Steelmage99 wrote:That I do. Doing something illegal is most certainly wrong. The history-pages might justify your actions afterwards, but make no mistake, it is still wrong.

You honestly think the underground railroad (illegal clandestine network of people who helped transport escaped slaves into northern states and Canada during the 1800's) was morally wrong to help slaves escape?

Steelmage99 wrote:Keep in mind that there was only one Gandhi and one MLK, but there are thousands who (for various reasons) chooses to ignore the law and those people aren't noble or fighting for their freedom or anything like that.....they are simply criminals.

So the law can never be wrong? Sharia law is morally okay because it is the law?

Steelmage99, since you are Swedish, I strongly suggest you study Ådalshändelsen (1931). Might put some perspective into your lawful way of thinking (D&D reference)

Whether the issue at hand is legal or not is not really open for discussion (it's not legal).
Whether it's theft or not is not open for discussion, either (courts in several countries have ruled it is not).
Whether it is right or wrong IS open for discussion in all democratic countries (it's sort of one of the things that define a democracy). Whether this forum is a good medium or not is a different issue.

What I find ridiculous is that GW is trying to impress that any and all forms of electronic copies are illegal, seeing how electronic copies are significantly easier to handle when sitting at the computer, this I find irritating to the extreme.
Then there's the fact that you need an enormous amount of printed material per person to play the game, and that GW doesn't have any decent quick reference material you are forced to buy the full codex even if you won't ever touch CSM or Eldar in your life personally.

Ketara wrote:

Ah okay i missread what you said, so your saying you want to argue... semantics?

At this stage, yes. However, there is a method to my madness.

Okay lol i guess that makes sense

Ketara wrote:

Yes software/ information can be stolen and is treated as physical property, can we agree on this?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definitions/software+theft?cx=partner-pub-0939450753529744%3Av0qd01-tdlq&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=software+theft&sa=Search#922

To say that there is no theft only "copying" is naive, the theft is of intellectual property.

Ah, but see, that's why the law would class me downloading a codex as 'piracy' instead of straight out theft. I'm not denying that I am illegally acquiring intellectual property, or even that I can be morally bankrupt for doing so. Simply that piracy is sufficiently distinct from regular stealing as to require its own definition, and as such, accusing someone of regular old theft for downloading a codex is incorrect.

I dont remember saying stealing was morally bankrupt

Ketara wrote:

Since when was reading a freinds codex stealing? I see the point you are trying to make, but computers are a special case. Laws have been added to deal specifically with computers. The closest thing to this is patents, someone patents an idea or design and if you use it in the future you need their permission. Could you have come across the idea independantly?, sure its just they beat you to patenting it.

By simple logic, if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing. This is obviously absurd. This is why the law recognises the illegal acquisition of intellectual property as piracy, and not a simple case of stealing. The two are distinct from one another.

And since when have i assumed "that acquisition of intellectual property automatically equals theft"? I have talked about having a copy that was obtaind fraudulently.

Sorry, insert the word 'illegal' in between 'that' and 'acquisition.

Im starting to get the feeling your just playing devils advocate.

To an extent, but what I'm actually trying to do is separate the crime of piracy from all the emotional and cultural baggage of the crime of stealing. But before I can do that, I must prove that piracy and stealing, whilst similar in many regards, are distinct crimes in their own right. This distinction between the two is a pre-requisite to any kind of serious discussion on the matter I feel.

I see now what your getting at im under the assumption that Piracy is a form of stealing, Piracy is a specific case but when you classify intellectual property as physical property it does become theft. If this distinction is right or not does kind of go into a philisophical / social debate and i guess thats where i was confusing that from. I will definatly agree Piracy and stealing are different crimes, i guess that i dont beleive that they are mutually exclusive.

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property, i'll agree if this was not the case then yes it would not be stealing and not piracy because there would be nothing to pirate with no copyrights etc. If Intellectual property cannot be considered physical property at least from a legal point of view then Piracy cannot exist.

Comparing the download of a 25 USD book from a large company to breaking into someone's house and stealing items from it is silly.

Stop making the comparison. If you think the two are seriously comparable you are wrong.



Can we please avoid the use of certain terms please, especially those which many people find grossly offensive when used as an insult. There's no need to sink to this level.

much obliged

reds8n.

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property

I'm having immense difficulty trying to think of any way you could argue that intellectual property is the same as physical property...

RustyKnight wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:That I do. Doing something illegal is most certainly wrong. The history-pages might justify your actions afterwards, but make no mistake, it is still wrong.

You honestly think the underground rail-road (illegal clandestine network of people who helped transport escaped slaves into northern states and Canada during the 1800's) was morally wrong to help slaves escape?

Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

Steelmage99 wrote:Keep in mind that there was only one Gandhi and one MLK, but there are thousands who (for various reasons) chooses to ignore the law and those people aren't noble or fighting for their freedom or anything like that.....they are simply criminals.

So the law can never be wrong? Sharia law is morally okay because it is the law?

I didn't say that, didn't I? Two different uses of the word "wrong" there, I'm afraid.

Wow, so I read the first few pages and it was basically a pointless argument over semantics/legal jargon. I skip to the end to see if anything else is going on, and see a different group of people arguing almost verbatim about the same stupid crap.

Anyway... what is this Scribe the op is referring to? I usually just use torrents.

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

Could you make your mind up as to whether all illegal actions are wrong please?

The Dreadnote wrote:

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property

I'm having immense difficulty trying to think of any way you could argue that intellectual property is the same as physical property...

Well its what Software patents are based on

I see now what your getting at im under the assumption that Piracy is a form of stealing, Piracy is a specific case but when you classify intellectual property as physical property it does become theft.

I would be interested to see how intellectual property could ever become physical, any more than honour or dignity.

If this distinction is right or not does kind of go into a philisophical / social debate and i guess thats where i was confusing that from. I will definatly agree Piracy and stealing are different crimes, i guess that i dont beleive that they are mutually exclusive.

As I said, I could believe that one could steal intellectual property, as long as it was in some kind of tangible form, for example, blackmailing a chap so I get the rights to his intellectual property.

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

Indeed. And the reason simply reading your friends copy is NOT illegal, is because of that distinction between theft and piracy. Otherwise, it would be illegal if the two were the one and same.

My argument is based on classifying intellectual property as physical property, i'll agree if this was not the case then yes it would not be stealing and not piracy because there would be nothing to pirate with no copyrights etc. If Intellectual property cannot be considered physical property at least from a legal point of view then Piracy cannot exist.

No, it would be theft of intellectual property that would be unable to exist. Piracy is the crime of illicitly acquiring a duplicate of intellectual property. As intellectual property is intangible by its very nature, the crime of piracy was created to separate it from the theft, where you acquire more tangible goods. The two are similar, but distinct. To put it as simply as possible:-

Theft/stealing=Taking physical goods
Piracy=Acquiring a duplicate of intellectual property (which is intangible by its very nature)

This distinction has been what I've been driving at this whole time. Shoplifting, bank robbery, and so on fall into the first category. Recasting and music downloading would fall into the latter.

Therefore downloading a codex is not stealing. It's piracy.

The Dreadnote wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

Could you make your mind up as to whether all illegal actions are wrong please?

My position is the same.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist can only ever be seen in hindsight.

My point is don't try to hide your (generic "your") pettiness behind other peoples sacrifice.

Ketara wrote:

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

Indeed. And the reason simply reading your friends copy is NOT illegal, is because of that distinction between theft and piracy. Otherwise, it would be illegal if the two were the one and same.

Ah but i would say that it is neither theft nor piracy.

My point is for software patents, software is treated as physical property. And so even if you count it as Duplication something has still been stolen, the subject of the patent Intellectual Property

Intangeble things can be stolen, like identity theft, nothing needs to be physically stolen everything can be done electronically.

Am i right in that we are only arguing Piracy vs theft?

so my arguement is that theft does not always imply physical property.

Steelmage - your position is inconsistent. Colour me surprised.

First you say it is wrong because it is illegal. Then you say something else equally illegal wasn't and isnt wrong.

So which is it? Illegal is always wrong, or illegal isn't always wrong. Pick one, or concede that your position is invalid.

Edit: to make things clear I actually doubt you will answer this directly, as you have ducked other peoples attempts. But pointing out hypocrisy is fun

Edit2: Just to comment: software patents are a horrific travesty thankfully not recognised in the more sane parts of the world. Bringing them into the discussion moves things away from copyright.

Gibbsey wrote:

Ketara wrote:

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

Indeed. And the reason simply reading your friends copy is NOT illegal, is because of that distinction between theft and piracy. Otherwise, it would be illegal if the two were the one and same.

Ah but i would say that it is neither theft nor piracy.

My point is for software patents, software is treated as physical property. And so even if you count it as Duplication something has still been stolen, the subject of the patent Intellectual Property

Intangeble things can be stolen, like identity theft, nothing needs to be physically stolen everything can be done electronically.

Sorry, I misread your initial statement there. Allow me to retract my previous statement and reply to that point again.

I wouldent really say simply reading a friends copy would be illegal or stealing, im not really sure how to approach this at the moment but "if acquiring intellectual property illegally is stealing, then simply reading a friends copy would be stealing" i wouldent say reading a freinds copy would be illegal.

But it is. By memorising your friends copy, you have 'downloaded' intellectual property to your brain without permission or payment. Otherwise, I can download all the music I like illegally, but as long as I don't listen to it, I'm not breaking any laws, ne? If downloading is theft, then the illegality of the matter comes from the transfer of the intellectual property to your mind, not the medium of that transfer.

However, this results in making reading your friends copy a crime whereby you have stolen intellectual property. The result is a slightly separate classification for acquiring intellectual property without license or payment, called piracy. This is where you can read your friends copy freely, but as long as you don't photocopy it, or scan it, you're not breaking the law. This is the essential difference between piracy and theft, it allows you to have stuff in you mind, and borrow things from your friends without breaking the law.

By making it illegal to acquire the intellectual property without paying for it, by reading your friends copy, you are breaking the law.

Am i right in that we are only arguing Piracy vs theft?

so my arguement is that theft does not always imply physical property.

I would honestly say that Identity theft is a whole other kettle of a fish, and one that I'm going to avoid for one, for fear of opening up another ten page discussion

What's being argued here is this:-



I say downloading a codex is piracy, and not theft. Both are similar crimes, but distinct from each other. This distinction is necessary in order to stop it being illegal to read your friends codex.

You say that stealing and downloading a codex are impossible to separate. Therefore downloading a codex is theft. However, this results in it being logically illegal to read your friends codex.

Steelmage99 wrote:

The Dreadnote wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

Could you make your mind up as to whether all illegal actions are wrong please?

My position is the same.

The line between freedom fighter and terrorist can only ever be seen in hindsight.

My point is don't try to hide your (generic "your") pettiness behind other peoples sacrifice.

I kinda agree with Steelmage99 here. As I have pointed out earlier I think there is a BIG difference in breaking the law to help other human being and breaking it for your own, and your own only benefit. This law isn't breaking, threatening or stepping on any of your dignity, life, safety or can harm you in any way. Breaking it, you ARE hurting the original holder of the copyright. Most of the time it's a very small loss. In case of GW - sales from codexes are significantly lower than other physical products, but for other companies things look entirely different.

Look at it that way, after the act of piracy YOU gained something, and the owner did loose potential cash. It is not ok.

I'm having immense difficulty trying to think of any way you could argue that intellectual property is the same as physical property...

Because it's not. But breaking the copyright laws is still wrong and it isn't justified just because it is somewhat different than stealing physical property.

da001 wrote:

Macok wrote:
Ok. GW earned some buck. How abut companies that produced the videogames? Did you buy anything from them? My example was not accidentally about computer software, where it's very easy to see the extent of "sharing".

Yes, I am afraid a lot of people in Relic got a little richer because of me. And I do believe I am not alone here. If a company has a good product, they have nothing to fear from the Internet. If you like a product, you will buy it, for you get better quality. And a codex is cheap. If you like it and want to play with it, there is no reason for not buying it.

Cool, but they earned because you BOUGHT the game. Hundreds and thousands of people who didn't can't be justified just because YOU bought it. Piracy is wrong. What you did isn't because YOU bought the game.

Everybody say that the original owner isn't loosing anything. Bud did you stop to think that the idea, the product didn't magically appear before him? Most of the time the creator of thought or whatever used some of his life to create the "thing". He already spent some resources - his time, his money, his ideas etc. to create "the thing". Is it really right that now you are using it without giving ANY compensation to the creator? Be advised that he spent all those resources specifically to earn money, not to bring something for you for free.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - your position is inconsistent. Colour me surprised.

I am sure a lot of things surprises you.

(yeah, I know....sarcasm. Just couldn't help my self)

First you say it is wrong because it is illegal. Then you say something else equally illegal wasn't and isnt wrong.

It hard to get, isn't it?

Something can be wrong (illegal) to do, but later history will decide that the action was justified and thus retroactively made "not-wrong".

This isn't something one can hold in front of oneself like a shield to justify ones actions. Such amnesty is only applied retroactively.

So which is it? Illegal is always wrong, or illegal isn't always wrong. Pick one, or concede that your position is invalid.

First off, get over yourself. Your childish demands that people concede something or retracts some implied falsehood is getting old. Just move on.

Second, like I have stated before; illegal is wrong.

Perhaps one day things like copyright and IP will be abolished and the pioneers of this move celebrated as heroes. It might even be seen as the start of something great that lead to freedom and happiness for all.
Right now? It's simply illegal and wrong.

Edit: to make things clear I actually doubt you will answer this directly, as you have ducked other peoples attempts. But pointing out hypocrisy is fun

What attempts are you talking about?

Steelmage99 wrote: Yeah, it is exactly the same thing. Morally committed people risking their lives in the cause of other peoples freedom is completely comparable to lazy people who would rather turn to crime than get a job, earn the money and buy the codexes.
We should really institute a national holliday to honour these champions of freedom.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to paint everyone who pirates as a jobless loser, but you really didn't get that creative with it. Of course, you also did it in order to avoid to conceding to a lack of consistency in your beliefs. You said that breaking the law is wrong. However, I have given you examples of when breaking the law is a good thing. Ghandi and MLK also provide good examples. Following you train of thought, a morally upstanding person would've never supported the underground railroad. Regardless, you're trying to avoid acknowledging the inconsistency of your views by creating a scarecrow. I'm not trying to equate abolitionists with pirates. I'm using the underground railroad as an example of how illegal things can be morally correct.

Steelmage99 wrote: I didn't say that, didn't I? Two different uses of the word "wrong" there, I'm afraid.

I can think of two definitions of "wrong" you could've used. Either "illegal" or "morally wrong." Stating that illegal things are illegal just seemed strange, so I figured that you meant illegal things are morally wrong. If you actually meant the former and not the latter, then this entire conversation is pointless as your replies are gibberish.

"Legality does not denote morality"
"Illegal things are illegal"

Steelmage99 wrote:The line between freedom fighter and terrorist can only ever be seen in hindsight.

Then how can things ever progress? If everyone merely accepts that the status quo is correct, noone will ever desire to change things.

Terminus wrote:Wow, so I read the first few pages and it was basically a pointless argument over semantics/legal jargon. I skip to the end to see if anything else is going on, and see a different group of people arguing almost verbatim about the same stupid crap.

Scribe

There are also several other people that wanted to feel superior by belittling others. Scribe is Scribd; the OP just didn't bother to do any research before ranting. It's also possible that the misspelling was an intentional move to appear casual/cool. Course, the OP also tried to equate piracy with eBay, so...

Steelmage99 wrote:My point is don't try to hide your (generic "your") pettiness behind other peoples sacrifice.

Look! It's that scarecrow again!

Macok wrote:

da001 wrote:

Macok wrote:
Ok. GW earned some buck. How abut companies that produced the videogames? Did you buy anything from them? My example was not accidentally about computer software, where it's very easy to see the extent of "sharing".

Yes, I am afraid a lot of people in Relic got a little richer because of me. And I do believe I am not alone here. If a company has a good product, they have nothing to fear from the Internet. If you like a product, you will buy it, for you get better quality. And a codex is cheap. If you like it and want to play with it, there is no reason for not buying it.

Cool, but they earned because you BOUGHT the game. Hundreds and thousands of people who didn't can't be justified just because YOU bought it.

Everybody say that the original owner isn't loosing anything. Bud did you stop to think that the idea, the product didn't magically appear before him? Most of the time the creator of thought or whatever used some of his life to create the "thing". He already spent some resources - his time, his money, his ideas etc. to create "the thing". Is it really right that now you are using it without giving ANY compensation to the creator? Be advised that he spent all those resources specifically to earn money, not to bring something for you for free.

I do not care very much about what everybody says, actually. And I am not saying that the owner is "not losing", I am saying that the author is making a lot of money thanks to sharing. Hundreds and thousands of people tried the game and did buy the game and it was a complete success. Videogames are one of the most profitable legal business out there if they are properly done and people know enough about them. A lot of people try one game and then buy it, or the sequels, or both, and the Game of the Year Edition. Because everyone knows that it is worthy. And yeah I know they will keep forever complaining about not making enough money. I do not accept this as a truth. And I know BAD companies just get destroyed if their crappy products are properly tryed. Serves them well. They were trying to... steal.

Piracy is wrong. What you did isn't because YOU bought the game.

Humm, thanks, but I download stuff and I only buy it IF I like it. It is really right then? Or it is right when I buy it and wrong when I do not? I have downloaded stuff so awful… should I have bought it? Should I have trusted the commercials and bought it instead of downloaded it? I am against this black/white duality. It scares me.

RustyKnight wrote:
Scribe is Scribd; the OP just didn't bother to do any research before ranting. It's also possible that the misspelling was an intentional move to appear casual/cool. Course, the OP also tried to equate piracy with eBay, so...

Yeah I noted that too. Has anybody else something against eBay? Seriously? Why?

But most of the people here (me too) didn´t answer the OP, everyone started talking about piracy. I think (sharing /piracy /stealing /rapingbabyseals/ daemonic intercourse /trying to awake the Dark Lord Cthulhu /whatever you want to call it) is actually a good thing for humanity as a whole but I am against using downloaded codexes (not codices) for your army. It is your army! It is cheap! Buy it! Support GW! Khorne lives because they are making money you !!

RustyKnight wrote:
Look! It's that scarecrow again!

Ah! He has found me! I should go!

Guys, I just wanna say this should not be an argument about stealing at all, just about making money for GW. Honestly the people bringing stealing junk into this discussion are only doing it as reason they're annoyed.

Illegal stuff is illegal. doesn't matter if it is "stealing", it is still illegal. Sometimes you should go against the law (Gandhi, MLK, ect.), but I really doubt that you will be able to argue that piracy is morally correct (please do not take this as a challenge). If you want to find out about special rules, tips, or tricks for certain armies, why not ask? This is a great forum, and most game store owners are also glad to help out, as it (most likely) will help keep you in the hobby.

It's not piracy if you're not downloading it, but just reading it.

Morally wrong, don't do it. If you need to find out the what's what of an army, ask here, look in the back of the rulebook, or ask someone.

Whats morally wrong about it?

You are viewing something that is not yours, that you normally have to pay for. This is unfair to companies that depend upon their customers buying and paying for their materials. While it can be argued that GW makes more money off of models than codexes (most likely), they still make money off of them, so it is better to ask then to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thought I'd say thank you for the good discussion.

Ok, but my point is not that GW would not make any money anyway even if you didn't look it up online.

micahaphone wrote:Morally wrong, don't do it. If you need to find out the what's what of an army, ask here, look in the back of the rulebook, or ask someone.

I also thought I'd ask. What is "morally wrong?" What is my culture and morals are different than yours? What if my culture and morals don't condemn this? Who is to say I am "morally wrong" for doing so?

Wow, we're back to that again?

Tell me, do you think this is wrong?

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-18/world/nigeria.child.witchcraft_1_witches-nigeria-abuse?_s=PM:WORLD

Christian Eshiett was a rambunctious pre-teen who spent a lot of time cavorting with his friends in southern Nigeria. He would skip school and run away from home for days, frustrating his grandfather, who oversaw the boy's care.

"I beat him severely with canes until they broke, yet he never shed a tear," said Eshiett Nelson Eshiett, 76. "One day, I took a broom to hit him and he started crying. Then I knew he was possessed by demons. ... Nigerian witches are terrified of brooms.

From that day two years ago, Christian, now 14, was branded a witch. The abuse intensified.

"They would take my clothes off, tie me up and beat me," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

The teen is one of the so-called witch children in Eket, a city in oil-rich Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria.

They are blamed for causing illness, death and destruction, prompting some communities to put them through harrowing punishments to "cleanse" them of their supposed magical powers.

"Children accused of witchcraft are often incarcerated in churches for weeks on end and beaten, starved and tortured in order to extract a confession," said Gary Foxcroft, program director of Stepping Stones Nigeria, a nonprofit that helps alleged witch children in the region.

Many of those targeted have traits that make them stand out, including learning disabilities, stubbornness and ailments such as epilepsy, he added.

The issue of "child witches" is soaring in Nigeria and other parts of the world, Foxcroft said.

The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River have about 15,000 children branded as witches, and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets, he said.

Christian ran away from home and wandered around for two years with other children similarly accused. He said they stole, begged for food and performed menial jobs to survive.

The plight of "child witches" is raising concern among aid organizations, including the United Nations.

"It is a growing issue worldwide, among not just African communities, but in countries such as Nepal as well," said Jeff Crisp, head of policy development and evaluation for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "We are trying to see whether it is a neglected protected issue."

Belief in witchcraft thrives worldwide. About 1,000 people accused of being witches in Gambia were locked in detention centers in March and forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, human rights organization Amnesty International said.

If you think this is wrong, why? It's acceptable behavior in their culture. Who are you to criticize them?

And before you say it, I'm not equating it with internet codex piracy. I'm showing the silliness of "cultural relativist" arguments in general.

Kouzuki wrote:

micahaphone wrote:Morally wrong, don't do it. If you need to find out the what's what of an army, ask here, look in the back of the rulebook, or ask someone.

I also thought I'd ask. What is "morally wrong?" What is my culture and morals are different than yours? What if my culture and morals don't condemn this? Who is to say I am "morally wrong" for doing so?

You could make an argument like this against anything, stealing, murder, anything. We go by the standards of our time and where you live. These are essentially the government based standards.

In the developed countries where wargaming is popular, those are the cultural norms. I must admit that I am not an expert upon Japan, but I assume that the official government and public stance is somewhat against piracy and other such looking at illegally shared things whatnot. Good point, though.

rivers64 wrote:You could make an argument like this against anything, stealing, murder, anything. We go by the standards of our time and where you live. These are essentially the government based standards.

Morals and the law are not the same. Do not confuse them. Law may be influenced by morals, and cultural norms, but not all morals and cultural norms are the law.

As of right now there are also many governments across the globe. One government will put you in jail for a day for stealing, while another will chop your hands off. Who is to say which government is right?

micahaphone wrote:In the developed countries where wargaming is popular, those are the cultural norms. I must admit that I am not an expert upon Japan, but I assume that the official government and public stance is somewhat against piracy and other such looking at illegally shared things whatnot. Good point, though.

Where I live now has nothing to do with my culture, nor my morals.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, an argument of "morally wrong" means nothing. Killing is "morally wrong" but you still do it in war. Hell, civilian life if you kill 1 person you are a murderer, but you can kill thousands on a battlefield and you are a hero. "Morally wrong" means nothing.

According to the "cultural norms in developed countries" all soldiers should be put in high security prison and/or put on death sentence for bearing arms and the violent murder of other human beings.

Monster Rain wrote:Wow, we're back to that again?

Tell me, do you think this is wrong?

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-18/world/nigeria.child.witchcraft_1_witches-nigeria-abuse?_s=PM:WORLD

Christian Eshiett was a rambunctious pre-teen who spent a lot of time cavorting with his friends in southern Nigeria. He would skip school and run away from home for days, frustrating his grandfather, who oversaw the boy's care.

"I beat him severely with canes until they broke, yet he never shed a tear," said Eshiett Nelson Eshiett, 76. "One day, I took a broom to hit him and he started crying. Then I knew he was possessed by demons. ... Nigerian witches are terrified of brooms.

From that day two years ago, Christian, now 14, was branded a witch. The abuse intensified.

"They would take my clothes off, tie me up and beat me," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

The teen is one of the so-called witch children in Eket, a city in oil-rich Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria.

They are blamed for causing illness, death and destruction, prompting some communities to put them through harrowing punishments to "cleanse" them of their supposed magical powers.

"Children accused of witchcraft are often incarcerated in churches for weeks on end and beaten, starved and tortured in order to extract a confession," said Gary Foxcroft, program director of Stepping Stones Nigeria, a nonprofit that helps alleged witch children in the region.

Many of those targeted have traits that make them stand out, including learning disabilities, stubbornness and ailments such as epilepsy, he added.

The issue of "child witches" is soaring in Nigeria and other parts of the world, Foxcroft said.

The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River have about 15,000 children branded as witches, and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets, he said.

Christian ran away from home and wandered around for two years with other children similarly accused. He said they stole, begged for food and performed menial jobs to survive.

The plight of "child witches" is raising concern among aid organizations, including the United Nations.

"It is a growing issue worldwide, among not just African communities, but in countries such as Nepal as well," said Jeff Crisp, head of policy development and evaluation for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "We are trying to see whether it is a neglected protected issue."

Belief in witchcraft thrives worldwide. About 1,000 people accused of being witches in Gambia were locked in detention centers in March and forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, human rights organization Amnesty International said.

If you think this is wrong, why? It's acceptable behavior in their culture. Who are you to criticize them?

And before you say it, I'm not equating it with internet codex piracy. I'm showing the silliness of "cultural relativist" arguments in general.

Ok, it is wrong.
But I am sure the people doing this thing are sure they are right. It is a religious thing for them, a "white/black" alternative. Once a child-witch is identified as such, there is no way you can argue. They are BAD, period. And they have rules, traditions, probably laws about it, so it is legal. It will be illegal to protect this people. You succeeded in showing us the leaks of "cultural relativist" arguments, but also showed us that local rules/laws/traditions can be silly or plain evil.

Another thing about "cultural relativist": to a certain extent, things like that happen world wide, even in your country (when if identified are branded as "crimes" instead of "logical behavior"). And there were a lot of witchhunting in both Europe and America some centuries ago. If your grand- grand-grandfathers were alive, probably you would have broken their hearts with your child-witch-liking.

please delete thanks.

micahaphone wrote:You are viewing something that is not yours, that you normally have to pay for. This is unfair to companies that depend upon their customers buying and paying for their materials. While it can be argued that GW makes more money off of models than codexes (most likely), they still make money off of them, so it is better to ask then to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thought I'd say thank you for the good discussion.

But with that reasoning just looking at a friends codex is just as bad. The method of obtaining the information is different but you still get the same result.

Jesus Christ. I had hoped that this thread would disappear on it's own last night. It's not even fun to read any more.

Another six pages of divine absolution, another entry into the fray.

Well what to say...lets try to be objective shall we? There are generally two groups of people posting in this topic. One is passive, rather ignorant about individual impacts of their actions upon the society and in conclussion show arrogant posture to words like "rule", "obbey", "bow"...in general. When given chance to take without marginal impact upon the others they choose to do so and then expect that the rest of the audience will be tolerant no matter what. Lets call them "Bears during the winter hibernation."

Then there is the second group people, which can be identified clearly by flaming orations of divine retribution and vengeance with lightning shooting from their eyes and thunders coming from their bottoms. Their speeches are artificially constructed to be long as possible - quoting as much phrases they found on the internet as possible and IF possible also mentionning more latin words than overall latin vocabulary off last six generations in their familly. Lets call them "Preaching agressive evangelists."

None is objective, none is ultimately right and so none can be considered "good" in the end. So were left alone with the "lesser evil" option.

I am NOT a judge, althought I have an opinion I shall not bother anyone with it - let everyone alone choose his side and bear the consesquence of his actions...However many things were discussed with passion comparable to the one of mating pandas and were plain wrong in unimaginable manners - they actually almsot managed to create fifth dimension - Epic wrongness.

Several catches:
Our world do not posess star-trek technology. When you steal golden ingot from someone, you cant just "copy" new one to give it back. When laws about property were set - noone could never imagine what technology will exist later - as we cant imagine what could star-trek technology cause. Imagine world where golden ingots are everywhere. Absolutely everywhere - it is massed commodity lying in the fields, streets and is easily avaiable. What will happen if you will take one ingot from someone?

And yes laws. SO many people are quoting laws? And why? Did you ever see some lawyer which studied in foreign country practising law in yours? No you did not. Why? Because laws are very different in every country. Discussion about this has NO place in multi-cultural forum. ANYONE not realising this suffers such significant damage in common sense and ANY life experiences that it makes me want run away and shout in the streets naked : "KILL ME KILL ME AIR I CANT LIVE IN THE WORLD LIKE THIS."

Those who possess at least basic juristic knowledge are well aware that property in general, intelectual or physical is very problematic topic not just in their studies.

Many famous european scholars sacrificed their lifes for the idea that the children should not be taught in form of remembering every sentence in the book without actual understanding of their meaning. Many of you are spitting on their memory. Yes I am talking about you, and you and YOU! Yes and you as well...

If Socrates could be ressurected his head would immediately explode because of laughter. Many of you are PERFECT examples of daimonions and false inner calls. Platos presentation was just "PLAIN TIMLESSNESS EPICNESS OF DOOM". Typing philosophical quotes and leading meaningless debate without proper setup JUST to sound "superior" to those who did no study it is pathetic and does not make you look like "rawr rawr tough guy" to those who did. Philosophy should serve like simple concept, way to connect several ideas of our epoche together, understand it, then present it to the others and to give them purpose, reason or hope...

I noted one perfect example of woman which was persecuted by large company for uploading songs. Now my dear children, take hearth and prepare to face your maker(truth). Large company did not persecute her to uphold the law, they persecuted her because they could, they had power to do it, they did it to make money - cuz everyone needs money. It is all just about power, someone has it - someone does not. To frame her as a villain is just tactics. Who is actually stealing now from moral point of view? Woman - which did not do ANY damage or the company feeding upon her? You take things because YOU CAN. Hey I downloaded codex now. I live. Hey I downloaded song now. Still - I live. I did it because I can, they did it because THEY CAN. Motives are SAME at the both sides of the baricade. This is not about law, this is about POWER.

You know I took hash, lsd, cannabis, extasis, had un/protected sex (depens on your point of view what is wrong), got into the bloody fight with someone...list could go on I should certainly be punished by athletic naked women (2 or rather 3 should be enough to take me down). But you know what I CAN DO? I can take bottle of scotch, go on a bussines trip to our customer, have a nice talk with him, complain about world, how young are rude(being young myself), like violence and drugs are everywhere, pointing with finger from the window at every dude who comes around about his evillness - to become shinning example of morals myself. Am I saint? Certainly not. But I can do it. Beacause I have POWER to do it. Dont mess morality, laws and common sense together...Laws are excrement of those who hold power. When someone finds out YOU will be the sacrifice, symbol of evil.

Why am I even bothering, whole my post is an utter failure. Noone actually cares- carry on posting your 0% life experiences, point that I am wrong, evil, stupid blah blah blah...

Lexx wrote:

micahaphone wrote:You are viewing something that is not yours, that you normally have to pay for. This is unfair to companies that depend upon their customers buying and paying for their materials. While it can be argued that GW makes more money off of models than codexes (most likely), they still make money off of them, so it is better to ask then to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thought I'd say thank you for the good discussion.

But with that reasoning just looking at a friends codex is just as bad. The method of obtaining the information is different but you still get the same result.

This.
Sharing in Internet works exactly as sharing in the real world. Only numbers change.

Edit: impressive post by Jolrael. Great analysis. "Laws are excrement of those who hold power". Harsh, but sometimes true. Do this classify you as a "Bear during the winter hibernation."?

Monster Rain wrote:Wow, we're back to that again?

Tell me, do you think this is wrong?

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-18/world/nigeria.child.witchcraft_1_witches-nigeria-abuse?_s=PM:WORLD

Christian Eshiett was a rambunctious pre-teen who spent a lot of time cavorting with his friends in southern Nigeria. He would skip school and run away from home for days, frustrating his grandfather, who oversaw the boy's care.

"I beat him severely with canes until they broke, yet he never shed a tear," said Eshiett Nelson Eshiett, 76. "One day, I took a broom to hit him and he started crying. Then I knew he was possessed by demons. ... Nigerian witches are terrified of brooms.

From that day two years ago, Christian, now 14, was branded a witch. The abuse intensified.

"They would take my clothes off, tie me up and beat me," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

The teen is one of the so-called witch children in Eket, a city in oil-rich Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria.

They are blamed for causing illness, death and destruction, prompting some communities to put them through harrowing punishments to "cleanse" them of their supposed magical powers.

"Children accused of witchcraft are often incarcerated in churches for weeks on end and beaten, starved and tortured in order to extract a confession," said Gary Foxcroft, program director of Stepping Stones Nigeria, a nonprofit that helps alleged witch children in the region.

Many of those targeted have traits that make them stand out, including learning disabilities, stubbornness and ailments such as epilepsy, he added.

The issue of "child witches" is soaring in Nigeria and other parts of the world, Foxcroft said.

The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River have about 15,000 children branded as witches, and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets, he said.

Christian ran away from home and wandered around for two years with other children similarly accused. He said they stole, begged for food and performed menial jobs to survive.

The plight of "child witches" is raising concern among aid organizations, including the United Nations.

"It is a growing issue worldwide, among not just African communities, but in countries such as Nepal as well," said Jeff Crisp, head of policy development and evaluation for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "We are trying to see whether it is a neglected protected issue."

Belief in witchcraft thrives worldwide. About 1,000 people accused of being witches in Gambia were locked in detention centers in March and forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, human rights organization Amnesty International said.

If you think this is wrong, why? It's acceptable behavior in their culture. Who are you to criticize them?

And before you say it, I'm not equating it with internet codex piracy. I'm showing the silliness of "cultural relativist" arguments in general.

It's not wrong at all. Those kids are obviously witches. The only thing possibly wrong about the situation is how those backward savages are going about extracting a confession. You have to get a lot more gruesome than just beating them and denying them food. Try some thumb screws, and maybe the Judas cradle, and then once they confess, burn them.

Stupid Nigerians.

Terminus wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Wow, we're back to that again?

Tell me, do you think this is wrong?

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-05-18/world/nigeria.child.witchcraft_1_witches-nigeria-abuse?_s=PM:WORLD

Christian Eshiett was a rambunctious pre-teen who spent a lot of time cavorting with his friends in southern Nigeria. He would skip school and run away from home for days, frustrating his grandfather, who oversaw the boy's care.

"I beat him severely with canes until they broke, yet he never shed a tear," said Eshiett Nelson Eshiett, 76. "One day, I took a broom to hit him and he started crying. Then I knew he was possessed by demons. ... Nigerian witches are terrified of brooms.

From that day two years ago, Christian, now 14, was branded a witch. The abuse intensified.

"They would take my clothes off, tie me up and beat me," he told CNN in a telephone interview.

The teen is one of the so-called witch children in Eket, a city in oil-rich Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria.

They are blamed for causing illness, death and destruction, prompting some communities to put them through harrowing punishments to "cleanse" them of their supposed magical powers.

"Children accused of witchcraft are often incarcerated in churches for weeks on end and beaten, starved and tortured in order to extract a confession," said Gary Foxcroft, program director of Stepping Stones Nigeria, a nonprofit that helps alleged witch children in the region.

Many of those targeted have traits that make them stand out, including learning disabilities, stubbornness and ailments such as epilepsy, he added.

The issue of "child witches" is soaring in Nigeria and other parts of the world, Foxcroft said.

The states of Akwa Ibom and Cross River have about 15,000 children branded as witches, and most of them end up abandoned and abused on the streets, he said.

Christian ran away from home and wandered around for two years with other children similarly accused. He said they stole, begged for food and performed menial jobs to survive.

The plight of "child witches" is raising concern among aid organizations, including the United Nations.

"It is a growing issue worldwide, among not just African communities, but in countries such as Nepal as well," said Jeff Crisp, head of policy development and evaluation for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. "We are trying to see whether it is a neglected protected issue."

Belief in witchcraft thrives worldwide. About 1,000 people accused of being witches in Gambia were locked in detention centers in March and forced to drink a dangerous hallucinogenic potion, human rights organization Amnesty International said.

If you think this is wrong, why? It's acceptable behavior in their culture. Who are you to criticize them?

And before you say it, I'm not equating it with internet codex piracy. I'm showing the silliness of "cultural relativist" arguments in general.

It's not wrong at all. Those kids are obviously witches. The only thing possibly wrong about the situation is how those backward savages are going about extracting a confession. You have to get a lot more gruesome than just beating them and denying them food. Try some thumb screws, and maybe the Judas cradle, and then once they confess, burn them.

Stupid Nigerians.

Do not be that harsh with Nigerians.
They do not have money for properly torturing witches. And the confession was not needed. They were afraid of brooms, what else you need?
And sure they haven´t burn them yet but maybe there is a good explanation. Perhaps they are turning them into an elite mind-wiped terror-combat unit for their many wars.

micahaphone wrote:Illegal stuff is illegal. doesn't matter if it is "stealing", it is still illegal. Sometimes you should go against the law (Gandhi, MLK, ect.), but I really doubt that you will be able to argue that piracy is morally correct (please do not take this as a challenge). If you want to find out about special rules, tips, or tricks for certain armies, why not ask? This is a great forum, and most game store owners are also glad to help out, as it (most likely) will help keep you in the hobby.

Are you a sockpuppet of Steelmage99? I could've sworn nosferatu and I just got done disabusing these very same notions. Have you read this thread?

micahaphone wrote:Illegal stuff is illegal.

Are you serious?

Lexx wrote:

micahaphone wrote:You are viewing something that is not yours, that you normally have to pay for. This is unfair to companies that depend upon their customers buying and paying for their materials. While it can be argued that GW makes more money off of models than codexes (most likely), they still make money off of them, so it is better to ask then to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thought I'd say thank you for the good discussion.

But with that reasoning just looking at a friends codex is just as bad. The method of obtaining the information is different but you still get the same result.

Entirely true.

Jolrael wrote:Well what to say...lets try to be objective shall we?

Okay. This should be interesting.

Jolrael wrote:One is passive, rather ignorant... show arrogant posture...call them "Bears during the winter hibernation."
...flaming orations of divine retribution and vengeance with lightning shooting from their eyes and thunders coming from their bottoms..."Preaching agressive evangelists."

Do you even know what "objective" means? You said we should be objective, then you tried to lump every poster in this thread into two derogatory classifications (crappy classifications no less).

Jolrael wrote:And yes laws. SO many people are quoting laws? And why? Did you ever see some lawyer which studied in foreign country practising law in yours? No you did not. Why? Because laws are very different in every country. Discussion about this has NO place in multi-cultural forum. ANYONE not realising this suffers such significant damage in common sense and ANY life experiences that it makes me want run away and shout in the streets naked : "KILL ME KILL ME AIR I CANT LIVE IN THE WORLD LIKE THIS."

I could be mistaken, but piracy and theft are considered crimes throughout the western (and eastern) world. Point out a place in this thread where the difference in laws between two nations has caused a confusion.

Jorael wrote:Many famous european scholars sacrificed their lifes for the idea that the children should not be taught in form of remembering every sentence in the book without actual understanding of their meaning. Many of you are spitting on their memory. Yes I am talking about you, and you and YOU! Yes and you as well...

Really? Who?

Jorael wrote:If Socrates could be ressurected his head would immediately explode because of laughter. Many of you are PERFECT examples of daimonions and false inner calls. Platos presentation was just "PLAIN TIMLESSNESS EPICNESS OF DOOM". Typing philosophical quotes and leading meaningless debate without proper setup JUST to sound "superior" to those who did no study it is pathetic and does not make you look like "rawr rawr tough guy" to those who did. Philosophy should serve like simple concept, way to connect several ideas of our epoche together, understand it, then present it to the others and to give them purpose, reason or hope...

What are you on about? When has this happened? Ketara made some similar remarks, but hius argument was linguistic in nature.

Jorael wrote:I noted one perfect example of woman which was persecuted by large company for uploading songs. Now my dear children, take hearth and prepare to face your maker(truth). Large company did not persecute her to uphold the law, they persecuted her because they could, they had power to do it, they did it to make money - cuz everyone needs money. It is all just about power, someone has it - someone does not. To frame her as a villain is just tactics. Who is actually stealing now from moral point of view? Woman - which did not do ANY damage or the company feeding upon her? You take things because YOU CAN. Hey I downloaded codex now. I live. Hey I downloaded song now. Still - I live. I did it because I can, they did it because THEY CAN. Motives are SAME at the both sides of the baricade. This is not about law, this is about POWER.

Is that lightning coming from your rump? What does this have to do with anything? We've been discussing whether piracy is right or wrong, not whether people will do it or not.

Jorael wrote:You know I took hash, lsd, cannabis, extasis, had un/protected sex (depens on your point of view what is wrong), got into the bloody fight with someone...list could go on I should certainly be punished by athletic naked women (2 or rather 3 should be enough to take me down). But you know what I CAN DO? I can take bottle of scotch, go on a bussines trip to our customer, have a nice talk with him, complain about world, how young are rude(being young myself), like violence and drugs are everywhere, pointing with finger from the window at every dude who comes around about his evillness - to become shinning example of morals myself. Am I saint? Certainly not. But I can do it. Beacause I have POWER to do it. Dont mess morality, laws and common sense together...Laws are excrement of those who hold power. When someone finds out YOU will be the sacrifice, symbol of evil.

So, you lie and lack morals. What does this have to do with the thread?

Jorael wrote:Why am I even bothering, whole my post is an utter failure. Noone actually cares- carry on posting your 0% life experiences, point that I am wrong, evil, stupid blah blah blah...

Objectivity, thy name is Jorael.

what gets me about piracy is that the same people who do it complain about the price point of citadel miniatures. They're just making up in miniatures what you all steal in codices. You're not even saving any money.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what gets me about piracy is that the same people who do it complain about the price point of citadel miniatures. They're just making up in miniatures what you all steal in codices. You're not even saving any money.

You're grossly overestimating both the impact of "piracy" and the impact on Game's Workshop's business. In fact, I'd hazard that second-hand sales which you see on this very forum and on e-Bay and so on has vastly more impact on their profits and it would not surprise me one bit if codex material is the least exposed to lost profit from external supplier sources.

Also, is it even illegal making use of products or reproductions which have not been physically stolen? As far as I am aware, only the reproduction or reciprocation of copyrighted material is illegal (i.e. sharing is illegal, but using material without sharing it to others, by whichever means you acquired it, is not illegal as long as the actual product does not belong to someone else - something immaterial property does not do.).

In other words, using scribd isn't illegal, merely morally questionable.

Mahtamori wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what gets me about piracy is that the same people who do it complain about the price point of citadel miniatures. They're just making up in miniatures what you all steal in codices. You're not even saving any money.

You're grossly overestimating both the impact of "piracy" and the impact on Game's Workshop's business. In fact, I'd hazard that second-hand sales which you see on this very forum and on e-Bay and so on has vastly more impact on their profits and it would not surprise me one bit if codex material is the least exposed to lost profit from external supplier sources.

Also, is it even illegal making use of products or reproductions which have not been physically stolen? As far as I am aware, only the reproduction or reciprocation of copyrighted material is illegal (i.e. sharing is illegal, but using material without sharing it to others, by whichever means you acquired it, is not illegal as long as the actual product does not belong to someone else - something immaterial property does not do.).

In other words, using scribd isn't illegal, merely morally questionable.

This

The Dreadnote wrote:

Piracy you ask? See above. That's how we do it down here back home.

I find it quite funny that we wouldn't even be calling it piracy if it wasn't for actual pirates in history that made their living as THIEVES.

Mahtamori wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what gets me about piracy is that the same people who do it complain about the price point of citadel miniatures. They're just making up in miniatures what you all steal in codices. You're not even saving any money.

You're grossly overestimating both the impact of "piracy" and the impact on Game's Workshop's business. In fact, I'd hazard that second-hand sales which you see on this very forum and on e-Bay and so on has vastly more impact on their profits and it would not surprise me one bit if codex material is the least exposed to lost profit from external supplier sources.

since you have gw's balance sheet in front of you can you rattle off a few figures for us? or are you........ guessing? right I figured as much.
Look if you need component A and component B to play the game, and people keep stealing component A, it's not that hard to see what the game manufacturer is going to do. That's right raise the price of component B.

Also, is it even illegal making use of products or reproductions which have not been physically stolen? As far as I am aware, only the reproduction or reciprocation of copyrighted material is illegal (i.e. sharing is illegal, but using material without sharing it to other;ls, by whichever means you acquired it, is not illegal as long as the actual product does not belong to someone else - something immaterial property does not do.).

copyright, copy-right, right to copy. GW has the RIGHT to COPY their material. YOU do not, and neither does scribe. You can let your friend look at your book. but you cant make a photocopy and give it to him. not without breaking the law.

In other words, using scribd isn't illegal, merely morally questionable.

yeah that's the part that's really foul. if there's no law preventing it, it's merely a matter of morality. mere morality. no big deal. that's why we need a law regulating everything these days - because your run of the mill citizen (you) doesnt ask whether something is right or wrong, but whether its legal or illegal. fact is though that it's both illegal and immoral. you are taking someone else's work without compensating them. you're stealing. but since there's no enforcement (yet) you don't have a problem with it. It just goes to show, really, that without punishment there is no morality. Your run of the mill citizen (you) will do whatever he can get away with minus the consequences.

w/e. it's not a big deal. the law will catch up to internet pirates the same way it did to printing press pirates 500 years ago. it won't be as difficult to regulate as alot of internet fanboys think it will be. the state just hasnt gotten serious yet.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what gets me about piracy is that the same people who do it complain about the price point of citadel miniatures. They're just making up in miniatures what you all steal in codices. You're not even saving any money.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:since you have gw's balance sheet in front of you can you rattle off a few figures for us? or are you........ guessing? right I figured as much.

Hey this is great, I can get you to argue against yourself!

Mahtamori wrote:
You're grossly overestimating both the impact of "piracy" and the impact on Game's Workshop's business. In fact, I'd hazard that second-hand sales which you see on this very forum and on e-Bay and so on has vastly more impact on their profits and it would not surprise me one bit if codex material is the least exposed to lost profit from external supplier sources.

argument about figures

AbaddonFidelis wrote:what gets me about piracy is that the same people who do it complain about the price point of citadel miniatures. They're just making up in miniatures what you all steal in codices. You're not even saving any money.

argument about business strategy.



If you can't see the difference there's no point in me trying to explain it.

Errrrrr....I read the first and the last page of this thread so I guess somewhere down the line the topic was so randomly offed that now we're talking about Nigerian witches but whatever...

Back to the original point on hand: I have done, and in the future intend to, download codices from the internet. Why do I do it? Simple enough really, there are upwards of 10 codices on the shelves at the moment, each one retailing over £15 each. Am I really going to spend over £100 on books, 9 of which I only want so I can reference an obscure unit or check a statline or points cost? The answer is no. I'd be mad to. I don't have that kind of expendable income lying around, or even the space to store all those books.

Another factor that turns me off is the overall quality of the books in question. £15 is a LOT for a book, and when I'm paying that much I expect a decent quality product. Now, truthfully this has got much, much better in recent years but I stiill see plenty of codices in my FLGS with pages becoming seperated and falling out all over the place. You could argue a certain amount of responsibility has to fall on the purchaser to look after their product but when 50-60% of people pick up their book and have half of it fall out in their laps I'm even less inclined to shell out money for the same product.

So yeah, that's my reasoning. Quantity, price, convenience and (apparant lack of) quality all combine together to make me very, very dubious to pay GW for their books. As long as people keep sharing online, I'll remain grateful for free information.

L. Wrex

Everyone assumes that copyright holders have a base right to "own" their ideas.

This is wrong (as in: actually incorrect)

The basic right is that information is free for all to use: public domain.

In order to encourage, a *limited* right to control copying, as opposed to an inherent right, was artificially created. At 14 years (or thereabouts)

Now? Copyright is 50 years + life of author (Berne convention countries) or *70* years + life (US, thanks to Mickey Mouse) - this i s a gross extension of copyright and is, in my mind, MORALLY wrong.

Thus proving Steelmages interpretation of "wrong" to be the naive and artificial wrong = illegal = wrong. Steelmages position is also so....poorly constructed it logically results in a stagnant society unable to enact / repeal any laws - as the laws are always "right".

Luckily that position is a poor one; the reality based position (being illegal does not make something automatically wrong, morally) is much stronger.

if you think its morally wrong you should work to change the law.... or support people who do. we have a process for that in this country..... until then.... if you break the law.... you're committing a crime. It's definitely wrong to take something from another person that they have worked to create without compensating them for it. that's theft.

Let's deepen this debate slightly. Let's say you borrow a music CD off of a friend and copy it to your PC. Is that stealing? Or is that just sharing? Now let's say your friend moves to another country, but he still sends you the odd CD that you copy, put on your PC and send back to him. Is that stealing now? Now let's say that instead of sending you the physical copy (due to postage prices, length of time involved, international courier complications) he puts it online so you can access it anywhere that has an internet connection. How about now? Is that stealing? Or are we still sharing a product between friends through a different method than the traditional one?

Now replace the CD with a codex. Whats the difference?

And it anyone here is going to turn around and tell me they have *never* borrowed and burned/copied a music CD I'm going to call shennanigans.

L. Wrex

da001 wrote:

Lexx wrote:

micahaphone wrote:You are viewing something that is not yours, that you normally have to pay for. This is unfair to companies that depend upon their customers buying and paying for their materials. While it can be argued that GW makes more money off of models than codexes (most likely), they still make money off of them, so it is better to ask then to look.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just thought I'd say thank you for the good discussion.

But with that reasoning just looking at a friends codex is just as bad. The method of obtaining the information is different but you still get the same result.

This.
Sharing in Internet works exactly as sharing in the real world. Only numbers change.

Not to mention that micahaphone1's moral compass precludes borrowing from the library or a friend or anything else that you didn't pay for. My local library even offers e-books for check-out, quick sue the entire library system!

AbaddonFidelis wrote: if you break the law.... you're committing a crime.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Let's deepen this debate slightly. Let's say you borrow a music CD off of a friend and copy it to your PC. Is that stealing? Or is that just sharing?

according to the law [RAW, if you will] its stealing and illegal. however the copying mechanism is so clumsy and inefficient that it was never worth the distributor's time and energy to prosecute. 1 guy just cant make enough CDs to jeapordize his bottom line. So its illegal yeah but not exactly a big deal. Now that 1 guy can take the entire distribution mechanism away from the copyright owner, its different......

Now let's say your friend moves to another country, but he still sends you the odd CD that you copy, put on your PC and send back to him. Is that stealing now? Now let's say that instead of sending you the physical copy (due to postage prices, length of time involved, international courier complications) he puts it online so you can access it anywhere that has an internet connection. How about now? Is that stealing? Or are we still sharing a product between friends through a different method than the traditional one?

Now replace the CD with a codex. Whats the difference?

And it anyone here is going to turn around and tell me they have *never* borrowed and burned/copied a music CD I'm going to call shennanigans.

L. Wrex

if the internet were just facilitating an exchange between a handful of people it wouldnt be different at all...... but what scribd is doind is burning a CD for a couple hundred thousand people at once and mailing it to them free of charge.... to extend the analogy. Creative people have always had to struggle for compensation for their work, because historically it's been pretty simple to pirate. CDs and books are easy to pirate too - its not technological challenges, but relatively strong enforcement mechanisms that kept it from happening on a large scale before the internet. Those enforcmeent mechanisms just havent caught up with the technology yet, but they will..... the internet is relatively unregulated for the moment, but as more and more of the state's vital interests become tied into the internet, the more interested the state will become in regulating it.... and the more public support there will be for doing so. There's alot of ideological talk about the glorious new age of free information. I really believe it's a bunch of nonsense. Information has always been free in the sense that they mean it. The internet didnt change that much. It just made the distribution mechanism more widespread. Well there's nothing stopping the state from passing a law that says developers of software have to put DRM into every program they write, and further write them in such a way that they cannot read non-DRM-compliant fiiles. You cant regulate all computers but really you don't have to. If you just regulate corporate computers you have effective control of the internet's hub; by controlling those computers you can make non-DRM-compliant computers next to useless by limiting their access to the internet. Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:if you think its morally wrong you should work to change the law.... or support people who do. we have a process for that in this country

Slow clap. I know this. I do work to change the law - the trouble is that it's easy to ignore people who dont have as much bribe money^H^^H^H^H campaign donations as another. I also support others who work to change the law

AbaddonFidelis wrote:..... until then.... if you break the law.... you're committing a crime.

Another slow clap. Yes, I am aware that commiting an illegal act does, in fact, mean you're commiting an illegal act. Well done. The legality is not in question - jus the morality and the fallacy that declares illegal = morally wrong.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It's definitely wrong to take something from another person that they have worked to create without compensating them for it. that's theft.

Bzzt. Wrong on 4 accounts.

1. It is not "definitely wrong" - I have already shown this. YOu are equating legality to "correctness", when I am talking morals. It can be perfectly morally correct to break the law.
2. I (generic "I") have not taken anything. A copy is not "taking" something, as the person still *has* the something. Failure of understanding of basic English terms there.
3. After a reasonable term it is perfectly fine, as all works belong to the Public Domain *by default*. The artifical creation of "copyright" has gone far, far FAR beyond what is "reasonable" however.
4. No, assuming it falls under copyright terms it is Copyright Infringement. Technically, Legally and Lnguistically Copyright Infringement /- Theft. You have been entirely brainwashed if you believe otherwise.

This thread is quickly going off-topic as it goes along.

Well will you look at that, we're there now.

Edit - gah, double post....

All you are paying for when you buy a codex is the actual printed copy. therefore, if you don't want the printed copy, just torrent it....

AbaddonFidelis wrote:...It's just a matter of regulation. I think they can and should do it.

Aiming for Party membership I see.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:if you think its morally wrong you should work to change the law.... or support people who do. we have a process for that in this country

Slow clap. I know this. I do work to change the law - the trouble is that it's easy to ignore people who dont have as much bribe money^H^^H^H^H campaign donations as another. I also support others who work to change the law

well ok here's another slow clap phrase. we have rule of law in this country. what you think is right or wrong doesnt really matter unless you can convince a bunch of other people that you're right. that's a precondition to civil society. if everyone got to make up their own mind all the time, the result would be chaos and an invitation to authoritarianism. so by obeying laws that you dont agree with you're actually preserving the freedoms you already have. weird huh? in the same vein, by ignoring a copyright law you don't like, you're insentivizing the state to take away a freedom you have now (access to a relatively unregulated internet.) The exercise (abuse) of your freedom is going to lead to the state taking it away. Cool huh?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:..... until then.... if you break the law.... you're committing a crime.

Another slow clap. Yes, I am aware that commiting an illegal act does, in fact, mean you're commiting an illegal act. Well done. The legality is not in question - jus the morality and the fallacy that declares illegal = morally wrong.

well then why do you bring it up like you don't already know?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It's definitely wrong to take something from another person that they have worked to create without compensating them for it. that's theft.

Bzzt. Wrong on 4 accounts.

1. It is not "definitely wrong" - I have already shown this. YOu are equating legality to "correctness", when I am talking morals. It can be perfectly morally correct to break the law.
2. I (generic "I") have not taken anything. A copy is not "taking" something, as the person still *has* the something. Failure of understanding of basic English terms there.
3. After a reasonable term it is perfectly fine, as all works belong to the Public Domain *by default*. The artifical creation of "copyright" has gone far, far FAR beyond what is "reasonable" however.
4. No, assuming it falls under copyright terms it is Copyright Infringement. Technically, Legally and Lnguistically Copyright Infringement /- Theft. You have been entirely brainwashed if you believe otherwise.

1. I have an apple. you take the apple. I get nothing. you're a thief. you did something morally wrong. It doesnt have anything to do with legality.
2. I have control of the distribution of an idea. You take control of the distribution ofthe idea. I get nothing. You're a thief. You did something morally wrong.
3. Maybe so. Write your senator.
4. See #3

I swear to god if we have to go back to the "piracy does not equal theft" discussion again, I'm gonna download a film, burn it to a DVD, and sell it to kids at the park, just to spite you.

@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Abaddon - apparently you dont understand the basic difference between physical property ( an apple) and imaginary property (an idea) - I'll give you a hint: we're talking about the latter here, and how the law works as regards to both.

When you do understand the difference please revisit this thread. It might show you how...terrible your "analogy" of the apple is. And how incorrect your posts are, both factually and legally.

Btw under 2 - how have I taken "control" of the distribution of something by making a copy? Have I *stopped* you distributing your goods? No? Guess that makes you, yet again, incorrect. Surprise.

Finaly - seriously, deos the little Union Jack by my name not give you ANY clue as to origins? Hint: the UK does not have senators, we have MPs. And I've already done this. BTW your answer to 4 makes no sense, as the two items (theft and copyright infringement) are different. The fact you dont understand this is mind boggling as it shows such a base lack of knowledge of the real world

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Oh so your point is that stealing is okay if the other person is rich enough

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.
L. Wrex

No doubt. I'm just pointing out that piracy creates problems for other people... and those people are even now trying to figure out how to turn *their* problems into *your* problems. no doubt they will succeed. when the state starts regulating the internet and you actually have to pay for content again, don't be surprised. don't ask whose responsible. you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abaddon - apparently you dont understand the basic difference between physical property ( an apple) and imaginary property (an idea)

lol. the courts dont understand the difference either. maybe it's a contrivance but so what? for the purpose of regulation, property is what the law defines it to be.

Btw under 2 - how have I taken "control" of the distribution of something by making a copy? Have I *stopped* you distributing your goods? No? Guess that makes you, yet again, incorrect. Surprise.

the right to distribute a thing is in itself property. the courts recognize it as such. that's what copyright is. the exclusive right to distribute content.

Finaly - seriously, deos the little Union Jack by my name not give you ANY clue as to origins? Hint: the UK does not have senators, we have MPs.

And I've already done this. BTW your answer to 4 makes no sense, as the two items (theft and copyright infringement) are different. The fact you dont understand this is mind boggling as it shows such a base lack of knowledge of the real world

I enjoy the fact that almost every person that is anti-piracy from the beginning to the end of this thread is using an Avatar that is not of their own creation. Stop pirating Avatars.


I use Scribd in the same way I'd use a public library. I read the codex, if I still give a crap after reading it, I buy it. I currently own 5 different ones. (High Elves, Dwarves, Space Wolves, Dark Elder 2.0 and DE 5.0) I fail to see borrowing from the interwebs and checking it out from a library as different.

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Oh so your point is that stealing is okay if the other person is rich enough

Don't take it out of context please. I said stealing from the rich is justified if it is to help the poor. The community as a whole benefits a lot from people copying codices and putting them online; it gets more people into the hobby, gives more people access to fluff and background, and makes the entrance price to the hobby not as steep as it would have been. It benefits the community far more than it benefits GW to accrue another £15. So yes, if the person is so rich that they wouldn't notice/care about the loss and that, in turn, brings them MORE revenue (access to fluff/background/army lists will get people motivated to buy the models/paints needed to play the game) I am all for it.

It annoys me how people on the internet all become such evangelical, hurculean enforcers of the law whenever confronted by these issues. On the one hand people berate and attack GW for the price increases and the direction the business is headed, and yet on the other berate and attack the people 'rip off' GW in an attempt to help the community grow and prosper. Where's the consistency people?

L. Wrex

So you're saying the courts charge you with theft if you commit copyright infringement?

Really? That's your argument?

Care to cite any sources for this extraordinary claim? Or will we get the oh so entertaining "zzz" emoticon that simply proves you are incapable of answering?

I believe they charge you with copyright infringement if you commit copyright infringement..... couldn't swear to it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.
L. Wrex

No doubt. I'm just pointing out that piracy creates problems for other people... and those people are even now trying to figure out how to turn *their* problems into *your* problems. no doubt they will succeed. when the state starts regulating the internet and you actually have to pay for content again, don't be surprised. don't ask whose responsible. you are.

I can't see this happening in my lifetime. So why should I care again? The internet is vast and, to a certain extent, lawless. Trying to regulate it would be a fools errand and I salute the people wasting their time trying.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Oh so your point is that stealing is okay if the other person is rich enough

Don't take it out of context please. I said stealing from the rich is justified if it is to help the poor. The community as a whole benefits a lot from people copying codices and putting them online; it gets more people into the hobby, gives more people access to fluff and background, and makes the entrance price to the hobby not as steep as it would have been. It benefits the community far more than it benefits GW to accrue another £15. So yes, if the person is so rich that they wouldn't notice/care about the loss and that, in turn, brings them MORE revenue (access to fluff/background/army lists will get people motivated to buy the models/paints needed to play the game) I am all for it.

It annoys me how people on the internet all become such evangelical, hurculean enforcers of the law whenever confronted by these issues. On the one hand people berate and attack GW for the price increases and the direction the business is headed, and yet on the other berate and attack the people 'rip off' GW in an attempt to help the community grow and prosper. Where's the consistency people?

L. Wrex

if you have enough discretionary income to play this game, you're not poor.

Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.
L. Wrex

No doubt. I'm just pointing out that piracy creates problems for other people... and those people are even now trying to figure out how to turn *their* problems into *your* problems. no doubt they will succeed. when the state starts regulating the internet and you actually have to pay for content again, don't be surprised. don't ask whose responsible. you are.

I can't see this happening in my lifetime. So why should I care again? The internet is vast and, to a certain extent, lawless. Trying to regulate it would be a fools errand and I salute the people wasting their time trying.

L. Wrex

It will happen in your lifetime. regulating the internet wouldnt be as hard as you might think. you don't have to control every computer. you just have to control a few key computers. The hub of the internet - key servers and core software - is created and managed by corporations, not lonewolf untraceable hacker types. regulating them is easy. you just write a law.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

I beleive this is the point everyone is missing, I think we can all agree there are no univeral right's and wrong's (morally, if i get anyone saying 1+1=2 i'll slap you )

And no i dont really agree with the Robin Hood analogy

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

well the whole robinhood analogy invites..... errrr.... skepticism


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

I beleive this is the point everyone is missing, I think we can all agree there are no univeral right's and wrong's (morally, if i get anyone saying 1+1=2 i'll slap you )

will not..... take..... bait........... must.... not.... take.......

The Dreadnote wrote:Jesus Christ. I had hoped that this thread would disappear on it's own last night. It's not even fun to read any more.

+1
I'd say it's outlived any usefulness it may have, at one point, had.
It's like a wheel. It just keeps spinning in circles, showing us what we've already seen.

Eric

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

I beleive this is the point everyone is missing, I think we can all agree there are no univeral right's and wrong's (morally, if i get anyone saying 1+1=2 i'll slap you )

will not..... take..... bait........... must.... not.... take.......

Lol, i was expecting something along the lines of "but it does!". My point is when you have a discussion about morals and right and wrong it needs to be relative to something, like the current society most of us live in.

The point is if piracy suddenly became legal alot of companies would suffer and there would be little incentive to develop something if anyone could jsut take it with no compensation, so it must remain illegal at least so that content is still produced. (Open Source is different because its a comunits of people coming together to develop something, even people who add no direct content increase the size of the community/ spread the word so benefit is gained by all (a little off topic but im guessing someone will bring this up))


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also i could bring up a point about if NAMBLA is right or wrong

I dont think anyone here would say they were right, but like i said you need a discussion relative to something

Abaddon - so when you said they DONT recognise the difference between physical property and imaginary property you were lying?

After all if they considered them to be the same thing you would be charged with theft, not copyright infringement.

Or is this yet another way to count how incorrect your argument is?

Gibb

well we should all be able to agree that theft is wrong.......
Its instructive though, really.... all this rationalization... look how flexible peoples ideas of right and wrong get.... when there's $20 dollars at stake. This is why I'm a conservative. Without punishment there is no morality. You can see it right here on this thread. The ideas are just talk. They dont really matter that much. No one's going to hurt you if you go to scribd, so off you go. simple as that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abaddon - so when you said they DONT recognise the difference between physical property and imaginary property you were lying?

After all if they considered them to be the same thing you would be charged with theft, not copyright infringement.

Or is this yet another way to count how incorrect your argument is?

The point i made earlier is that the law does view Intellectual property (program design etc) as physical property for the sake of copy right, also theft does not necissarily have to be a physical item.

so points are:

1. Intellectual property is already treated as physical property for the sake of copyright (why it is possible to steal a design/idea/etc)

2. Theft does not need to be physical property

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abaddon - so when you said they DONT recognise the difference between physical property and imaginary property you were lying?

After all if they considered them to be the same thing you would be charged with theft, not copyright infringement.

Or is this yet another way to count how incorrect your argument is?

Im not a lawyer I dont know what they charge you with. It's illegal. You already know that. Try not to think of it as another instance of how incorrect my argument is. Try instead to think of it as another instance of my incredible, indescribable, overwhelming benevolence, that I continue to explain myself

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Thus proving Steelmages interpretation of "wrong" to be the naive and artificial wrong = illegal = wrong. Steelmages position is also so....poorly constructed it logically results in a stagnant society unable to enact / repeal any laws - as the laws are always "right".

Sure, kid. Whatever.

+1

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It will happen in your lifetime. regulating the internet wouldnt be as hard as you might think. you don't have to control every computer. you just have to control a few key computers. The hub of the internet - key servers and core software - is created and managed by corporations, not lonewolf untraceable hacker types. regulating them is easy. you just write a law.

A law that has to correspond, and be recognised, on a global scale in every country across the entire world, and be enforceble every minute of every hour of ever day. Continents like the US and Europe have trouble enforcing their own out-dated laws, laws which, if you live the US can be vastly different dependant upon what state your in, and they're just going to magically invent an all-encompassing directive that every government in the world is going to be OK with? A law that has to be able to adapt and change on an almost monthly basis to remain relevant and avoid falling into obscurity, when we still hark back to examples of law laid down in the 1900s and proclaim them as relevant today? Yeah. I see that happening. /sarcasm.

L. Wrex

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you're saying the courts charge you with theft if you commit copyright infringement?

They charge you with something.



I feel like I've made this point before. It's almost as though someone isn't reading the thread.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It will happen in your lifetime. regulating the internet wouldnt be as hard as you might think. you don't have to control every computer. you just have to control a few key computers. The hub of the internet - key servers and core software - is created and managed by corporations, not lonewolf untraceable hacker types. regulating them is easy. you just write a law.

A law that has to correspond, and be recognised, on a global scale in every country across the entire world, and be enforceble every minute of every hour of ever day. Continents like the US and Europe have trouble enforcing their own out-dated laws, laws which, if you live the US can be vastly different dependant upon what state your in, and they're just going to magically invent an all-encompassing directive that every government in the world is going to be OK with? A law that has to be able to adapt and change on an almost monthly basis to remain relevant and avoid falling into obscurity, when we still hark back to examples of law laid down in the 1900s and proclaim them as relevant today? Yeah. I see that happening. /sarcasm.

L. Wrex

Look this already happened. Remember when China told Google and Yahoo to stop allowing searches for topics it doesnt like? They backed down in order to remain competitive. And that was just a request by the Chinese government. They didnt actually try to regulate the software the way the production of car engines and paint thinner is regulated. They didn't have to. But can you imagine how much more effective that control would be if they were sending inspectors into software firms and checking their code to make sure its compliant with government regulations? Anyway you don't have to control the global infrastructure of the internet to dictate terms to software companies. You just have to control a big enough chunk of it that no one can do business globally without doing business with you. How this myth of internet invulnerability to regulation survived that incident with China I have no idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you're saying the courts charge you with theft if you commit copyright infringement?

They charge you with something.



I feel like I've made this point before. It's almost as though someone isn't reading the thread.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Dreadnote wrote:Jesus Christ. I had hoped that this thread would disappear on it's own last night. It's not even fun to read any more.

And yet after this post you still write in it, in a way which definitely isn't going to help stop "the flaming". Keep it up!

Mahtamori wrote:Also, is it even illegal making use of products or reproductions which have not been physically stolen? As far as I am aware, only the reproduction or reciprocation of copyrighted material is illegal (i.e. sharing is illegal, but using material without sharing it to others, by whichever means you acquired it, is not illegal as long as the actual product does not belong to someone else - something immaterial property does not do.).

In other words, using scribd isn't illegal, merely morally questionable.

Don't know how laws are in Sweden (got that right?), but most of the world it's definitely illegal.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:And it anyone here is going to turn around and tell me they have *never* borrowed and burned/copied a music CD I'm going to call shennanigans.

I did this. I probably am going to do that in the future. That doesn't change the fact that I did and probaby will do something wrong.
You may wonder, why I am sitting on the side waving the "piracy is wrong" flag and admit to this without shame. But, that is the thing. This is actually making me 'shameful'. I don't 'feel good' when I do this. Most of the time I have done this like someone (da001, I think) mentioned. To try out the product before buying it. If I don't like it - I delete it faster than one day and forget about it.
The thing is that here in Poland at least, it is really sometimes looked down upon people who actually buy something you can ripp off with ease. It's something like:
Some picture

It may be like with, I dont know - let's make some stupid, not equate example: small vandalism while being drunk or speeding or whatever. I don't want to hang or severely punish or mark any of you. But I hate (heavily dislike) it when people say that it's perfectly A-OK, and that actually I am the stupid one when I try to do the "good thing" (imho). Oh, I know! Littering! On small scale - irrelevant, someone else is going to clean this up anyway. My one paper won't change a thing. But if it's perfectly OK - and everybody starts doing this - BAM! whole world in garbage.
There are two ways in which piracy can be minimized. Either by executing and strengthening the laws, or by changing the way people think about it. Poorly executed first one will make internet a grimdark place (pun intended) and I don't really want that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:2. I (generic "I") have not taken anything. A copy is not "taking" something, as the person still *has* the something.

I quote you, but for the greater audience. Not the language thing that interests me here.
OK, person still has the thing, but as I previously stated, and for the time being no one even tried to prove me wrong the person (company) already spent some resources - time, money etc.. to make the product just to earn from selling it. He already "lost" the money (time=money) so that he can get the cash from you later. By getting his product but not giving enything back you are hurting him.

Time for another stupid example. You try to earn some money for your art school - you paint people or some landmark or any other thing at the carnival. Someone approaches your stand and looks at your painting. Maybe you just painted that exact person, or a family, or a bunch of friends. You ask him - "Do you want to buy it?". He replies - no, takes his HD camera, takes the picture your painting and smiles happily. He didn't steal anything from you - he just made a copy. He can go home and print it on your computer. Are you telling me that this is 100% OK?
Maybe this example would be better after replacing the paint part with 'take pictures with your super incredible camera for god knows how money with all the special effects and stuff TM'. Whatever.

I already wrote like the longest piece of crap I have ever made on the internet. I don't know thy I bother so much. But for some reason I do.

The best part of all this is how people are avoiding the most important part of this "piracy = theft" concept.

Using the apple analogy, I'll show why this is wrong.

I buy an apple from you. Inside that apple is a seed. I plant that seed and make copies of apples. Then I give copied apples away.

I buy an apple from you, and give it to a friend to eat.

I buy a book from you. I use my own scanning equipment to scan the pages and make copies of it. I then give the copied books away.

I buy a book from you, and give it to a friend to read.

See how piracy can't possibly be stealing? Without contractual obligation agreed to at time of purchase, the original owner has no authority, legal or moral, on what I do with the piece of property I just purchased. Get that? I bought it, now I can do whatever I want with it.

Its why Microsoft can't sue you for modding your Xbox.

This is why making copies of a book and giving them away are not stealing.

In comes copyright laws. In order to allow intellectual creations to earn more money and thus be encouraged, protection was given by many lawmakers against copying books other than for personal use. Yes that's right, you can make copies of copyright material you own for your own personal use. The only reason copyright exists is to encourage intellectual creations. Its an artificial incentive not inherent in the free market.

You can't possibly claim that copying a purchased book and giving the copies away is stealing, because you are copying your own property. The physical book you bought is yours. It's only the ideas contained within that copyright addresses.

Dracos wrote:The best part of all this is how people are avoiding the most important part of this "piracy = theft" concept.

Using the apple analogy, I'll show why this is wrong.

I buy an apple from you. Inside that apple is a seed. I plant that seed and make copies of apples. Then I give copied apples away.

I buy an apple from you, and give it to a friend to eat.

I buy a book from you. I use my own scanning equipment to scan the pages and make copies of it. I then give the copied books away.

I buy a book from you, and give it to a friend to read.

See how piracy can't possibly be stealing? Without contractual obligation agreed to at time of purchase, the original owner has no authority, legal or moral, on what I do with the piece of property I just purchased. Get that? I bought it, now I can do whatever I want with it.

Its why Microsoft can't sue you for modding your Xbox.

This is why making copies of a book and giving them away are not stealing.

In comes copyright laws. In order to allow intellectual creations to earn more money and thus be encouraged, protection was given by many lawmakers against copying books other than for personal use. Yes that's right, you can make copies of copyright material you own for your own personal use. The only reason copyright exists is to encourage intellectual creations. Its an artificial incentive not inherent in the free market.

You can't possibly claim that copying a purchased book and giving the copies away is stealing, because you are copying your own property. The physical book you bought is yours. It's only the ideas contained within that copyright addresses.

1.Apart from the apple in this case would not be the subject of the copyright.

2.True you can copy for you own use or modify

3. The entire point is Intellectual property is what is being discussed not the book itself

And that difference is what makes it not stealing. Copyright infringement =/= stealing.

Furthermore, on the subject of whether it is "wrong" or not, I'd submit that any law that serves only to perpetuate wealth (as is the case for copyright laws) is wrong.

Therefore the law is illegitimate, and disobeying illegitimate laws is not only not wrong, but the right thing to do.

If the pirating a codex gets people into the game and builds enthusiasm, I'm sure GW is fine with that tradeoff. The books are not where GW makes their money, its the models. The books are there to move the models. I'll be honest, I got into this game after downloading a ****ton of codex's online years ago, and after reading through all the stories, fluff and rules, and now I own 2 IG armies, a Sisters of Battle army, a Tyranid army, enough stuff for two CSM armies, an Eldar army and a Tau army, a Warriors of Chaos Fantasy army (enough stuff for 9 armies in total!). Several thousand dollars worth of Warhammer and Warhammer 40,000 products.

I'm pretty sure the GW bookkeepers are happy with that trade-off.




Additionally, yes Piracy != Theft. Theft implies the owner no longer has use of the item. Me going into my neighbors yard and stealing his shovel is theft. Me going into his yard and making a copy of his shovel design for my own personal use is piracy. It's copyright infirngement, not theft. The difference is that in the case of piracy, the owner is not out something they would have necessarily otherwise had. Most pirated books, movies, games, etc would not have ever been purchased anyway. What it is is a violation of use rights, but Theft, wereby the offended party is out the use or benefit of something, it is not. Not saying that its totally fine mind you, but in the case of pirated 40k books I think if it gets people into buying the models and other products it's probably not a bad thing for GW on the whole of it.

Dracos wrote:I buy an apple from you. Inside that apple is a seed. I plant that seed and make copies of apples. Then I give copied apples away.

Actually, if it's a apple grown from Monsanto seeds, this could well be illegal. Okay, so that's technically "patent infringement," not copyright. Excellent analogy otherwise, and I feel that even with my caveat, it does well to point out how insane the laws are.

Excellent. So it seems to be the case that the rest of thread has groped its way to the point I made four pages back, that piracy and theft are separate and distinct crimes.

Now here's the real question. Once you separate downloading a codex from simple theft, and it becomes a new crime, you've separated it from all that terrible emotional and cultural baggage associated with theft. However, that doesn't necessarily make it right or wrong. So how do you judge whether downloading your codex is morally acceptable?

People who say morals vary from culture to culture are silly, because whilst morals are ultimately subjective, the simple fact is that morals are subjective to societies as a whole, not individuals. You may believe differently, and that gang rape, regardless of what society says, is an acceptable thing, but whilst you remain in the minority, you are going against what is morally right for the society, and will be judged as such.

However, people say its bad because its illegal are also silly, simply because legality is not necessarily indicative of morality.

As morality is defined by the masses, the simple fact that we are having this debate shows that it isn't cut and dry. There are wildly varying opinions. The sheer number of people who do breach intellectual property laws means it is genuinely seen as morally acceptable by a significant chunk of society, if not the absolute majority. It no more makes one a bad person then going 5 miles over the speed limit on a empty road. It has become culturally acceptable. And when something becomes culturally acceptable, that generally means it is morally acceptable as well.

I see it as a result of societal shifts with regards to globalisation. As the internet and communications equipment grow better and better, information of all types flows freer, not just the types the government would prefer you to have. What does this mean for society? Who knows. But I predict that the trend of illegally acquiring intellectual property will continue to grow with globalisation, until it is seen as the norm by society. And when that happens (I reckon thirty or forty years), the intellectual property laws will no doubt have to be modified as a result.

Macok wrote:

The Dreadnote wrote:Jesus Christ. I had hoped that this thread would disappear on it's own last night. It's not even fun to read any more.

And yet after this post you still write in it, in a way which definitely isn't going to help stop "the flaming". Keep it up!

I decided that whilst it's still here and going in circles I might as well have a bit of fun with it.

Dracos wrote:The best part of all this is how people are avoiding the most important part of this "piracy = theft" concept.

[...]

You can't possibly claim that copying a purchased book and giving the copies away is stealing, because you are copying your own property. The physical book you bought is yours. It's only the ideas contained within that copyright addresses.

And like was pointed out - it isn't theft. So what? It's THE LEAST important concept here.
That's what makes people ignore the wrong side of the piracy. Because "it's not theft". I ask you again.. So what?


I'm still waiting for any smart contradiction to last part of my post....
(http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/360/332928.page#2231795)
What excuse why piracy is better than stealing, just because because it is not "theft".

With piracy quite often there is no harm inflicted. If I pirated a TV show that I never would have bought, or it gets me to buy their product at a later date, then the rights holders aren't out anything. They aren't hurt as they were never going to benefit from a potential sale or the pirated product may serve to bring them into a product line and begin purchasing. Their property rights have been violated yes, but no actual harm has been done to them, they aren't out anything that would have happened otherwise. If I *steal* the DVD's, then they have been actually damaged. That's the difference.

The only time piracy can be harmful is when it takes the place of theft, meaning you had the will, means and intent to purchase something but did not and it did not serve functionally as a loss leader to get you to purchase additional product. Then there is a real issue.

I think we've seen enough of this for this week.