Marty McGuirk wrote:
"As someone (one of the few on this list, from what I can tell) who
has been on all three sides of the reader/magazine staff/manufacturer-
advertiser fence I could easily share some stories and a few facts on
this topic. And I was fully prepared to until someone -- at the end
of diatribe about ethics and honesty in reviews -- actually had the
gall to suggest that someone should make cast resin copies of the car
sides in question and sell them."
I wrote the post you're referring to. I meant in tongue in cheek. But
for arguments sake let's suppose I didn't.
Why should I have to pay for the part of the model that I can't use?
How about I offer resin sides using the car sides as a master to
anyone who wants to kitbash a model of it and send Trix a royalty
payment for the part of their kit I'm using. Say $5.00 for each pair
of car sides I make and sell.
If the maker is unethical enough to not to provide what he was
advertising, a model of car X, then why should he profit from
anything more than the part of it which he did actually provide?
How is receiving full payment for something you didn't deliver in any
way ethical? Why shouldn't you be paid only for what you actually did