Hod Carrier

Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Hod Carrier

Extra

  • Country
    Good ol' U of K

Recent Profile Visitors

1449 profile views
  1. Hod Carrier

    ScotNick's revised and new models

    Some excellent updates there. I like that you don’t ignore humble vehicles like the vans and pack as much thought and detail into them as you do into your larger headline-grabbing steam locos.
  2. Hod Carrier

    SNCF Class X73500

    Ooo, I like that. It’s nice to see something modern so well realised. The shape and proportions look spot on. Very well done.
  3. Hod Carrier

    Powered Up FAQ and Community Wishes

    When will the answers come? (Just wondering)
  4. Hod Carrier

    Is using SBrick cheating?

    I think it depends entirely on how you feel about it. When you consider how prevalent third party parts are, such as wheels and valve motions, and how acceptable it appears to be to use non-LEGO parts, like Arduino modules and Kadee couplers, I think choosing to use an SBrick instead of PF or PU really shouldn’t cause you to lose too much sleep.
  5. Hod Carrier

    Narrow Gauge 0-4-0

    That’s a very sweet little train you’ve designed there. I like that very much. Power is almost certainly going to have to come from a motorised wagon of some sort, as I can’t see how you would fit a motor inside the loco itself. One possibility might be something like this, although you may not necessarily need two motors.
  6. Hod Carrier

    MOC (to be restored) - BR Class 55 - Deltic - 4,5v

    I like that your model is as loud as the original. You got the shape nailed and I love the rough and ready retro look of the model with the techniques and parts you’ve used. Got to love those studs. I think it’s only right that you should complete it as much as you can. It’s been waiting for a long time to have it’s time in the sun. Please keep the overall style and look of the model and try not to substitute old parts for newer design ones.
  7. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    @Brother From Another Brick Honestly...? I'd rather you didn't. I felt a little uncomfortable listening to the interview because I was concerned that it might just have descended into a public shaming and I'm not entirely sure that redoing it will add anything. @Jimbricked has had the opportunity to put his points across and I think we can all see just how naïve he has been, which is something that I hope he can now see for himself. Apart from failing to adequately raise the actual concerns we had, the only thing that concerned me was that Eurobricks comes out of your interview badly. Anyone watching it who doesn't know this community might get an inaccurate impression of what we are like. We are not hateful, vindictive or overly possessive, and neither are our rules draconian or restrictive. I do not believe that our reaction to this situation has been in any way disproportionate nor unrepresentative of how other parts of the wider AFOL community would have reacted. Jimbricked has not been banned and I would expect that he could still be a part of Eurobricks if he wished to.
  8. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    @Tenderlok Most welcome. @MAB I'm not sure that the interviewer was unaware of the differences between right and wrong, but more that he didn't understand what the fuss is all about. He seemed to have been under the impression that it was about MOCs being featured on Jim's YouTube channel and failed to grasp that what we are objecting to is the unauthorised sale of work not originating with him. I would have hoped that if he had understood that, Jim might have been called out more effectively than he actually was.
  9. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    Thanks for doing that, but I think you might have let him off the hook slightly. I understand entirely the point you were trying to drill down into with regard to featuring other people's creations, but that wasn't really the point. I don't imagine anyone would object to a third party picking up their work and featuring it. Photo hosting sites like Flickr allow users to "favourite" content and have it appear on their own sites enabling it to reach a wider audience. And that's the sort of thing that everyone who uses sites like that or feature their creations here on Eurobricks accept and are clearly happy about. The issue here was that Jim featured work that wasn't his and then harvested the instructions to sell for his own personal gain. If he'd featured the content, credited the creator and then linked to the creator's own page where the instructions could be downloaded under the creator's own terms, I'm sure that would have been fine and drawn no objections at all. Clearly Jim is a young man and innocent in the way that the world works, but youth and inexperience are not excuses. If you step into the adult world of commerce then the law does not differentiate based on age. You clearly called him out and gave him a hard time over his giveaways, but you didn't do the same over his money-making scheme. I was left with the distinct impression that you sympathised with him and that you failed to communicate the serious nature of his predicament. I understand that he has removed all his content now and that deals with the issue by one means, but I don't feel that Jim's has fully grasped the severity of the situation. All that said, I do hope that he learns from this experience and comes back wiser and more circumspect. Rather than asking friends and family for advice he should check for himself what is and is not OK. I expect that it will take some time for him to rehabilitate his reputation, but I hope he bounces back. I speak for myself when I say that the situation here is not personal but rather is based on his actions and that this is not a hate campaign or a witch hunt. I would like to think that the rest of the community agrees with my sentiment also.
  10. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    @Toastie This is the beauty of IP and copyright laws. The owner of the IP can choose whether or not to assert their rights. The difference is the ethos of the community to which we all belong. The desire of it’s members to share openly and freely for the benefit of the community as a whole is one of it’s defining characteristics and it’s greatest strength. The problem is when someone abuses that for personal gain. It doesn’t devalue the ethos, but it clearly makes people nervous and reluctant to share their ideas and creations. Should we stop being a community because of the selfish actions of an individual or individuals? I would hope not. You may not care about what happens to your creations, but others do. If we lost the ethos of the community because of this the community as a whole would be poorer as a result.
  11. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    Then I think that was a bit of an overreaction. He need not have taken down everything, only the stuff he didn’t have permission to use.
  12. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    Was the content voluntarily pulled or has YouTube yanked the whole lot? I think it’s a bit of a shame. If Jim really does have content that is either his own or that he has permission showcase then I think he should be allowed to do so.
  13. Hod Carrier

    Unauthorized selling of instructions for MOCs

    I’ve been following this thread with a sense of dismay but have refrained from commenting until now. While I thank you for taking this matter on and leading on bringing about a negotiated solution, I cannot bring myself to agree with your sentiment. I would only say that limited progress has been made in explaining to Jim the importance of respecting other people’s IP, but there is still a rather large elephant in the room. What alarms me is that someone has taken IP belonging to other people and monetised it for their own gain. While this may not be technically illegal (although it would be interesting to know the terms of the permissions he has sought), it strikes me as being highly immoral. If a designer wishes to sell instructions or .lxf files for their creations that is their decision and no-one else’s. They set the price depending on what value they place on it and the amount of time and effort invested, and therefore they benefit. If they choose to host or promote their files elsewhere this must be negotiated and terms, including any revenue share, agreed. It should never be implied that allowing free access to content online means the owner is happy for it to be harvested and monetised without their knowledge or permission. These processes should always be lead by the designer. I’m sorry to have to say these things because I support the community ethos that applies here, but I’m not really happy with this situation
  14. Hod Carrier

    Class 23 D5909

    @ColletArrow Call yourself a pedant...?!
  15. Hod Carrier

    Class 23 D5909

    Absolutely!! I’m right with you on that.