Jump to content

Rhino Modelworks is a fraud counterfeiter


Recommended Posts

About two years ago when I was making a 1/32 CF-18 Hornet, I came upon a thread by Dimitri of DMold Modelworks (http://dmold-modelworks.com/) who claimed that an ebay seller by the name of Paul Miller was selling fake copies of his F-4 intakes. That thread can be found here:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=194372&hl

Since I had just purchased from Paul Miller a set of D-Mold F-18 intakes on ebay for my build, I became suspicious and compared them to some real D-Mold F-4 intakes I had purchased from a reputable supplier. The first thing that caught my eye was how poor the labeling was, notwithstanding the fact they were for completely different intakes. The F-18 label was poorly printed on paper as though it was made on an inkjet printer, while the F-4 intakes had crisp lettering on cardboard. So I contacted Dimitri directly and sent him photographs of the suspicious intakes and he confirmed they were indeed copies of his own with some subtle differences in the mold seams. Dimitri then sent me another set of his F-18 intakes (free!) so that I could compare them, so I posted this pic in my build thread...

Intake6.jpg

Shortly after getting involved in "outing" this fake seller, I contacted Paul Miller directly for a refund. He of course totally ignored me and shortly after this, his ebay account was shut down, presumably by ebay.

About a year ago I started to see "Rhino Modelworks" resin stuff listed on ebay. The items that really caught my eye were 1/32 F-4 and F-18 intakes, which again looked a lot like the DMold products, so I became suspicious. One of the items Rhino Modelworks sold that really interested me was burner cans for the 1/32 Academy F-18 kit, which appeared to be the same as the Korean MK1 Design cans I had used in my build, but could no longer buy because they were out of production. Here's what the MK1 cans look like from the outside.....

Burner3.jpg

And here's what the Rhino nozzles look like from their ebay listing....

15BE56E1C18D41148A74DAE2880B16E2.jpg

I tried to purchase a set of these nozzles from Rhino, but to my surprise, they were "not available", at least not to me. Although I sometimes have difficulty getting stuff shipped to Canada, this listing claimed worldwide shipping, so I was a bit perplexed. After numerous attempts to buy these and other items from Rhino Modelworks, I continued to get the same response, which I later found out was because I was "blocked" for some reason. Sellers on ebay can block certain other accounts if they have had bad experiences with them in the past. Since I have a perfect record of over 150 transactions, I became very suspicious that Rhino Modelworks was indeed Paul Miller all over again.

In order to acquire a set of these nozzles, I recruited a fellow modeler to buy the item on ebay and then I reimbursed him. I can tell you that they are identical to the MK1 Design cans above, right down to some subtle flaws on the inside of the cans. Further, they came from Mansfield Texas, where Paul Miller lives (I have his home address which is next door in Arlington).

I know that much of this has been reported in other forums before, like this one earlier this month where Dimitri has again found that the Rhino resin are copies of his own work....

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=228880&hl

But there's more!

During my build of the Hornet, I took numerous photographs of the real deal to use for comparison. That build thread is here:

http://s362974870.onlinehome.us/forums/air/index.php?showtopic=223883

One of the areas I spent a lot of time and research on was the engine nozzles, so I took several pics of same on a CF-18A at Abbotsford last August like these and posted them in my build thread.....

Burner15.jpg

Burner16.jpg

When I received the new fake Rhino F-18 nozzles 6 months ago, I didn't pay any attention to the instructions, but for some reason last night I pulled them out and took a look at them. See anything familiar?....... :angry:

RhinoScam.jpg

Not only did this SOB steal my pics without my permission for commercial use, he even tried to explain the ceramic coating of the insides of the nozzles from my explanations in my build thread (he got it all wrong). No wonder he wouldn't sell me any! What a jerk.

Anyway, Mr. Miller is still selling on ebay under the name of "rhino3401" and you can see he is very active here:

http://feedback.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewFeedback2&userid=rhino3401&ftab=AllFeedback&myworld=true

Many of the items being sold by Rhino can be traced to several other resin manufacturers, most of which are no longer in production like Cutting Edge. I don't know much about 1/48 stuff, but his 1/32 F-15 seamless intakes sure look a lot like the Cutting Edge product.

Bottom line is that I wouldn't support this parasite who is clearly stealing everyone's hard work and even photographs for his own personal gain. I understand that when I post pics on the 'net they are copied and used by others (which is why I post them), but when you use them for commercial use, you cross the line. Why am I not surprised?

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Frack! I was hoping to buy a set of his Academy F-18C cans as the Aires ones I have don't fit. I placed a rather large order with him a few months back and enjoy his stuff. I can't really tell if they are copies are not as they look different than the Dmold, Cutting Edge, Aires, etc other resin pieces I have. If he is making copies of OOP stuff I'll sign up for some Cutting Edge stuff...mainly B-1B and SR-71 exhausts along with everything U-2 related. I have zero issues in him making copies of OOP stuff....now if he is copying other people's stuff then show some proof! I have read the threads not to mention taken a hard look at every resin piece I own and none of the rhino stuff I have matches the said fakes....mainly F-4, A-7, and F-8 intakes. Now here's the real kicker, where do the resin makers get their masters? If it has anything to do with the kit part then aren't they ripping of the company who made the kit?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have zero issues in him making copies of OOP stuff....now if he is copying other people's stuff then show some proof! I have read the threads not to mention taken a hard look at every resin piece I own and none of the rhino stuff I have matches the said fakes....mainly F-4, A-7, and F-8 intakes.

All I can prove without a shadow of a doubt is that Rhino Modelworks copied the MK1 Design nozzles and they/he used my photographs to sell their products without my permission. I can also prove that Paul Miller used to copy DMold products which he packaged as original DMold products and sold them on ebay (I still have them and can trace the ebay transaction to him) and that his home address is a mile or two away from Rhino Modelworks post office address. Coincidence? I don't think so Tim.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites
If he is making copies of OOP stuff I'll sign up for some Cutting Edge stuff... I have zero issues in him making copies of OOP stuff....
So lets say that you were the one who created and owns the patterns and hold the copyright for them.

You spent hundreds of hours researching and making the parts.

You had to close your business for personal reasons and plan to someday either re-open or sell the patterns to another business.

How would you feel if this guy copied your work and was selling tons of them on Ebay, taking future profit out of your pocket?

....now if he is copying other people's stuff then show some proof! I have read the threads not to mention taken a hard look at every resin piece I own and none of the rhino stuff I have matches the said fakes....mainly F-4, A-7, and F-8 intakes.
If you read through the thread links that Chuck posted there should be no doubt that much if not all of this guys products have been pirated.

Some pictures have been posted showing clear evidence that parts were copied.

Comments have been made by reputable experts (I would take Mike V's word as fact) that parts were compared and were absolutely copies.

Pictures were posted of the gear well of the A-7 intake which is an obvious copy of the Aires wheel well. The intake itself is said to be a copy of the CE part.

Now Chuck has purchased and compared the F-18 exhausts and concluded that they are absolutely copies.

What more proof do you need?

You say you have compared the parts yourself? I'd take a harder look.

Tip the parts back and forth with light reflecting on them and look for matching sanding scratches or other flaws. Disregard any obvious modifications. Look very carefully at the insides of the intakes as these areas are the hardest to master.

Look carefully at one company's set and compare the left and right sides. Chances are they they will not be identical shapes. Now look at the other company's parts. Same shape discrepancies?

Or, is one companies shape's obviously different from the other? I doubt it.

Be honest with yourself. Not everybody has a good eye for distinguishing such shapes...

Now here's the real kicker, where do the resin makers get their masters? If it has anything to do with the kit part then aren't they ripping of the company who made the kit?
That argument doesn't hold water.

Using a kit part as a starting point to create a pattern doesn't impact that company's sales. If anything it might boost their sales.

Copying an aftermarket part and selling it as your own kills the aftermarket company's sales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets say that you were the one who created and owns the patterns and hold the copyright for them.

You spent hundreds of hours researching and making the parts.

You had to close your business for personal reasons and plan to someday either re-open or sell the patterns to another business.

How would you feel if this guy copied your work and was selling tons of them on Ebay, taking future profit out of your pocket?

Thanks for chiming in Chris. If anybody would know the pain of piracy of all your hard work, it would be you.

One other thing I DO know for a fact, is that Paul Miller reads these forums. During the first discovery of DMold piracy, he quickly shut down all his ebay listings. During the second one earlier this month, all his Rhino ebay listings for DMold clone items in 1/32 scale suddenly disappeared as well. He had a website, but suddenly it's still "under construction". He must have read my CF-18B build thread here as well, or he wouldn't have had known about the pics I had taken (which he stole) and the explanation of the ceramic inner petals of the engine nozzles (which he screwed up).

There's really not a whole lot I can do, other than try to expose him here and make a complaint to ebay, which I've done. Hopefully, in time...... :wmsmiley-poop-hits-the-fan: Until then, enjoy the thread Paul.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets say that you were the one who created and owns the patterns and hold the copyright for them.

You spent hundreds of hours researching and making the parts.

You had to close your business for personal reasons and plan to someday either re-open or sell the patterns to another business.

How would you feel if this guy copied your work and was selling tons of them on Ebay, taking future profit out of your pocket?

If you read through the thread links that Chuck posted there should be no doubt that much if not all of this guys products have been pirated.

Some pictures have been posted showing clear evidence that parts were copied.

Comments have been made by reputable experts (I would take Mike V's word as fact) that parts were compared and were absolutely copies.

Pictures were posted of the gear well of the A-7 intake which is an obvious copy of the Aires wheel well. The intake itself is said to be a copy of the CE part.

Now Chuck has purchased and compared the F-18 exhausts and concluded that they are absolutely copies.

What more proof do you need?

You say you have compared the parts yourself? I'd take a harder look.

Tip the parts back and forth with light reflecting on them and look for matching sanding scratches or other flaws. Disregard any obvious modifications. Look very carefully at the insides of the intakes as these areas are the hardest to master.

Look carefully at one company's set and compare the left and right sides. Chances are they they will not be identical shapes. Now look at the other company's parts. Same shape discrepancies?

Or, is one companies shape's obviously different from the other? I doubt it.

Be honest with yourself. Not everybody has a good eye for distinguishing such shapes...

That argument doesn't hold water.

Using a kit part as a starting point to create a pattern doesn't impact that company's sales. If anything it might boost their sales.

Copying an aftermarket part and selling it as your own kills the aftermarket company's sales.

read the post, and saw some problems.

* why were the photos not watermarked? (as in copyrighted) I had a problem a few years back with Sony using my photos and another guy also selling post cards with my photos. It took about a month for Sony to pull all their magazine adds with my photos, and the dealers selling the post cards removed them.

* You folks making this stuff (masters) can also copyright your masters before you sell them to somebody in the resin industry. When you sell them to the end user he also buys the copyright for his own protection. Then when a guy like Mr. Miller pulls another stunt you have him by the jugular vein!

* The U.S. Government dosn't take lightly to the theft of intellectual property, and if it's used to manufacture a similar product it becomes industrial espionage. Penalties are extremely stiff, and often mean jail time and a rather stiff fine that's usually six figures or higher.

* The end user here has the right to file mail fraud charges against Mr. Miller and Ebay in this case (they were the outlet). I would file a complaint with the Canadian counterpart, who in turn should files a complaint with the U.S. Postal folks (in this country we honor Canadian complaints)

Now go get him

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those who might still be skeptical, here's a comparison of real 1/32 DMold intakes I'm currently using in my F-4E build and those sold under the name of Rhino Modelworks. I've made several panel line and rivet changes which I've generally noted, but there's no doubt when you compare the areas that are not altered, they are from the same product with a few tweaks to rounding some panel line corners. Note the wobble in the middle vertical panel line when it curves the intake near the top....

Rhino side view (from ebay listing)

RhinoF-4.jpg

DMold.....

Intake13.jpg

Rhino top view.....(from ebay listing)

RhinoF-5.jpg

DMold....

Walkway3.jpg

Walkway4.jpg

The chances of these not being DMold rip-offs is about 1 in a billion to my eye.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

* why were the photos not watermarked? (as in copyrighted)

All photos are automatically copyrighted. Watermarking is only telling people who claims to own the copyright (and I've plenty of fake ones, too).

* You folks making this stuff (masters) can also copyright your masters before you sell

Again, the shapes of the parts are automatically copyrighted the moment they are created. You can license the right for someone to make new copies of your work, but it is implied by the nature of copyright to all purchasers that they can't copy the item in question.

The U.S. Government dosn't take lightly to the theft of intellectual property, and if it's used to manufacture a similar product it becomes industrial espionage. Penalties are extremely stiff, and often mean jail time and a rather stiff fine that's usually six figures or higher.

Copyright violation is not industrial espionage. It is a civil matter, and requires filing your own lawsuit. This is expensive, and probably costs more than than the resin part is worth to a business. The best you can do is try to out the parties so people don't buy from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Copyright violation is not industrial espionage. It is a civil matter, and requires filing your own lawsuit. This is expensive, and probably costs more than than the resin part is worth to a business. The best you can do is try to out the parties so people don't buy from them.

Would it do any good to report him to the police? The better business bureau? The Texas labor board (I'm assuming he doesn't have a valid business license)? Or is there any other authorities that can deal with him?

Otherwise report him to Ebay, though that doesn't seem to do any good as he keeps returning.

He is currently not selling anything on Ebay but will likely be back.

If and when he returns, I suggest we bump this thread to alert everybody.

Hopefully everybody who reads it will have good morals and not order from him rather than the bump acting like an advertisement for his products.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would it do any good to report him to the police? The better business bureau? The Texas labor board (I'm assuming he doesn't have a valid business license)? Or is there any other authorities that can deal with him?

No, yes but it won't mean much, Texas doesn't have general business licenses, no. Pestering Ebay is probably the most useful thing you can do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All photos are automatically copyrighted. Watermarking is only telling people who claims to own the copyright (and I've plenty of fake ones, too).

Indeed, unfortunately uploading them to a public domain muddies the waters to the point of the person with most expensive legal team will probably win (plus you cant prove he didn't take the same photos form the same angles; since it was a public display etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me when I tell you, there isn't a judge anywhere that's going to bother getting involved in resin parts for plastic toy airplanes unless it's massive theft. A few bits of resin worth (at best) a couple of hundred bucks just isn't on anyone's legal radar. The police would laugh at you, the BBB is worthless (as a matter of principle), and the states are so cash strapped that I doubt anyone would answer the phone. I was involved in having tens of thousands of dollars worth of my physical stuff stolen, as well as my intellectual property stolen (copyrights violated, etc) by someone you'd all recognize, and my legal pursuits never went anywhere except to drain my bank account.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Believe me when I tell you, there isn't a judge anywhere that's going to bother getting involved in resin parts for plastic toy airplanes unless it's massive theft. A few bits of resin worth (at best) a couple of hundred bucks just isn't on anyone's legal radar. The police would laugh at you, the BBB is worthless (as a matter of principle), and the states are so cash strapped that I doubt anyone would answer the phone. I was involved in having tens of thousands of dollars worth of my physical stuff stolen, as well as my intellectual property stolen (copyrights violated, etc) by someone you'd all recognize, and my legal pursuits never went anywhere except to drain my bank account.

I agree with everything written so far, including the comments above. As indicated by others, the only thing you can do is point out the crook to others to maybe slow down his ebay business and complain to ebay, which I've already done. Normally I wouldn't put much faith in ebay, but I did have a small incident about 8 months ago that they backed me up on, so its always worth a try.

As far as the photographs are concerned, I should maybe clarify my position. I am always very much aware that as soon as I post my photographs here, they are copied by others for their own use, which is exactly why I do it. I have at least a thousand pics on my computer of jets taken by others which I use for reference, so I like to participate in "giving back", if you will. If I see some of my pics posted in somebody else's build thread, for instance, I'm honored that they came in handy and I'm not looking for any recognition. If a legitimate resin distributor like Chris of Zactomodels wanted to use them for commercial use, I have no problem with them being used there as well as long as he asked- for free of course. When I see them used for commercial use by a resin pirate who even blocks me from buying his knock-offs on ebay so that I can't see that he stole my pictures (along with the resin casting), however, that's when I get a little steamed- hence this post.

As an aside, I did have another incident about 25+ years ago of someone using my photographs for commercial use. Although I'm not really that much of a photographer, I did enter a photo contest in a magazine of a pic I had taken of my young cousin who was dressed in a Superman outfit. He was jumping on a trampoline in his back yard and purposely posed a few jumps in a horizontal position like he was Superman flying through the air. Between the excellent lighting that day and some trees in the background, I got a really good shot of him flying through the air- and this was long before PC's and Photoshop were invented to create the same effect. I won first prize, won a diamond ring for my wife and the photograph was all over the front cover of the magazine. Pretty cool.

About 8 months later, an alert reader sent a newspaper ad into the magazine, showing that my photograph was being used in another city to promote a sale they were conducting on "Super Saturday". The magazine contacted me and I showed this to a lawyer friend of mine who found out that, in Canada at least, all photographs are automatically copyright property of the owner and you do not have to put "Copyright" on it or any other thing to confirm same. If you use a photograph without permission, you are breaking the law, pure and simple. My friend wrote the business who used my photograph a nasty letter threatening all sorts of legal damnation if they didn't compensate me for use of my pic and, without much of a fight, I settled for $1,500- which was a lot of money back in those days. So now I tell people my contest winning photograph won 1st place, a diamond ring and $1,500 cash!

I only wish Mr. Miller lived in Canada so that he could experience some of the above pain.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

So lets say that you were the one who created and owns the patterns and hold the copyright for them.

You spent hundreds of hours researching and making the parts.

You had to close your business for personal reasons and plan to someday either re-open or sell the patterns to another business.

How would you feel if this guy copied your work and was selling tons of them on Ebay, taking future profit out of your pocket?

As a former business owner I'd sue. As a consumer, I usually buy the best whether it be a knock off or the real deal. If it's OOP, then in my ethics book all bets are off. The end user, benefits the most in this case. Which is why I really don't care too much about OOP items being reproduced. Resin for models is one of those things you buy when you see it because chances are you might not see it again. I have alot of resin that's been OOP for years and I have never seen it come back. I missed out on the chance to buy a Shelby Cobra because I wasn't born then and can't afford a real one...didn't stop me from trying to buy a clone car. Carrol Shelby's ****** and sued the company(s), but in my ethics book I just don't care. I'd rather have the product at the end of the day.

If you read through the thread links that Chuck posted there should be no doubt that much if not all of this guys products have been pirated.

Some pictures have been posted showing clear evidence that parts were copied.

I have, on this site and another and although some of the arguments seem valid, no one posted any picture proof and similar items I have from Seamless Suckers, Dmold, Cutting Edge, Aires, and Rhino don't match up. I can't tell by a scratch here or there where they came from. The S-3 intakes look similar, but I have yet to see a side by side shot of anything and the few I have showed too much difference for me to believe that they were copied. Could it have happened? Sure! But I get a little sick of slander without proof.

Comments have been made by reputable experts (I would take Mike V's word as fact) that parts were compared and were absolutely copies.

Pictures were posted of the gear well of the A-7 intake which is an obvious copy of the Aires wheel well. The intake itself is said to be a copy of the CE part.

Now Chuck has purchased and compared the F-18 exhausts and concluded that they are absolutely copies.

What more proof do you need?

Experts? No offense to anyone, but I don't know any of these experts and to take someone's word as fact is foolish. If they are exact copies then someone please show and explain to us with side by side shots because the day I take a stangers word on the internet is the day I buy ocean front property in Arizona. The argument that they won't because the said the fraud can change his technique/mold/casting doesn't fly in my book. You may know someone and trust them, fine, but to expect the rest of us to is again, foolish.

You say you have compared the parts yourself? I'd take a harder look.

That argument doesn't hold water.

Using a kit part as a starting point to create a pattern doesn't impact that company's sales. If anything it might boost their sales.

Copying an aftermarket part and selling it as your own kills the aftermarket company's sales.

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't Trumpeter take your corrected resin parts and apply them back to their Su-27 fixing their orginal flaws? So who wronged whom? Are youg going to buy a Droid smart phone knowing they stole from Apple intellectually? You can spin ethics a number of different ways, but until someone can prove without a shadow of a doubt this guy is passing of copied stuff it remains slander. And even if it is a copy or modified version, do people really care? It may be ethically wrong, but if someone were to make copies of some OOP Cutting Edge stuff, I ain't going to lie, I'd buy it. On the moral totem pool, buying copied resin is down there with jay walking and watching a copied DVD.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... And even if it is a copy or modified version, do people really care? It may be ethically wrong, but if someone were to make copies of some OOP Cutting Edge stuff, I ain't going to lie, I'd buy it. On the moral totem pool, buying copied resin is down there with jay walking and watching a copied DVD.

Not to offend, but to you it's that low on the totem pole because he hasn't stolen from you. Your argument is as good as if a theif stole a collectors car that's in storage and his argument was "well he's not driving it". Theft is theft. But if I understand you correctly, you say it would be ok if someone started selling copies of Zacto's A-7 correction set when he was between production runs and he stopped selling them for a while? Care to explain to us how that's moral?

Personally from the pics I've seen posted, I'd say good evidence has been shown. PLUS the fact that everytime it comes up on discussion boards he magically vanishes for a short time to reappear. If he were innocent of all of this, don't ya think he'd speak up so as not to lose business?

Duck=duck

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have, on this site and another and although some of the arguments seem valid, no one posted any picture proof and similar items I have from Seamless Suckers, Dmold, Cutting Edge, Aires, and Rhino don't match up. I can't tell by a scratch here or there where they came from. The S-3 intakes look similar, but I have yet to see a side by side shot of anything and the few I have showed too much difference for me to believe that they were copied. Could it have happened? Sure! But I get a little sick of slander without proof.

Experts? No offense to anyone, but I don't know any of these experts and to take someone's word as fact is foolish. If they are exact copies then someone please show and explain to us with side by side shots because the day I take a stangers word on the internet is the day I buy ocean front property in Arizona. The argument that they won't because the said the fraud can change his technique/mold/casting doesn't fly in my book. You may know someone and trust them, fine, but to expect the rest of us to is again, foolish.

If you read through the prior threads posted in my original post, you will see lots of photographic evidence that is pretty convincing. Look at the rivet patterns of the DMold F-4 intakes I posted above compared to the Rhino ones. Every rivet is in the exact same position, every panel line has the very same flaws. All I have in my hot little hands for side by side comparison right now are the 1/32 DMold F-18 intakes and those that Paul Miller sold me (Rhino now), as well as the MK1 F-18 exhaust nozzles and the ones Rhino sells now. They are not only similar, but they have many, many casting flaws that are identical. There are little small aberrations in the F-18 vari-ramp that are identical and the inside of the exhaust nozzles have many small flaws that are also identical. They are, without a doubt, knock-offs of other people's work, so how much of the other Rhino products are also knock-offs? I'd bet they all are. A guy who steals photographs (indisputable) has no problem stealing everything else. Even if 25% of his stuff is original, he's still a crook for profiting on the 75% of the work he stole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
And even if it is a copy or modified version, do people really care?

They should. However you look at it, piracy is theft and buying from a pirated source makes you an accomplice.

peebeep

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally from the pics I've seen posted, I'd say good evidence has been shown. PLUS the fact that everytime it comes up on discussion boards he magically vanishes for a short time to reappear. If he were innocent of all of this, don't ya think he'd speak up so as not to lose business?

Duck=duck

Bill

EXACTLY! That's why I posted both his company name and his personal name. If he's innocent, he should be all over me with defamation threats, etc. We know he reads these forums, so bring it on if I have somehow slandered a legitimate purveyor of model resin products. He doesn't because he's guilty, plain and simple. I have his home address and even his wife's name from a prior shipment he sent me 2 years ago on a return address label. He's afraid to poke his head up because he should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All photos are automatically copyrighted. Watermarking is only telling people who claims to own the copyright (and I've plenty of fake ones, too).

Again, the shapes of the parts are automatically copyrighted the moment they are created. You can license the right for someone to make new copies of your work, but it is implied by the nature of copyright to all purchasers that they can't copy the item in question.

Copyright violation is not industrial espionage. It is a civil matter, and requires filing your own lawsuit. This is expensive, and probably costs more than than the resin part is worth to a business. The best you can do is try to out the parties so people don't buy from them.

three wrongs won't get you a right. If you post a photo to many websites it must be copyrighted, but that's also is not a 100% thing. I own thousands of photos that are not copyrighted, and probably never will be. Copyright infringement is not espionage unless you use in it some form of manufacturing. In this case Mr. Miller is. To take this further: when you steal intellectual property from one company to use in another; you just committed industrial espionage. That's the law! Also if you steal a person's methods from inside his workplce to use in another compnay doing similar work; you just committed industrial espionage. the same applies to software and so on. What you can do is to use a similar style piece of equipment, but with your own tooling package or software package. Processes are the same way, but rarely copyrighted. The reason why is that once it's on the books everybody knows.

Correct in that copyright infringement or industrial espionage is a civil matter, but the latter is also a felony in the USA. Theft of intellectual property is still teft. You will go strait to jail and will not collect the $200<g>! I went thru this one about five years ago with a large automobile company and a salvage dealer who was the go between guy. The manager of the salvage yard is still in jail, and the autocompany has now started to make some serious offers (eight figures), but expect them to double in the end. Also the moment it crosses state lines it becomes a Federal crime as well.

I came out of an area where theft of intellectual property was not uncommon, and we had a team of investigators hired to stay ontop of the matters. But on the otherhand, your not gonna stop them from doing it in China and several other Asian ports. But you can stop the work from ever entering into North America (NAFTA takes into effect here). One can license another party to use his copyrights for a fee that is set via contract. A violation of this will them become a Federal crime ( Northrup/Douglas law suit involving the first generation F18 that ended up being around $40 million in fines). This is why most companys these days force you to sign a confidentiallality clause in your employment contract. They are serious about this stuff!

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to offend, but to you it's that low on the totem pole because he hasn't stolen from you. Your argument is as good as if a theif stole a collectors car that's in storage and his argument was "well he's not driving it". Theft is theft. But if I understand you correctly, you say it would be ok if someone started selling copies of Zacto's A-7 correction set when he was between production runs and he stopped selling them for a while? Care to explain to us how that's moral?

Personally from the pics I've seen posted, I'd say good evidence has been shown. PLUS the fact that everytime it comes up on discussion boards he magically vanishes for a short time to reappear. If he were innocent of all of this, don't ya think he'd speak up so as not to lose business?

Duck=duck

Bill

actually you can be held responsable for your actions if you happen to know the item is counterfit. This has been proven in court many times over

gary

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

I've been watching this and other threads with interest. I agree that even if a product is out of production or the owner has passed, stealing is stealing. I'm looking at my 1/32 2nd generation Seamless Suckers intakes, which predate Cutting Edge's by at least a year, and comparing them with photos of Dmold's and Rhino's. I'm not sure you can go by rivet pattern, because they are based on the kit parts. The intakes in question could very well be pirated from Bob Brown's Seamless Suckers.

I've stolen chuck540z3's photo to ask a question. Can somebody with Dmold's and Rhino's intakes provide the measurement along the white line I've added to his photo? Just curious....

Intake13a.jpg

Thanks!

Ben

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've stolen chuck540z3's photo to ask a question. Can somebody with Dmold's and Rhino's intakes provide the measurement along the white line I've added to his photo? Just curious....

Ben

I'm going to sue your _____ Ben! :P

One caution is that resin shrinkage can vary from part to part from the same mold. I have some Aires F-4 burner cans that are slightly different size due to different lots over time.

One thing that really stands out to me is that flaw in the panel line I described earlier, which is just right of the horizontal black line above the words "New Panel" below. A check of another DMold intake shows that it's on all of them....

DMold10.jpg

Now look at the Rhino version. It looks like it has been re-scribed to straighten it out, but it's still there....

Rhinofake.jpg

What are the chances Rhino made the very same mistake on an original intake they made up themselves? Whether it's DMold or not, it's a copy of somebody's.

Edited by chuck540z3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to sue your _____ Ben! :P

One caution is that resin shrinkage can vary from part to part from the same mold. I have some Aires F-4 burner cans that are slightly different size due to different lots over time.

Oh no! :o

The measurement I'm looking at is an actual modification that Bob made to the Tamiya part they're based on. I've always wondered about it, but he passed away before I had a chance to ask him about it. It does make SS intakes unique, and might be a giveaway as to the lineage of more recent intakes. On the other hand, it could be a correction of a flaw in the Tamiya kit that I've never heard of and everyone who makes intakes for the kit makes the same correction! :D

I'll have another look at the panel lines on the SS intakes later. I had to put my kit back in the closet now that lunch break is over. Gotta get off of the forums and get some work done around here!

Cheers!

Ben

Edited by Ben Brown
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to offend, but to you it's that low on the totem pole because he hasn't stolen from you. Your argument is as good as if a theif stole a collectors car that's in storage and his argument was "well he's not driving it". Theft is theft. But if I understand you correctly, you say it would be ok if someone started selling copies of Zacto's A-7 correction set when he was between production runs and he stopped selling them for a while? Care to explain to us how that's moral?

Personally from the pics I've seen posted, I'd say good evidence has been shown. PLUS the fact that everytime it comes up on discussion boards he magically vanishes for a short time to reappear. If he were innocent of all of this, don't ya think he'd speak up so as not to lose business?

Duck=duck

Bill

So it's okay to copy off the kit maker, but not okay to improve on someone's resin piece which is a copy of the kit itself? I don't see the theft there. I understand why someone would be ****** if they spent countless hours and someone else just recasted what they did, but to label it theft when the original was a copy? I don't get the logic. It's not moral to reproduce something and the orginal person not be paid for his time and research, but when the item is based off a kit part then it's not so black and white. Every single side to side shot I've seen has shown the part to be different with the accusers such as the guy who runs Dmold not even have looked at himself, but ebay pictures. People have different ethics when it comes to this stuff, it's how you spin it. If you want to take the high moral ground then you might not want to buy a Droid Smartphone which "stole" from Apple whom stole from I am a spammer....please report this post.. The parts in your computer? The recording on your Dish and Direct TV? The rumble feature on your old PS2 controller. The list goes on and on. I'm not saying it's right, but it's a real issue and the further you dig the less you'll care as you realize there are some unscrupulous people out there willing to do whatever to make a buck. My argument for buying a copied resin piece that is OOP has more to do with my belief that the end user will benefit the most and the item to begin with was a copy of the original. The same argument can be made that certain Korean and Chinese companies copied Japanese and American kits while scaling them up or down and changing enough to fly under the radar. In that case, I shouldn't be buying those products with your logic, but most of us still do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it's okay to copy off the kit maker, but not okay to improve on someone's resin piece which is a copy of the kit itself? I don't see the theft there. I understand why someone would be ****** if they spent countless hours and someone else just recasted what they did, but to label it theft when the original was a copy? I don't get the logic. It's not moral to reproduce something and the orginal person not be paid for his time and research, but when the item is based off a kit part then it's not so black and white...

I see what you're saying (sort of)but there is a huge difference. I don't think the sells of a kit is going to drop because someone used one part of the kit as a starting point for a correction kit. Actually quite the opposite, their sells possibly will increase because of it (otherwise I gaurantee the bigger kit makers would be all over the aftermarket industry with lawsuits). Now if one company was making a complete kit by copying another kit (which happens) well that is not only wrong, but cuts into the profit of the company that did the work. The same as when someone copies an aftermarket part to create another aftermarket part which directly competes with the set they stole from. THAT'S what's wrong about it.

Again, I don't know for certain the facts of this particular incident, but when I hear people say it's no big deal to copy and sell an aftermarket set just because the original is oop, that I know is wrong. It would be different if it were just for personal use or a copy or two for a friend (which technically is still wrong) but for profit? Bad business practice and pretty sleazy IMO.

Bill

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...