the truth of the matter is that at least as far as Lego builds go, I don't think that is the case.  Perhaps a few bucks.  But its not like they are swimming in it.  

To offer some perspective - folks who are of the disposition that they can easily take advantage of others typically are not that well off in life.  They are not happy campers, typically have negative dispositions, and their behaviors of taking advantage of others only digs them deeper into their own pit of self-absorption.  It really is sad to see.  In the case of Lego, I really debate the notion of them "profiting" or even "benefiting" of copying others work.  Technically speaking - yes, they earn a few bucks.  But ultimately, when you further engage in an unhealthy habit you only reinforce those habits that ultimately are making you miserable.  In the short term, perhaps it feels good, but in the long run, it only makes you more miserable.  Almost like addictive behaviors or really anything that is self-destructive.