30689
Post by: Sanguinis
So I've decided to start this thread both in defense of Games Workshop and because I'm getting sick of hearing about this Scribe or Scribed or whatever the Feth its called.
Is GW's prices a little crazy. YES! No doubt about it. However, we must all pay the price in order to play the game. Lets face it, if EVERY Warhammer player in the world stopped buying codex's and models, and used Scribe and Ebay to buy their models, GW would go out of business and then guess what? No more Warhammer.
I have several friends who insist on using Scribe and do not want to pay the price for codex's, Imperial Armor, etc. Also I have just recently seen a thread in YMDC in which a person was quoting an Eldar Codex they got off Scribe and the Codex was WRONG.
There is a reason why Scribe is not allowed in tournaments. The reason is because not only is it illegal, as it is stealing, but also because anybody could take that information and alter it. I could say Eldrad can use as many Psychic powers a turn as he wants, or I could say Swarmlord has a 3+ invulnerable always. To someone who is starting out and is not familiar with Warhammer but wants to "avoid" the price of a codex they wouldn't know and would be in for a rude awakening when they go to their first tournament and find out that their army doesn't work the way they thought.
I get angry at my friends who use Scribe for, probably the most important reason, I and other players at our FLGS pay the prices for Codex's, Imperial Armor, etc, why shouldn't you? What makes you so special?
Anyway I needed to vent my anger after hearing about this Fething Scribe website and reading that latest thread. I hope other Dakkites can agree with me that although GW's prices may be a bit on the expensive side, their Codex's are written very well (most of them) and we don't want to cheat other people and the economy by using illegally downloaded Codex's.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral. Then again, I don't really support the idea of intellectual property. In fact, there are many things about property in general that I disagree with. But then again I'm just an odd ball.
I don't care if my friends buy their codex or not, so long as it doesn't interrupt us from playing the game. I go down to the local GW often, so I have to have a codex to play there. Granted I bought my codex before I started playing there regularly, but that was because I believed it had value to me. If a book is priced far above its value to me, then I'm not going to buy it if I can access is somewhere else. In this case, its not like the're losing the sale - if I can't access it though piracy I just wouldn't buy it or have access to it. In many ways, I don't see how this is different from a friend having it and I just look at it frequently.
22289
Post by: EmilCrane
I agree with you, I personally believe piracy is wrong and look down on anyone who does it. GW does charge high but if we all stopped buying from them then there would be no warhammer at all.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
I can understand all this ... however I would like a digital version for purchasing the real version. That way I can keep my codexes in my box and still have access to them now
30723
Post by: iheartlargeblasttemplates
I agree with you! If gw goes so does warhammer why not support it? Im willing to pay the price too keep something i like going.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Personally I think GW should just get rid of the printed codex and release them online for free. This allows them to make updates and erratas faster, fix imbalances and allow everyone to read over the rules so you dont get random crap like some guy pulling a wacky rule and then refusing to show you the codex. At the prices their plastics and paints are, it shouldnt be that much of a blow to their profits.
28315
Post by: GalacticDefender
Illegally downloading codexes is wrong. Now imperial armor on the other hand, that is basically the same thing as a codex, but costs many times the amount for the same product. Forge world is fething ridiculous and I would never buy an imperial armor book from them, and even for me to buy one of their models, it better be FETHING GOOD for me to pay that kind of insane price for a piece of resin which probably cost $5 to make.
11988
Post by: Dracos
*Meanwhile, in the GW executive board room*
Random dude: Hey guys, I know, lets keep making our codex products, but instead of selling them we can give them away for free. This would allow us to also make other free products faster.
CEO: You're fired.
28315
Post by: GalacticDefender
So, when it comes to forge world piracy, I say this: ARR MATEY! (There is no way I would consider buying a $70 book that is pretty much the same as a codex.)
Forge World is the one who is stealing lol!
GW I respect though. Sure, their prices might be sorta high too, but they have a great product. I would never consider pirating from them.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
EmilCrane wrote:I agree with you, I personally believe piracy is wrong and look down on anyone who does it.
Stealing is for scumbags, pure and simple.
Rationalize it all you want. If you steal, you are a boil on the ass of humanity.
15667
Post by: Emperors Faithful
I'm against stealing and piracy. Mostly becuase I would never get away with it.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Their Profits might actually rise if their codexes were free. I have turned three friends onto Warhammer solely by showing them the codex of their prefered army (no, it wasnt SMs =P). if they were more widely available more people would consider the game, allowing them to generate more sales.
29844
Post by: Cantus
Purely to play devils advocate, since everyone here seems to be pretty much of the same opinion..
Who's to say what is right and wrong? What is morality?
In reality it's just a series of rules that keep societies working and their people in line. It's not WRONG to steal, there is no WRONG- it's just a jerk thing to do because you wouldn't want someone stealing from you. etc etc
A more concrete reason in "favor" of pirating is that it encourages people to get involved in the game that wouldn't otherwise because of the price tag. I have a lot of friends who are huge geeks and really love playing games like 40k, but no one wants to pay 70$ for a rule book. I would argue sales would go up if they decreased their prices too. I can't imagine plastic soldiers cost that much to manufacture and they would have a lot more people buying. I almost never buy straight from GW, I always try to buy second hand if I can.
Of course you can't blame GW for their ridiculous prices, they get away with it, so power to them. However, I feel no guilt about not supporting them by paying their outrageous prices every time I want to get a new unit or codex. I don't have a lot of income- I'm not going to spend the small amount I do have buying overpriced soldiers and books in bulk. (And before someone pounces on me, I do have hard copies of the BRB and multiple codices- they came with the first army I bought.)
But what makes pirating a codex any worse than scratch-building your own leman russ? Why is it worse to pirate a codex than to share a codex with your friend? You're using GW's intellectual property without paying them. You're not taking anything away from anyone other than hypothetical profits. There's no difference, but for some reason pirating is frowned upon.
tl;dr Calling pirating "stealing" is wrong since nothing is taken from the "victim." It just assumes that one would go out and buy the item if they weren't able to pirate it. As I said, I have friends who would play but can't afford it. One of them pirates the books and that's the only reason he started playing..
However, I do acknowledge it's bad for GW's business, but... meh. They do alright and I do support them by buying their miniatures and keeping their product's value up.
As for the morality of pirating, morality is a social concept that I feel no obligation to pretend exists as anything other than "I won't kill you so please don't kill me." Maybe I'm a pariah for my views, but whatever.
31981
Post by: Pyro-Druid
I'll openly admit I've downloaded codexes. I've done so for around 7 or 8 of them, but as it stands I only have 3 on my computer. One of those three is the Witch Hunters codex, the others are Chaos Daemons and CSM. Why do I download them? Preview more or less, I no longer live close enough to a stockist to have a look instore. I don't download anything I'm not actually considering to buy, once I've decided one way or the other I delete it, and I'll always buy the codex before any models. In the end this has resulted in me buying three codexes (though I only use the Eldar one). So over all my downloading has resulted in more purchases by me then I otherwise would have.
The exceptions to this were the Rulebook and CSM codex. I downloaded the rulebook when it was released to carry me over for the short time until I could buy the hardcopy (I will tell you now I'll do the exact same thing when a new Eldar codex is released). I have the CSM because my friend accidentally left his copy (hardcopy) at home one day when we wanted to play, I don't delete it on the off chance it happens again. So those are the only two cases where my downloading wasn't effecting potential sales (Rulebook = guaranteed sale no matter what. CSM = No chance of buying it/substituting for an already purchased copy).
Though I may have rambled a bit, my opinion is: Downloading has it's place. That place it not as a free copy of the product, and as such should not be done unless you have or have intention to purchase the product.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
On-topic, I have all of the different army codecis downloaded on my PC. I have a purchased copy of Eldar and CSM codex since I actually have those models and play those armies. If i start playing a new army i will get the codex for that army.
I have a couple of proxy models but everything else is original GW stuff.
11988
Post by: Dracos
The difference between copying a publication and stealing physical property is that by copying a publication, I am not depriving the owner of usage of it. When you steal physical property, the owner is not longer able to use it.
29844
Post by: Cantus
phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
Straw man argument. No one is talking about breaking into their FLGS and stealing stuff.
A better comparison would be he's selling a famous painting and you take a picture of it on your phone.
29842
Post by: Pen≥Sword
I was wondering what your stance was on buying used Codices?
I'm not saying people should steal or download (their codex) illegally, I try to support GW by buying product in their stores (or at other hobby stores). But isn't buying things off ebay or from a "used" section or something cheating GW just as much as stealing a codex?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Cantus wrote:phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
Straw man argument. No one is talking about breaking into their FLGS and stealing stuff.
A better comparison would be he's selling a famous painting and you take a picture of it on your phone.
It's not a straw man at all. Stealing is stealing was his obvious point.
29844
Post by: Cantus
Monster Rain wrote:Cantus wrote:phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
Straw man argument. No one is talking about breaking into their FLGS and stealing stuff.
A better comparison would be he's selling a famous painting and you take a picture of it on your phone.
It's not a straw man at all. Stealing is stealing was his obvious point.
......but its not stealing is my obvious point.
11988
Post by: Dracos
But notice that anyone who has been charged with this type of action is not charged with stealing. This action is not the same as stealing.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
So... what about people who take the time to re-create moulds and do their own casting? And I strongly disagree with the 'most codices are well written' point, as they are meant to be rules documents, and I'm yet to find one that and be picked up and used for a game without creating issues.
11988
Post by: Dracos
I have a friend who made a replica of a vindicator. I have no problem with that either. As long as he isn't trying to pass it off or sell it as an original, I have no issues.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Cantus wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Cantus wrote:phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
Straw man argument. No one is talking about breaking into their FLGS and stealing stuff.
A better comparison would be he's selling a famous painting and you take a picture of it on your phone.
It's not a straw man at all. Stealing is stealing was his obvious point.
......but its not stealing is my obvious point.
But your point is wrong.
29844
Post by: Cantus
Monster Rain wrote:Cantus wrote:
quotes
But your point is wrong.
..Fair enough. Care to be more specific?
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Buy a codex.
6 months later codex is obsolete
Buy another codex.
£30+ for a few pages of fun and games.
Factor in other armies you own that require Army Books.
You need to find something quickish on an army you will/may play. Sure another £17.50, it is a mere bagatelle.
(Please no, "if you can't afford it ..." Is too too dull darlings.)
and no am not condoning denying GW some cash which they will get off you eventually anyhoo cos that £17.50 gets spent on another box of toy soldiers instead of a book you will look at but once.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Dracos wrote:I have a friend who made a replica of a vindicator. I have no problem with that either. As long as he isn't trying to pass it off or sell it as an original, I have no issues. Okay  , now he (or anyone elses 'friend') has gone and borrowed a whole heap of single figures - practically one from every unit you'd need to build an army - from some people, and moulded and cast them all, he now want's to play 2500pts at the local gs
11988
Post by: Dracos
edit: @ Monster Rain
Okay stop with the quoting, we don't need to see the whole conversation every post.
You are incorrect, it is not called stealing. Stealing is something different.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
Cantus wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Cantus wrote:phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
Straw man argument. No one is talking about breaking into their FLGS and stealing stuff.
A better comparison would be he's selling a famous painting and you take a picture of it on your phone.
It's not a straw man at all. Stealing is stealing was his obvious point.
......but its not stealing is my obvious point.
So still having use of a stolen object makes it not stolen? So if I steal a thesis you wrote, you can still use it because you still have the thesis but now I have it as well. It isn't stealing in the strictest sense of the word but it when you say "you don't think it's immoral" you are trying to say it's right. But it's not right.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Cantus wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Cantus wrote:
quotes
But your point is wrong.
..Fair enough. Care to be more specific?
Nah. I guess if you don't any integrity I'm not going to change it through a forum discussion.
If you can't afford it, I suppose I should be sympathetic.
11988
Post by: Dracos
@ChrisCP
That's where it breaks down. No problem for personal use inside the house. But don't bring your ripped off stuff to the LGS - they make money selling models. They will get angry when they find out you make your own, and ban you. If I'm with you I might get banned, and I don't want to get banned.
Recast an entire army to use on your home board? No problem.
29844
Post by: Cantus
phyrephly wrote:Cantus wrote:
......but its not stealing is my obvious point.
So still having use of a stolen object makes it not stolen? So if I steal a thesis you wrote, you can still use it because you still have the thesis but now I have it as well. It isn't stealing in the strictest sense of the word but it when you say "you don't think it's immoral" you are trying to say it's right. But it's not right.
Firstly, stealing is also not the same as plagiarism, which I believe you're describing. They are completely separate terms and mean completely separate things.
Secondly, like I said, morality is what you make it. Do you mean it's a jerk thing to do? Then ya, you're probably correct. That bit is subjective though.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dracos wrote:edit: @ Monster Rain
Okay stop with the quoting, we don't need to see the whole conversation every post.
You are incorrect, it is not called stealing. Stealing is something different.
Oh boy. Semantics.
Whatever let's you sleep at night.
11988
Post by: Dracos
@ Cantus:
Exactly, the whole thesis copying thing is only wrong if you are saying its your product. If someone makes a copy of my thesis but gives me credit for it I'm not going to break a sweat.
@ Monster Rain:
Yeah, having words with different meanings is too cumbersome since it entirely disproves your point. We should reduce language to a series of grunts that all mean the same thing.
29844
Post by: Cantus
Monster Rain wrote:Cantus wrote:edited to make this bit smaller
Nah. I guess if you don't any integrity I'm not going to change it through a forum discussion.
If you can't afford it, I suppose I should be sympathetic.
I'm arguing that stealing is different than pirating, why is my integrity entering into this at all?
Monster Rain wrote:Dracos wrote:and this bit too =D
You are incorrect, it is not called stealing. Stealing is something different.
Oh boy. Semantics.
Whatever let's you sleep at night.
And it's only semantics to the person consistently and argumentatively using the incorrect terms to support their point eh?
If you'd like to have a serious conversation about piracy than leave people's "integrity" out of it and explain your position. I'm eager to better understand your thinking as I don't understand it as we stand now.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Wow
a quintuple multiquote and on page 1
That could be some sort of record!
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Or I have better things to do than listen to a stranger justify why he's a thief.
You pick.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
Cantus wrote:phyrephly wrote:Cantus wrote:
......but its not stealing is my obvious point.
So still having use of a stolen object makes it not stolen? So if I steal a thesis you wrote, you can still use it because you still have the thesis but now I have it as well. It isn't stealing in the strictest sense of the word but it when you say "you don't think it's immoral" you are trying to say it's right. But it's not right.
Firstly, stealing is also not the same as plagiarism, which I believe you're describing. They are completely separate terms and mean completely separate things.
Secondly, like I said, morality is what you make it. Do you mean it's a jerk thing to do? Then ya, you're probably correct. That bit is subjective though.
Plagarism is if you take some of the words and concepts in a piece of "work" and use it and make it your own. Stealing is when you take something completely. And you are stealing $$$ from games workshop by not paying for it since it's a product they sell. If you use a pirated codex as your own, you didn't plagiarise it, you STOLE it, since you didn't pay for it.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Not really. Am I stealing a codex by looking through my friends copy?
That's where this breaks down. Downloading a copied version of a Codex is more akin to looking through a friend's copy than taking one out of the store without paying for it. If I want to own the codex, I'll buy it. If I just want to look through it, I'll either look through one owned by a friend, at the store, or download one.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
What if I download a codex but don't use it?
11988
Post by: Dracos
Monster Rain wrote:Or I have better things to do than listen to a stranger justify why he's a thief.
You pick.
LOL I'm right because I say so! I have the time to type out that I don't have the time to explain myself!
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
So what you're saying is that piracey is okay under your own roof? But everyone knows that!
And they aren't ripped off I've put huge amounts of time and effort learning how to professionally cast these models from scratch, I've even started to modify the molds to create conversions! Similar to if someone couldn't use the necrons codex due to it having 'skeletons' in it, and they'd re-made their own with full art and fluff - correct points too!
LGS do not make money from selling models - how dare you suggest such a thing!
Where's a point for 'it's GWs game - hand off' against 'I just want to play a game'?
29844
Post by: Cantus
phyrephly wrote:Cantus wrote:smaller
Plagarism is if you take some of the words and concepts in a piece of "work" and use it and make it your own. Stealing is when you take something completely. And you are stealing $$$ from games workshop by not paying for it since it's a product they sell. If you use a pirated codex as your own, you didn't plagiarise it, you STOLE it, since you didn't pay for it.
No see, this is what people keep misunderstanding. STEALING requires the original copy to be gone from the victim's possession. Therefore plagiarism and piracy are not STEALING. You may think that they're immoral, but they're still separate things is all that I'm trying to convey.
Also, saying I would be "stealing" money from GW if i were to pirate a codex is making the assumption that I would have bought it if I couldn't pirate it, which is a big assumption. It could equally be said that I'm gaining them a consumer base by downloading it (since I wouldn't have spent 100$+ just on books) and then introducing it to my friends, who then buy the models.
Monstah Raaaaaaain wrote: Or I have better things to do than listen to a stranger justify why he's a thief.
You pick.
Alright bro, if you're going to be like that.
11988
Post by: Dracos
@ ChrisCP:
Sarcasm overload.... I can't tell which parts of your posts are sarcasm anymore lol.
15477
Post by: Mattieau
Stealing != Piracy
Stealing: Dave has a movie. Tom takes it. Now Tom has a movie and Dave has no movie.
Piracy: Dave has a Movie. Tom Copies it. Now Tom has a Movie and Dave has a Movie.
Stealing is forcing someone else to lose enjoyment or whatnot of the movie. Piracy, both people have said movie to enjoy.
The only loser in this situation is the production company who charges exorbitantly, forcing Tom into either piracy or stealing in either situation.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dracos wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Or I have better things to do than listen to a stranger justify why he's a thief.
You pick.
LOL I'm right because I say so! I have the time to type out that I don't have the time to explain myself!
You seem to have misunderstood me, let me rephrase:
I generally only engage in debate with people who's opinion I respect. I'm afraid that someone who is an unrepentant thief doesn't fit that description.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
While I'm an advocate for online downloading, I'd have to agree with others that pirating codexes are indeed stealing, although more under the shoplifting category rather than home burglary. The owner looses revenu rather than access to a particular piece of info or service.
However the other end of the spectrum is how most people justify Piracy. There was a cracked article on the subject, about how people bottle water and selling it to you, effectively making you pay for something you can get (relatively) free. Depending on your views, that may or may not be stealing. While GW certainly doesnt sell you "nothing", their prices are still extremely over inflated, which sometimes make you feel like you're paying out the nose while getting back "nothing".
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
what if I make the Mold and cast the GW mini's using all this leftover sprue nonsense I have at the house.
Even more so if I buy the original model I'm making molds of IE; assault marines, vindicator, etc.
17279
Post by: Irdiumstern
Codexes in a digital format are much more convenient than a printed codex. Said codex costing $25 is also silly. Why less than a hundred pages of softcover material should cost that much I'll never understand.
Not that that would change anything for me. Information should be free.
Of course, having every codex at hand and being able to check on opposing abilities/equipment/stats is very convenient.
Whatever justifies making yourself feel superior to people . . .
11988
Post by: Dracos
@ Monster Rain
Well since you apparently don't know the difference between theft and piracy, I have at least equal disdain for your opinion!
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Irdiumstern wrote:Codexes in a digital format are much more convenient than a printed codex. Said codex costing $25 is also silly. Why less than a hundred pages of softcover material should cost that much I'll never understand.
Not that that would change anything for me. Information should be free.
Of course, having every codex at hand and being able to check on opposing abilities/equipment/stats is very convenient.
Whatever justifies making yourself feel superior to people . . .
Oh its not just this.
17279
Post by: Irdiumstern
MechaEmperor7000 wrote:While I'm an advocate for online downloading, I'd have to agree with others that pirating codexes are indeed stealing, although more under the shoplifting category rather than home burglary. The owner looses revenu rather than access to a particular piece of info or service.
This is the worst argument against piracy that I've ever heard. If I attempt to sell a product, and you don't buy it, are you stealing from me? But I'm loosing revenue aren't I? What about making something yourself that fills the same role?
29844
Post by: Cantus
Monster Rain wrote:Dracos wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Or I have better things to do than listen to a stranger justify why he's a thief.
You pick.
LOL I'm right because I say so! I have the time to type out that I don't have the time to explain myself!
You seem to have misunderstood me, let me rephrase:
I generally only engage in debate with people who's opinion I respect. I'm afraid that someone who is an unrepentant thief doesn't fit that description.
But you seem to have a profound misunderstanding of our position/opinion.. What if we talk it out, maybe we could come out to a mutually respected position =D
Alright, for you or anyone else, here are a series of hypotheticals.
Why are these ok? Or are they ok?
-Scratch building GW models
-Downloading a copy of the newest codex from the internet
-Looking over my friend's shoulder to read his codex
-Leafing through a codex in the store and not buying it
-Scribbling down the stats of a model you always forget the rules for and using those instead
-My friend scans his copy of a codex he just bought and gives me the files
-My friend burns me a mix cd (not strictly 40k related, but i'd argue it's still relevant)
11988
Post by: Dracos
@ Monster Rain
Yes I'm sure you have a very elaborate framework for your superiority complex. Probably not something to brag about though.
Just sayin'.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dracos wrote:@ Monster Rain
Yes I'm sure you have a very elaborate framework for your superiority complex. Probably not something to brag about though.
Just sayin'.
It's not bragging if its true. Automatically Appended Next Post: Cantus wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Dracos wrote:Monster Rain wrote:Or I have better things to do than listen to a stranger justify why he's a thief.
You pick.
LOL I'm right because I say so! I have the time to type out that I don't have the time to explain myself!
You seem to have misunderstood me, let me rephrase:
I generally only engage in debate with people who's opinion I respect. I'm afraid that someone who is an unrepentant thief doesn't fit that description.
But you seem to have a profound misunderstanding of our position/opinion.. What if we talk it out, maybe we could come out to a mutually respected position =D
Alright, for you or anyone else, here are a series of hypotheticals.
Why are these ok? Or are they ok?
-Scratch building GW models
-Downloading a copy of the newest codex from the internet
-Looking over my friend's shoulder to read his codex
-Leafing through a codex in the store and not buying it
-Scribbling down the stats of a model you always forget the rules for and using those instead
-My friend scans his copy of a codex he just bought and gives me the files
-My friend burns me a mix cd (not strictly 40k related, but i'd argue it's still relevant)
Oh I burn CDs all the time. Just kidding, FBI.
I'd love a PDF of my Codexes, too.
I don't know. It just seems like if you have something that should have cost you money that you obtained by illegal means it at least fits a ballpark description of stealing.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Cantus wrote:Alright, for you or anyone else, here are a series of hypotheticals.
Why are these ok? Or are they ok?
Fun exercise! I'll bite
-Scratch building GW models
This is fine. You are making a replica. As long as you don't claim it to be the original you are fine.
-Downloading a copy of the newest codex from the internet
Same idea as looking at a friend's copy. If you are going to buy it, downloading it is like a preview. Downloading will not stop you from buying it if you were going to buy it in the first place.
-Looking over my friend's shoulder to read his codex
I can look where I please. No one has the right to tell me where I can look. My buddy can get angry that I'm invading his personal space though, or if my breath is smelly.
-Leafing through a codex in the store and not buying it
This is a service offered by the store. If they don't want me to look through it, then that's fine. By looking through the codex I am not agreeing to buy it.
-Scribbling down the stats of a model you always forget the rules for and using those instead
Similar to writing down a quote from your favorite book. As long as credit goes where it is due, you are just replicating an origional.
-My friend scans his copy of a codex he just bought and gives me the files
If I was going to buy it, I'll still by it. This is the same as looking at a friends copy. Instead I'm looking at pictures of his copy.
-My friend burns me a mix cd (not strictly 40k related, but i'd argue it's still relevant)
Its cool, but will be tossed if I don't like it! My buddy isn't claiming music on it is made by him, so if anyone asks we can credit whoever made the music.
Central theme: Replicating original creations is fine so long as it is clear its a replica. Not cool is replicating and passing off as an original.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Irdiumstern wrote:MechaEmperor7000 wrote:While I'm an advocate for online downloading, I'd have to agree with others that pirating codexes are indeed stealing, although more under the shoplifting category rather than home burglary. The owner looses revenu rather than access to a particular piece of info or service.
This is the worst argument against piracy that I've ever heard. If I attempt to sell a product, and you don't buy it, are you stealing from me? But I'm loosing revenue aren't I? What about making something yourself that fills the same role?
If you attempt to sell a product, and I get it for free, without it coming as a gift (and thus no one actually making a purchase transaction) then yes it is stealing, because I am no longer rewarding your efforts, yet still taking your stuff. Money is simply proof of your effort. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brows? Problem is, GW thinks their sweat is made of gold and that our pockets are endless.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Cantus wrote:phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral.
I don't think break into your house and stealing all your stuff is immoral, but hey im just an odd-ball.
Straw man argument. No one is talking about breaking into their FLGS and stealing stuff.
A better comparison would be he's selling a famous painting and you take a picture of it on your phone.
That's a terrible comparison.
A famous painting is limited to one piece. That's usually why they're famous, along with being a "masterpiece" by a specific artist, etc.
Anything else will not fetch the same price or have the same effect, it's just a copy.
11988
Post by: Dracos
That is a good point, its still not completely analogous. That being said, it was still a better comparison than the one he quoted.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
At this point in the argument I would just like to point out again that HAVING a downloaded copy is fine, unless you don't buy the original to play games with. I have the original of each of the armies that I play.
There are two arguments currently running, WHAT IS PRIACY and IS PIRACY WRONG?
Piracy is copying something, and using it for your own use without paying for it. IE Downloaded codex.
Is it wrong? Yes.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
Cantus wrote:
Alright, for you or anyone else, here are a series of hypotheticals.
Why are these ok? Or are they ok?
-Scratch building GW models
-Downloading a copy of the newest codex from the internet
-Looking over my friend's shoulder to read his codex
-Leafing through a codex in the store and not buying it
-Scribbling down the stats of a model you always forget the rules for and using those instead
-My friend scans his copy of a codex he just bought and gives me the files
-My friend burns me a mix cd (not strictly 40k related, but i'd argue it's still relevant)
1. You have been given permission this is acceptable use of their IP.
2. It is still stealing, its the same as taking a copy from the local store to check if you'll like it before you return to buy one. You'll have two copies at the end only one is obtained legally.
3. You are looking at the codex, not removing it from the possession of someone else without the owner's permission, the most basic definition of stealing.
4. Same as three. It's a good idea to ensure that you feel that a product is in fact worth the money, otherwise you could consider them the thieves.
5. Depends, if you're doing it while looking at a store copy its bad form. If you're adding it to an army list then I guess it's alright.
6. It's basically the same as downloading it, in fact it is because that's how the electronic copies start. You didn't pay for it therefore you stole it from the company.
7. Depends, if the artist is alright they'll generally have free songs which are ok to distribute unless they ask you not to. If they're from an album that requires you to buy it then it is not alright as you haven taken it without the permission of the author.
The difference in all of these is basically whether you have the permission of the relevant person or not.
As for the piracy != stealing arguments. Sometimes that is true, most of the time however the opposite is true. I'm not going to be one of those ones that comes in here with their nose up on a moral high horse telling you you're fooling only yourself. But don't delude yourself entirely into believing that it is not just a new form of stealing enabled by the internet in most cases.
These threads alway show up and spiral down into a petty squabble before a mod arrives to declare that it doesn't matter what it is and that it's wrong as they lock the thread.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.
Stealing is a CRIMINAL offense.
Copyright laws are civil matters.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dracos wrote:Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.
Stealing is a CRIMINAL offense.
Copyright laws are civil matters.
I've seen people be this wrong before.
But not often.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
Dracos wrote:Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.
Proof that the internet has entirely desensitized people. Are you arguing the principle or are you arguing morally?
11988
Post by: Dracos
You are correct, I lumped some things in together that I should not have when I said that Copyright Infringement is a civil matter.
Distribution of copyright material for profit can be a criminal offense.
Also its worth noting that the FBI is only relevant in the U.S. Each country has their own law systems, so quoting your own law system and stating that to be the one, universal truth is misleading and incorrect.
However, as far as I am aware being in possession of copyright material that you do not own is not a criminal offense. At least not in this country.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
And so you are right, I just looked it up and turns out law doesn't actually consider it to be theft. That's kind of odd I guess.
Always thought it was stealing because it is so similar and got the name piracy.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Because theft has result in the 'loss' of something - profit you never actually had can't be 'lost'? Or something like that
11988
Post by: Dracos
phyrephly wrote:Dracos wrote:Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.
Proof that the internet has entirely desensitized people. Are you arguing the principle or are you arguing morally?
Interestingly enough, in person I am an extremely sympathetic person. In many ways not desensitized at all.
I think you meant that you wanted me to distinguish between whether I'm arguing by law or morality (principle and morally seem mostly synonymous in this context).
Legally, in many countries owning copies of copyright material is a breach of copyright laws. There is no getting around that, the law is the law.
But then we get into the nuances of law. Smoking pot is illegal in Canada, but there are sooooo many people I know that do (not everyone obviously, but many) that it is largely ignored. What is targeted? The people making money from the illegal activity.
The problem is that when a large segment of a population ignores a law it becomes impossible to enforce, and therefore the law loses its power(illegitimate would be the political science friendly term). So while it is illegal, its not an enforceable offense. That is why people get away with it.
In terms of morality, I'm a socialist. I don't see the Warhammer game as being the product of the company that manufacturers it, but rather a product of the society that created the basis for that company to manufacturer it. We've seen it posted a million times - Warhammer is based off XYZ previous creation. Molding and sculpting processes were based off XYZ predecessor.
To put it plainly, the fact that every piece of work is derived from the basis of the gifts bestowed on the individual by society necessarily makes the intellectual property communal.
Our capitalist societies are not in line with my own personal views, so I can understand if people disagree with me.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
All this sounds like is someone who's never created something to live off of the profits, really.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Fair enough, I have not.
However, surely a learned person such as yourself is aware that the fact that I have not made something to live off the profits from in no way invalidates my arguments, right? Doesn't civil debate focus on the argument and not go to ad hominem?
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Dracos wrote:Fair enough, I have not.
However, surely a learned person such as yourself is aware that the fact that I have not made something to live off the profits from in no way invalidates my arguments, right? Doesn't civil debate focus on the argument and not go to ad hominem?
What's ad hominem about it, exactly? I don't know if it invalidates your arguments, but to me it casts serious aspersions on your reasons for making them.
I think you would find that a little real-life experience in this field would be eye opening. You don't care because the loss of revenue doesn't affect you. If it did, you might think differently.
11988
Post by: Dracos
You offered no logical counter, but seemed to imply that my argument was invalid based off some characteristic of my person (that characteristic being that I have not profited from a creation). That makes it ad hominem. Instead of attacking my arguments, you attacked me.
I'll be the first to say that my bias is certainly in the direction of communal possession. I would expect anyone who owns copyrights (or whose income is directly derived from the perpetuating of present copyright laws) to argue to their bias - that copyright is necessary. Everyone has a bias, and I'm not trying to hide mine. Then again, I'm also not making ad hominem attacks.
edit: If I did have personal investment in this, I'd hope that I would have the integrity to stick to the same ideals I hold presently. Its pretty easy to take the side of an argument in which you have personal investment. Harder is to look at it objectively for merit of all sides.
14070
Post by: SagesStone
It is akin to stealing, but not stealing at the same time.
Basically this whole argument is RAW vs RAI again.
RAW piracy != stealing.
RAI they seem to be the same thing.
Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. pp. 221. ISBN 9780521728126. wrote:In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner without authorization.
Dowling v. United States (1985), 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218 wrote: In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright owner by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright owner wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights owned.
This whole argument has just been a pointless battle over semantics. It's wrong it takes away profits from those who deserve it for their hard work. Let the courts worry about RAW vs RAI. Let this pointless argument go and move on with the topic itself.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Pointing out that have have little idea what you're talking about isn't an attack, Dracos.
11988
Post by: Dracos
edit: @ not_u
Again, "takes away profits" is debatable, others have covered why that is. That is why it is not stealing. Most definitions of stealing involve depriving the owner of use of the property. The actions described by "piracy" in no way deprive the owner of the use of the property. That is why they had to make copyright laws in the first place.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote:Pointing out that have have little idea what you're talking about isn't an attack, Dracos.
Really?
First off, you have no idea how much education I have. Your ability to discern how much of an "idea" I have of what I'm talking about is certainly questionable at best.
Attack is a perfectly accurate word to describe what you did. Now I'm not saying its an unwarranted vulgar personal attack or anything, but attack is still a valid description.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Circular argument about semantics is boring.
Also, the fact that obtaining a codex for free from an illegal source denies GW money actually isn't debatable, regardless of what the economic scholars that posted earlier might have said.
11988
Post by: Dracos
Monster Rain wrote:Also, the fact that obtaining a codex for free from an illegal source denies GW money actually isn't debatable, regardless of what the economic scholars that posted earlier might have said.
So if I am not going to buy a book, and someone gives me a pdf of that book, I have denied to vendor of that book money? You're obviously the one here who has no idea of what you're talking about.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
If you never inteded to buy the book, it doesn't change the fact that if you USE it it is wrong. If you never inteded to buy it, you inteded to gain a copy by shady means. Do you own all the codecis for the armies you play?
11988
Post by: Dracos
Yes I own all the codices of the armies I play.
edit: So I can't look at my friends codex either?
32277
Post by: phyrephly
Dracos wrote:Yes I own all the codices of the armies I play. edit: So I can't look at my friends codex either? I never said you can't look at your friends codex, i said that if you never inteded to buy it and intended to USE it and got a copy by shady means it's wrong. If you use your friends codex, he isn't using it you are so it's ok. If you both play the same army and you share a codex you start bordering the shady. You really argue vehemently for someone that is on the right side of this argument. Maybe you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
I deserve to own digital copies of the books I own. I spend more time around computers than my books.
Until GW gives me a better way of doing that, I feel like my hands are tied.
11988
Post by: Dracos
What you call arguing I call debating
And yes I do enjoy debating.
32277
Post by: phyrephly
DarknessEternal wrote:I deserve to own digital copies of the books I own. I spend more time around computers than my books. Until GW gives me a better way of doing that, I feel like my hands are tied. Again, no-one said owning a pdf is wrong, I have admitted to having all of the GW codecis in PDF. But not owning the original is the problem. @Dracos Do you believe your point of view or is this debating for the sake of debating?
15477
Post by: Mattieau
Well, as far as i could tell, the OP was saying that anyone who uses scribe is a terrible person and should be ashamed. Are we not allowed to both own the codex legit and use scribe? I know i'd rather just bring up scribe or whatever with my Codex than go searching for my solid codex. I paid for my hard-copy, but sometimes it's just more convenient to have a digital copy as well.
23617
Post by: Lexx
Mattieau wrote:Well, as far as i could tell, the OP was saying that anyone who uses scribe is a terrible person and should be ashamed. Are we not allowed to both own the codex legit and use scribe? I know i'd rather just bring up scribe or whatever with my Codex than go searching for my solid codex. I paid for my hard-copy, but sometimes it's just more convenient to have a digital copy as well.
I would agree with this a lot. Its also similar to having several music album's on cd but keeping mp3 copies of them on a computer and use them instead so you can preserve your disks. Plus the convenience is nice.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
So we have been shown that Piracy (in the modern sense of the word) isn't stealing.
We have also been shown that Piracy is illegal.
Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong*?
*Some illegal actions can be made legal through various circumstances, such a self-defense. The previously illegal action is now made legal thus no illegal action have been made.
23617
Post by: Lexx
Steelmage99 wrote:
Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong*?
*Some illegal actions can be made legal through various circumstances, such a self-defense. The previously illegal action is now made legal thus no illegal action have been made.
It depends on how well thought out the law is. Copyright laws are archaic by modern standards and media and need to be rethought out in my opinion.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
GalacticDefender wrote:So, when it comes to forge world piracy, I say this: ARR MATEY! (There is no way I would consider buying a $70 book that is pretty much the same as a codex.)
Forge World is the one who is stealing lol!
GW I respect though. Sure, their prices might be sorta high too, but they have a great product. I would never consider pirating from them.
So, IA books are too expensive and that makes it okay to pirate them?
If you don't want to buy them you could just, I don't know, not read them? Automatically Appended Next Post: Dracos wrote:You offered no logical counter, but seemed to imply that my argument was invalid based off some characteristic of my person (that characteristic being that I have not profited from a creation). That makes it ad hominem. Instead of attacking my arguments, you attacked me.
The point he was making was that once you have someone taking something that you have created and are making your living from you will likely feel very different about the subject.
26890
Post by: Ugavine
I do have one disagreement with the OP;
Sanguinis wrote:Is GW's prices a little crazy. YES! No doubt about it.
I actually think that Games Workshop prices are pretty average in todays market, always have done.
But I totally agree that players should not be using copyrighted material. Scratch-built models are fine, provided you don't sell them using the GW brand, as are using other figure line as this is not illegal (you just might not meet official tournament requirements). But copying the Codex or rulebook? No.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Steelmage99 wrote:Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong?
I do. It's illegal for me to smoke weed, and I don't think that's "wrong". It's illegal for me to download films, music, and codices, and I don't think that's "wrong" either. If I wanted to watch Inception for free, all I'd have to do is go watch a friend's DVD at their house. If I wanted to see what the stats for a Harlequin Shadowseer are, all I'd have to do is go and read a friend's codex. I listen to music for free all the time, on the radio, in clubs, etc.
At the end of the day, people who want to pay for a product will pay for it and those who don't will not. There are plenty of legal means to see/hear/read things for free, and the only difference is that the illegal methods are more convenient. I don't believe that makes them "wrong" or "immoral" - and to those that would say "well they are", I don't believe in absolute morality either.
yourargumentisinvalid.jpg
35808
Post by: Mukkin'About
Wow the op got into a super huge rage about scribd.
a couple weeks ago i used it to LOOK at the old rogue trader book
Is this book available for sale? absolutely not!
Can i find it for sale anywhere? not bloodly likely!
How else am i supposed to read it?
Anyways, I have a huge stack of codexes and i love to collect them for all the stories
But jumping down my throat for using this service to look at a book i have absolutely no feasible way to purchase...
That's just being a jerk. seriously.
If GW offered a "download our old codexes/ important white dwarf articles" service for fluff buffs, i would gladly pay for that! heck, GW could make a smack of money on it but they don't do it. they should do it, i'd buy it
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Monster Rain wrote:If you steal, you are a boil on the ass of humanity.
And thus we begin this week's performance at Exaggeration Theatre...
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
The Dreadnote wrote:It's illegal for me to download films, music, and codices, and I don't think that's "wrong" either. I listen to music for free all the time, on the radio, in clubs, etc.
yourargumentisinvalid.jpg
Except music on the radio and in clubs isn't free - the radio station or club have paid to be able to play that music. You pay to go into the club or for drinks and that pays for the music. The radio station's advertisers pay the station and that pays for the music.
If you don't want to watch a film or read a codex then don't. If you do, why should you be able to do so without paying? Automatically Appended Next Post: Steelmage99 wrote:Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong?
Actually, I do. There is a certain amount of discrepancy between what is legal and what is moral.
Having the benefit of someone else's work without compensating them (when they have made it blindingly obvious that they expect compensation for it) is not moral. There is no way of expressing that in order for it to become moral.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
I don't feel that the "piracy isn't stealing because you're not taking anything away" argument is correct. The creator or owner of the IP that is being pirated has obvilously used more or less of his or her time to create the work that is being pirated. I'd therefore argue that it isn't the pirated items that are being stolen, but rather the time of the creator, which becomes less worth when people start taking things that were intended to generate revenue.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
What I really don't understand is the entitlement attitude of people like deadnote and galactic defender.
If you feel something costs more than you're willing to pay then you do without it. It doesn't give you permission to obtain it without paying. Automatically Appended Next Post: AlmightyWalrus wrote:I'd therefore argue that it isn't the pirated items that are being stolen, but rather the time of the creator, which becomes less worth when people start taking things that were intended to generate revenue.
Exactly so. If I was charging people to listen to story telling (a legitimate profession not too long ago) and you listen to the story then walk off without paying that is not moral at all. It isn't stealing by the legal definition but it certainly isn't right.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Scott-S6 wrote:What I really don't understand is the entitlement attitude of people like deadnote and galactic defender.
Perhaps I'm just arrogant and amoral. Oh well, the world keeps turning.
25774
Post by: Pael
All in all complaining about the cost of GW is a moot point. It is like complaining about the cost of a Ferrari and then to use that as justification to steal it? That argument makes absolutley no sense.
Also the whole pirating isn't stealing is a bogus argument as well. It's not yours, just because the internet allows you to steal it without being seen or caught doesn't make it legal no matter how you rationalize it is wrong.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
The Dreadnote wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:What I really don't understand is the entitlement attitude of people like deadnote and galactic defender.
Perhaps I'm just arrogant and amoral. Oh well, the world keeps turning.
Yep, I guess so.
I do have fractionally more respect for the people that are willing to admit that it's amoral but do it anyway than I do for the people who make excuses. (it's too expensive, piracy doesn't really cost them anything, etc.)
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Pael wrote:Also the whole pirating isn't stealing is a bogus argument as well. It's not yours, just because the internet allows you to steal it without being seen or caught doesn't make it legal no matter how you rationalize it is wrong.
If piracy and stealing are the same, why do we have different words for them? Oh that's right, because one is taking from somebody illegally, and the other is copying something illegally. I think we all recognise that piracy is illegal, we don't need to call it stealing just to get it through people's heads.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
GW are Ferrari now?
Thought they were supposed to be Porsche, a metaphor devised by fanboys to make themselves feel so special.
35005
Post by: Juvieus Kaine
I'm gonna throw this out there to the OP and ignore this rabble over what Piracy is.
I use Scribd, quite frequently. If there's a dex I want to look up, I'll go find it and read it. So what do I think is right and wrong?
- If I find the dex on Scribd and view it? Thats right to me, because I'm not taking it, only viewing content posted up by another user.
- What If I downloaded it? I'd say that was fine as well. I now have a constant reference for a dex that I can use for planning ahead for matches or making lists.
- What if I printed out said download and used it? No, this is wrong. This is the point where it becomes wrong because you cannot fully tell if the content is right or not. That and, in effect, it is stealing content. And I won't stand for printed copies of dexs...
edit: stupid speed typing errors...
11610
Post by: Tzeentchling9
I use scribd look up the codexes(  ) that I don't own in order to have at least some idea of how the other armies work.
Man, I'm just a terrible person not supporting GW and going out to buy all the codexes and only actually use like 3 or 4 of them.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
Tzeentchling9 wrote:codexes(  )
Codices
33367
Post by: fluffywyvern
I would like to see a Kindle or I Pad app that allows you access to ALL codices for a subscription fee of say £5 a month (that's about $7.50).
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Tzeen you are going to hell for that!
How could you get the plural of codex so wrong!
27025
Post by: lunarman
I torrent codices all the time. I love 40k and Warhammer, but I dislike GW as a company. Not only are a great deal of their store staff annoying and relentless, but they are a company obsessed with upselling. Their staff and website are constantly trying to trick you into buying more than you need, things you don't need at all! Take one look at their website to get an idea. Also, the removal of the bits-part-store on the GW site has taken a huge chunk out of the hobby. They only removed it because it wasn't making enough profit. As a miniatures company they need to realise they're never going to make much money at all and stop trying to bleed us all at mad prices. I actively do not buy from GW shops because I can get 20% off elsewhere. Not only that, but I try to buy second hand models and alternate company models wherever I can (simply because GW need to learn they cannot control their buyers, more people need to make a stand). Even so I give them near on £200 pounds a year in unavoidable expenses. I own all the IA and Codices by torrenting them from the internet, I only buy codices I'm actually going to use on the table. I only do that because it's easier to hold than a wad of printed out sheets (and because I feel I'm cheating the owner of my FLGS). I strongly feel that it isn't wrong to download GW codices when GW charges such astronomically high prices for them. And for all those who think Warhammer would die without GW, look at Necromunda (completely free!) and yet still going really, really strong. In my opinon, Warhammer might be better off without GW. Let it be open source, free to play and let the huge range of miniature companies out there sell their models instead. This would be a true rise of hobbyism, without GW's new corporate money-making obsession being forced upon us.
33763
Post by: Jolrael
Oh my, oh my, oh my...
This thread is growing like a flu in the elementary school. Same bullsexcrement everywhere which I saw tribajilion x (2+31) times before. Well I like parties why should I neglect this one? I am also a fan of very picturesque comparisons. So why not throw a little more gunpowder in the fire anyway? Not that it is going to actually change ANYONES opinion.
I have created this imaginary chart of very very bad things in ascending order of evilness.
Meet Bob. Bob is famous writer and composer. Bob likes to write books and then he sells them to make money. Bob then buys food, water, peace and women for the money. Less money Bob has, well....you know.
1) I download Bobs book from the internet. I enjoy it without paying for it. I would not buy it anyway so Bobs monthly budget is okay.
2) I steal Bobs wallet in the market without notice. I enjoy the cash which I have gained from Bob. Drinks on me today- Bob is paying! I have gained but on Bobs detriment. If caught, I will be marked as a thief.
3) While on his daily evening walk in the park, I ambush Bob, punch him in the stomach, tear his lien, take his wallet and run away. Bob pays drinks again! Hower this time I became a robber.
4) Poor little Bob is returning home late from his office. I ambush him, tearing his intestines with a combat knife, take his wallet and run away. Noone really cares about money, for I am branded as a murderer.
5) I visit Bob in his house, cut his limbs, fashionize them all over the house in very creative maner, take his wallet of course and leave his house when finished. Noone really cares about me, Bob or his wallet. Everyone focuses on the brutality of my act itself.
You know there are many things you could do to poor Bob. Including them all in one word and claiming it as evil just does not fit. To become a thief - you have to actually STEAL anything from ANYONE.
World is not black or white...there are many, many, MANY shades of grey - and noone is perfect...unless youre jedi ofc.
I was always thinking, putting faith in mankinds average intellect, that noone, damn NOONE actually CAN believe counted financial damage done by the piracy. You cant expect people will buy everything they copy. Basic concept of piracy is that you copy something you would not buy anyway. Or you at least take a look on something BEFORE buying it. It does not include all cases at all ofc. Damage IS done, but in most cases - it is only moral one.
Hey, its not like I ate all the divine excrement of our lord to become omnipotent and all seeing master of the reality. But I can tell you this. I work like a manager in small company selling polymers to wide variety of customers. I come to contact with many people in very different social circles and I have plenty companies in my sector of care. I set prices for factories, give whine, calendars, pencils and much more as gifts to directors of those companies and factories - just trying to get along. I take care of almost everything what comes to your mind and let me tell you - crap is everywhere, noone has his hands clean, damn noone - rich or poor, symbol of morality - or strife. And then comes someone, telling how clean he is, how many experience he has - and how much others are lacking. Claiming how little pathetic thief you are by reading codex on the internet. This makes me want to laugh off my backside from my mouth. Hey I mean- I am not THAT experienced...but in comparison to someone?
Finally I will get to the point. I will look strangely at the dude using printed scribd codex during the game. But the dude has his reasons so I will try to be tolerant. Lets hope he comes to his senses and will eventually buy it soon - if it will be alowed by his financial situation. Give peace to your brothers and sisters and smite only those who bestow their aggressiveness upon you.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
You are my favourite person for today.
21066
Post by: BluntmanDC
''oh no GW stuff costs money, so i'm gonna download it for free'
Man up, everything costs something and always has done, if you don't want to pay, you go without.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
BluntmanDC wrote:Man up, everything costs something and always has done, if you don't want to pay, you go TO HELL! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!
This is how I heard that in my head.
33248
Post by: SkaerKrow
Theft and second party purchases are two completely different things. You can't realistically equate downloading a Codex as being the same thing as buying a used Codex from eBay.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
What if the seller was fencing stolen goods?
21066
Post by: BluntmanDC
The Dreadnote wrote:BluntmanDC wrote:Man up, everything costs something and always has done, if you don't want to pay, you go TO HELL! YOU GO TO HELL AND YOU DIE!
This is how I heard that in my head.
i'm agnostic i don't believe in hell, i do however think people who commit piracy are for the most part think they deserve everything for nothing.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
I am delighted to see that there are so many pure souls on Dakka who have ne'er stained their lilywhites with the slightest misdemeaner. Doh you blotched your copy books, if you will forgive the mixing of metaphors, by tarnishing others with the same brush and being prejudicial. to be totally frank I have downloaded a pdf or 2. Quelle horreur!  If you seriously think that I am going to stump up for a codicex just to check a couple of things then go stick your head in your wallet and talk to the queen/whoever is on the notes in your neck of the woods. Do I have hard copies of my army's books why yes sir indeed I do. Would I ever buy those army books I downloaded? Only if I start the army. I downloaded Sw/ DE 2nd ed/Dwarf/O&G books to see if I liked before purchasing. Ooo I am soo naughty! Please stop the hard and fast cut and dried black and white moralising.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
B-b-b-but Chibiiii.....it's illeeeegal!
29507
Post by: Lotet
Cantus wrote:But what makes pirating a codex any worse than scratch-building your own leman russ? Why is it worse to pirate a codex than to share a codex with your friend? You're using GW's intellectual property without paying them. You're not taking anything away from anyone other than hypothetical profits. There's no difference, but for some reason pirating is frowned upon.
you're thinking too small scale man, you gotta think big. sure, in an induvidual case one person might never have bought a particular product so theoretically there's no loss on the makers side. but is that the case with EVERYONE? unless you know positively that not a single creator is out of pocket then there's no problem. but there is a problem and we all know it. I could go on and on but there are plenty of threads on the internet that deal with this... also, making your own Leman Russ is respectable becasue people can tell how much effort you went into making it (not including the lazy constructs of course). Cantus wrote:As for the morality of pirating, morality is a social concept that I feel no obligation to pretend exists as anything other than "I won't kill you so please don't kill me." Maybe I'm a pariah for my views, but whatever.
uhh, social concepts are part of living in a society some people don't like some laws becasue they're stupid and think they shouldn't need to follow them. don't worry though, there are other places that you can go to where an entire society won't care, but you likely wouldn't want to spend the rest of your life there, eh? besides, GW doesn't want you to Pirate it, they put some work into it and deserve whatever they charge, or maybe you're one of those people who hate high end fashion people and how they slap rediculous price tags on thier sunglasses, jeans and stuff. Dracos wrote:Not really. Am I stealing a codex by looking through my friends copy? That's where this breaks down. Downloading a copied version of a Codex is more akin to looking through a friend's copy than taking one out of the store without paying for it. If I want to own the codex, I'll buy it. If I just want to look through it, I'll either look through one owned by a friend, at the store, or download one.
except your friend bought the codex and you're not keeping it, that sounds like a pretty big difference to me. it's good for someone when money moves, downloading is just plain selfish, no ifs, and or buts about it. or is there mate? ChrisCP wrote:LGS do not make money from selling models - how dare you suggest such a thing! Where's a point for 'it's GWs game - hand off' against 'I just want to play a game'?
my favorite point in such debates Mattieau wrote:The only loser in this situation is the production company who charges exorbitantly, forcing Tom into either piracy or stealing in either situation.
or Tom could just not watch the movie, does he have to see the movie? though to be fair, I suppose the advertisers try to make Tom think that he does have to see it haha. Jolrael wrote:Oh my, oh my, oh my... World is not black or white...there are many, many, MANY shades of grey - and noone is perfect...unless youre jedi ofc. I was always thinking, putting faith in mankinds average intellect, that noone, damn NOONE actually CAN believe counted financial damage done by the piracy. You cant expect people will buy everything they copy. Basic concept of piracy is that you copy something you would not buy anyway. Or you at least take a look on something BEFORE buying it. It does not include all cases at all ofc. Damage IS done, but in most cases - it is only moral one. Hey, its not like I ate all the divine excrement of our lord to become omnipotent and all seeing master of the reality. But I can tell you this. I work like a manager in small company selling polymers to wide variety of customers. I come to contact with many people in very different social circles and I have plenty companies in my sector of care. I set prices for factories, give whine, calendars, pencils and much more as gifts to directors of those companies and factories - just trying to get along. I take care of almost everything what comes to your mind and let me tell you - crap is everywhere, noone has his hands clean, damn noone - rich or poor, symbol of morality - or strife. And then comes someone, telling how clean he is, how many experience he has - and how much others are lacking. Claiming how little pathetic thief you are by reading codex on the internet. This makes me want to laugh off my backside from my mouth. Hey I mean- I am not THAT experienced...but in comparison to someone? Finally I will get to the point. I will look strangely at the dude using printed scribd codex during the game. But the dude has his reasons so I will try to be tolerant. Lets hope he comes to his senses and will eventually buy it soon - if it will be alowed by his financial situation. Give peace to your brothers and sisters and smite only those who bestow their aggressiveness upon you.
but thier moral standings directly oppose miiiine~ *cough* yes, I usually say (in the real world) that as long as a person doesn't conflict with other people then it's fine. but stealing becasue they know they can get away with it? *shrugs* I've lied and stolen for justice (to give a kid his Yu-Gi-Oh cards back) and I will tell you that my fervent lecturing got a chronic downloader to stop almost entirely (he still downloads music) and some other people to tone it down (another only download Anime when he knows it's not in English) so trying to change person and 'save thier soul' isn't a completly hopeless endeavor and is worth the breath I use. The Dreadnote wrote:At the end of the day, people who want to pay for a product will pay for it and those who don't will not. There are plenty of legal means to see/hear/read things for free, and the only difference is that the illegal methods are more convenient. I don't believe that makes them "wrong" or "immoral" - and to those that would say "well they are", I don't believe in absolute morality either.
really? that's the ONLY difference? I suppose it is when you're the one downloading and don't think a single step further than that. I have some questions for you lot; can any of you say that there aren't plenty of people who do it simply out of greed, thus, DO lower the profits of workers? you all know that every single employee of GW in every single section in countries all over the world need to get paid wages by Games Workshop right? you might see $5 of plastic by how much do the employees get paid to make all this work? do you know the ludicrous amount of cash it takes to pay just a years salary for all their workers? thier casts aren't made in a day, it's a long design process, thier boxes aren't shipped for free, thier factories aren't fully automated complexes controlled by an advanced Artificial Intellegence (or so I assume) and this doesn't happen in just one place, or do you think that isn't enough justification to charge a lot more than a bucket of plastics worth? sorry for reapeating some things in the one post...
19370
Post by: daedalus
I want the last five minutes of my life back.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
I think that people growing their own food are immoral. I work hard to get people their Big Macs, and these bastards are sat at home eating vegetables. I need to get my wages too, and if there's nobody in the restaurant, there's no need for me to work.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
The Dreadnote wrote:Tzeentchling9 wrote:codexes(  )
Codices 
Actually, GW says that it's codexes.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Well there you go
Codexes must be incorrect.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
GW doesn't think it's target audience would know how to pronounce codices.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Might be mistaken for fish lollies
(trns = popscicle)
29784
Post by: timetowaste85
The way that I see it, if I own an army, I will buy the codex to go along with them. But if I just want to poke through a book once in a while but not actually play the army, downloading doesn't seem so bad-especially if I could just look at it in my LGS anyway. But I absolutely agree about Scribed. I have a friend who uses it and swears that everything on it is perfect and has accused me of cheating when I used the rules from my rulebook-he told me Scribed was more updated and my rulebook was wrong. I'd love to say that I'm kidding...but I'm not. He even said that according to Scribed, you could now throw grenades again and they use the small blast template to hit. Scribed can go straight to Satan and I won't ever use it myself. Can't believe I missed this rant before, as I totally agree with it! (well, with the anti-Scribed part. Downloading I gave my 2cents on already)
34243
Post by: Blacksails
The debate on morality amuses me. Morality by whose standard? What definition of morality?
But without getting into that, I won the codex for my army, as do my friends for theirs. We also have PDF copies of each codex on a common computer in the games room in case somebody isn't there with their codex. We have not denied GW any profit, short of owning multiple copies of the same codex for a regular gaming group.
The issue is not black and white as has already been pointed out. Greys exist, and rightfully so.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Blacksails wrote:The debate on morality amuses me. Morality by whose standard? What definition of morality?
But without getting into that, I won the codex for my army, as do my friends for theirs. We also have PDF copies of each codex on a common computer in the games room in case somebody isn't there with their codex. We have not denied GW any profit, short of owning multiple copies of the same codex for a regular gaming group.
The issue is not black and white as has already been pointed out. Greys exist, and rightfully so.
This. There is no universal 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong'. There is only a person's beliefs versus the tolerance of everyone else.
32190
Post by: asimo77
How is it we got to 5 pages and no one pointed out how silly moral relativism is? I'm ashamed Dakka Dakka, where are all the e-philosphers and other pretentious biscuit heads at?
722
Post by: Kanluwen
Blacksails wrote:The debate on morality amuses me. Morality by whose standard? What definition of morality?
The issue is not black and white as has already been pointed out. Greys exist, and rightfully so.
This is one of the stupidest arguments I've ever heard.
There's no shades of gray on morality here. It's black and white. Stealing is wrong, and you're absurd if you think that this instance is somehow special.
You're not stealing food to feed your family because you live on the street.
You're not engaged in an act of self-defense, or any situation where public opinion would clear you of wrongdoing.
You don't need a Codex if you can't afford it. You're no different than a shoplifter or a guy who steals a case of beer from a gas station.
But without getting into that, I own the codex for my army, as do my friends for theirs. We also have PDF copies of each codex on a common computer in the games room in case somebody isn't there with their codex. We have not denied GW any profit, short of owning multiple copies of the same codex for a regular gaming group.
Did you scan and do the PDFs yourself?
If you did: you're fine. If you didn't: You committed an illegal act by downloading copywritten material that is available without the owner's permission. It's irrelevant if you own it or not; it's the law that it's only acceptable when it's copied BY YOU for private use. Which brings us to the next part...
Have you or your friends made the PDF available to anyone outside of the group or posted it on a public filesharing site?
If you've done that: You've also broken the law, as it goes beyond private use.
21066
Post by: BluntmanDC
The Dreadnote wrote:I think that people growing their own food are immoral. I work hard to get people their Big Macs, and these bastards are sat at home eating vegetables. I need to get my wages too, and if there's nobody in the restaurant, there's no need for me to work.
this is the stupidist thing you have said so far
someone growing their own food isn't stealing from you, if they want a big mac they buy it (you can't pirate a big mac).
the whole point is that you don't think you have to pay for something people have spent time and money making.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
daedalus wrote:Blacksails wrote:The debate on morality amuses me. Morality by whose standard? What definition of morality?
But without getting into that, I won the codex for my army, as do my friends for theirs. We also have PDF copies of each codex on a common computer in the games room in case somebody isn't there with their codex. We have not denied GW any profit, short of owning multiple copies of the same codex for a regular gaming group.
The issue is not black and white as has already been pointed out. Greys exist, and rightfully so.
This. There is no universal 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong'. There is only a person's beliefs versus the tolerance of everyone else.
Actually there is.
It's called "societal norms".
Stealing is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if you're starving and have no money from lack of work.
Killing someone is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if your own life is being threatened and there's no way to ratify the situation other than killing the other guy first.
I could go on if you want, but there's a reason that "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is called "The Golden Rule".
Hint: And it's not because people put it up on the wall in shiny gold lettering.
32190
Post by: asimo77
Wow that was fast
35706
Post by: Lonecoon
I own a paper copy of the codex I use (IG), but I also have seen torrents of all the codices. *cough*
If I'm going to play the army, I'm going to buy the codex. I'm not playing Daemonhunters, Chaos, or Tau, so I'm not going to buy the codex. They're nice to look at to gauge what I should plan against, or as a reference, but I have no real need to buy them.
722
Post by: Kanluwen
asimo77 wrote:Wow that was fast
Well, moral relativism wasn't brought up until around page 3-4.
That's how we got to 5 pages without it ever really being surmised about.
7568
Post by: triplare
"Copyright infringement is your best entertainment value." - Negativland
I enjoy reading my illegal pdfs at the same time as I'm watching pirated movies.
13250
Post by: Lord of battles
Boo Hoo Big Whoop
21968
Post by: Inquisitor_Syphonious
I don't feel like sifting through 5 pages of... well... this. How pissed would the OP be if he knew what vassal was?
Free models too? You don't have to give a penny to play warhammer 40k with all the rules and supplements? Heresy.
Scribd is the only reason I am an okay player, knowing the codices lets me catch shenanigans and know how to deal with things.
I wouldn't use a paper codex for about a thousand reasons, but people at my local stores do, I am fine with that.
I won't pretend I am better than someone just because I pay an extra $100 to a company.
I don't buy from e-bay either, more of a dedication to my local store for all they have given me.
Pointing a finger at us simply because you have silly illusions about a company going out of business from their codices not being purchased is just...
I have purchased 8 codices and 5 armies so far, with more to come. All of it from the local store (or one of its patrons) to boot.
9599
Post by: incarna
Steeling is wrong and steeling intellectually copywritten material is wrong. With that said, the concept of intellectual property rights within the business sphere will have to adjust to the digital age. Chasing the vanishing shadows of an out of date business model that works contrary to human nature is not a successful strategy. The sooner companies like GW wrap their head around that, the better.
Argue all you want about rights and wrongs in regard to published material. You’ll go round in circles until your head spins off. “Can I lend my codex to a friend?” “Can I copy my codex then gift it to a friend?” “Can he do the same?” “Can I gift a codex to a stranger?”.
The bottom line is this. We live in an age where immaterial goods can be replicated and transferred between parties effortlessly. GW should start to look at their codexes and rules sets as “marketing material” for their models. They’ve said time and again that they are a “model company” not a “gaming company” and if that’s true, their business is built on models – not rules.
What would happen if all codexes were published by GW online free for everyone… or for a moderate website membership fee? Would the world of miniature wargaming as we know it implode? No, probably not. GW may not make as much money off of publishing, but they would certainly not lose money from publishing either. Anyone’s hobby shop still have the last Dark Eldar codex sitting around somewhere? Probably on a discount rack? Yeah… someone had to pay to have that book printed and now its garbage.
What if the codexes existed purely in digital form on GW’s website? There are a huge number of questions the community needs FAQ’d. How much time and effort would it take to answer those questions and post Codex XXX version 1.1 on the web and issue a press release saying latest updates have arrived? more importantly, how much COST would be involved?
Suppose there’s a gross imbalance in the game somewhere. Tournaments are dominated by one or two armies because of either a rules exploit or poor external balancing? How much effort would it take for GW to tweak individual units within a codex (point cost, special rules, etc.)?
Suppose GW wants to add a completely new unit to a codex. How much time and effort does it take to add a new entry to a codex that exists purely in digital form? Suddenly GW has a medium through which it can represent ANY model they develop instantly and they don’t have to rely on White Dwarf or the next codex edition.
Free codexes in digital form certainly have their drawbacks but they also have their advantages and successful publishing companies must (read MUST, not SHOULD) adapt to human nature in the digital age if they want to survive.
I don’t support piracy, but I don’t look down on it either. The world of print media is dying and anyone who says differently is either biased or possessing an unrealistic concept of the future. Feel free to argue whether it’s right or wrong when people pirate published material but it really doesn’t matter. You may as well argue whether it’s right or wrong that it’s snowing outside or whether it’s right or wrong that birds can fly. Pirate away as far as I’m concerned. I’ll buy my codex but I’ll also be first in line to pay a membership fee to GW.com if their codexes ever go digital because the pirate community has made GW’s physical publishing business obsolete… or should I say WHEN the pirate community makes GW’s physical publishing business obsolete.
GW will adjust – they’d certainly like you to think that they won’t be able to adjust, but they will. If they can’t than they are far too stupid to survive as a business in the information age anyway.
9598
Post by: Quintinus
Sanguinis wrote:So I've decided to start this thread both in defense of Games Workshop and because I'm getting sick of hearing about this Scribe or Scribed or whatever the Feth its called.
Is GW's prices a little crazy. YES! No doubt about it. However, we must all pay the price in order to play the game. Lets face it, if EVERY Warhammer player in the world stopped buying codex's and models, and used Scribe and Ebay to buy their models, GW would go out of business and then guess what? No more Warhammer.
I have several friends who insist on using Scribe and do not want to pay the price for codex's, Imperial Armor, etc. Also I have just recently seen a thread in YMDC in which a person was quoting an Eldar Codex they got off Scribe and the Codex was WRONG.
There is a reason why Scribe is not allowed in tournaments. The reason is because not only is it illegal, as it is stealing, but also because anybody could take that information and alter it. I could say Eldrad can use as many Psychic powers a turn as he wants, or I could say Swarmlord has a 3+ invulnerable always. To someone who is starting out and is not familiar with Warhammer but wants to "avoid" the price of a codex they wouldn't know and would be in for a rude awakening when they go to their first tournament and find out that their army doesn't work the way they thought.
I get angry at my friends who use Scribe for, probably the most important reason, I and other players at our FLGS pay the prices for Codex's, Imperial Armor, etc, why shouldn't you? What makes you so special?
Anyway I needed to vent my anger after hearing about this Fething Scribe website and reading that latest thread. I hope other Dakkites can agree with me that although GW's prices may be a bit on the expensive side, their Codex's are written very well (most of them) and we don't want to cheat other people and the economy by using illegally downloaded Codex's.
Dude, scribd rules.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Kanluwen wrote:You're not stealing food to feed your family because you live on the street.
You're not engaged in an act of self-defense, or any situation where public opinion would clear you of wrongdoing.
I'm reminded of an interview with a burglar that I saw.
He felt that he was justified into breaking into peoples' houses because he deserved to be able to have nice clothes and go out clubbing & drinking.
Besides, the insurance companies paid for the stuff he took so what's problem?
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
BluntmanDC wrote:the whole point is that you don't think you have to pay for something people have spent time and money making.
That's about the long and the short of it, yeah. Does this make me a thief? Am I now going to go out and take people's possessions?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Why should you be given money simply because you spent time and money making something? The labour theory of value is communist clap-trap.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Nurglitch wrote:Why should you be given money simply because you spent time and money making something? The labour theory of value is communist clap-trap.
Why should you get the benefit of something I've made without paying me?
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Public opinion is one thing
private actions another.
While you claim on behalf of western society that everyone is against piracy, a good many are doing something to contradict that.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Kanluwen wrote:daedalus wrote:Blacksails wrote:The debate on morality amuses me. Morality by whose standard? What definition of morality?
But without getting into that, I won the codex for my army, as do my friends for theirs. We also have PDF copies of each codex on a common computer in the games room in case somebody isn't there with their codex. We have not denied GW any profit, short of owning multiple copies of the same codex for a regular gaming group.
The issue is not black and white as has already been pointed out. Greys exist, and rightfully so.
This. There is no universal 'good/bad' or 'right/wrong'. There is only a person's beliefs versus the tolerance of everyone else.
Actually there is.
It's called "societal norms".
Stealing is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if you're starving and have no money from lack of work.
Killing someone is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if your own life is being threatened and there's no way to ratify the situation other than killing the other guy first.
I could go on if you want, but there's a reason that "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is called "The Golden Rule".
Hint: And it's not because people put it up on the wall in shiny gold lettering.
Who's "societal norms"? Societal norms change from society to society, true there are some that many people consider Universal, but the grey area he was suggesting is if you have a copy isnt it your right to do with that copy as you like? for example put it on your computer for easy viewing? This is accepted as legal aslong as you are not sharing it.
The grey area is if you have to codex but get the electronic version from another source. To say its illegal for you to have it is not true unless you look at the means in which it was obtained, in which case if its legal for yourself to copy why is it wrong to get a copy of a book you own without copying it yourself? Thats the grey area.
31543
Post by: Kurb
Haha....
I'm sure none of you Holy Rollers have ever d/led a song from Napster back in the day or DL'ed a torrent.
Priceless
19370
Post by: daedalus
Kanluwen wrote:
Actually there is.
It's called "societal norms".
Stealing is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if you're starving and have no money from lack of work.
Killing someone is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if your own life is being threatened and there's no way to ratify the situation other than killing the other guy first.
I could go on if you want, but there's a reason that "Do unto others as you would want them to do unto you" is called "The Golden Rule".
Hint: And it's not because people put it up on the wall in shiny gold lettering.
Yup, societal norms CERTAINLY exist. Something I would otherwise describe as actions/beliefs operating within the "tolerance of everyone else".
Are they universal? Not really. There's places in the world still where cannibalism is accepted practice. There's places where you can murder, steal, or otherwise hurt people depending sometimes on just who they are. Not everyone is equal and not everywhere is just. While not wishing to derail the thread, Sharia does well to illustrate the many things that one would consider "Universal Morality" to be far from it.
Really, the fact that there are so many people here who feel justified in download codices/books/what-have-you and the fact that such actions are so prevalent online should be the surest evidence that it's not universally considered wrong. Or are that many people just misguided sociopaths?
34243
Post by: Blacksails
Kanluwen wrote:Stealing is bad is accepted across every society. The only time where it's acceptable is if you're starving and have no money from lack of work.
This line in particular. So there's a condition for stealing to be an acceptable act. Grey area, by your definition. In an individualist society like ours (North America, Europe), individual gains and private property are paramount, giving way to copyright laws, theft, and other aspects of our judicial systems. In a collectivist society, theft could be easily defined as something else entirely. Though every culture these days has become a mirror of Western values, Buddhists do not own anything, rather everything is communal. What is theft in such a context?
The point is, morality and ethics, laws, and societel norms vary. Universalism is a valid argument, but a plethora of other equally valid counter-arguments exist. In our society, it may be argued that theft is ALWAYS wrong, because the act itself is immoral regardless of the intention. Some will state the intention is the deciding factor (stealing medicine to cure your ill mother because you can't afford it, as an example). At the end of the day, the only facts are that we have laws that state what is right and wrong in our society. Are the laws moral?
Well thats another beast by itself.
I own every album on my computer because I support the artists I listen to, and I will continue to purchase GW material. But I personally feel there's nothing wrong with downloading music to see if the album is any good, or previewing a codex.
32190
Post by: asimo77
@ daedalus
Accepted practice doesn't make it right, these socities where you can murder, steal, and so on are simply put bad socities and are wrong.
Also just because everyone does it has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong.
Slavery was acceptable in the past, is it true slavery is wrong? If yes, then it was still wrong back then as well.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
asimo77 wrote:@ daedalus
Accepted practice doesn't make it right, these socities where you can murder, steal, and so on are simply put bad socities and are wrong.
Also just because evryone does has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong.
Slavery was acceptable in the past, is it true slavery is wrong? If yes, then it was still wrong back then as well.
There are societies where people wear clothes! how barbaric! dont they know that they shouldent cover up the body god gave them
The point is Right and Wrong are subjective, there is no universal definition on this. Slavery was considered perfectly acceptable then yes, is it condsidered right? not to me, to them yes.
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Since when was downloading a pdf equal to slavery? This is the whole problem with these interminbale discussions. Everything gets rolled up into one giant ball of snot. It was stated that "the public" have an opinion that such activity is wrong so any aspect of downloading copyrighted material is wholly and uncategorically wrong. The public opinion of the illegality of this is one thing. But the public is made up of individuals who are constamtly breaking that stricture in one way or another. Hands up all those who think downloading is immoral but post other peoples' pictures on the internet, watch videos of dubious legality on Youtube etc. The fact that everyone doing it has every bearing on the discussion because if everyone is doing it, public opinion about the matter means nothing since everyone is the public. Please distinguish between people saying what they think is the right thing to say, and the actions of that public in contradiction of their own beliefs out of individual gratification.
19370
Post by: daedalus
@asimo77:
But doesn't accepted practice make it right, unless you can concretely define right and wrong. I know what I consider right and wrong, and you know what you consider right and wrong, but they don't necessarily overlap 100%. It's like if you tried to explain the difference between art and porn or tried to classify and define vulgarity in a concrete and well thought-out series of terms.
Hell, you can't even find five people to unanimously agree on what makes a 40k list cheesy.
Edit: Speaking of right and wrong, is it wrong I want to try this sometime?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_brains_%28cuisine%29
29507
Post by: Lotet
daedalus wrote:I want the last five minutes of my life back.
If I can't read and entire thread then post why I think people are wrong then I won't post at all. it's why I have a low post count...
32190
Post by: asimo77
The point was that moral truths are consistent regardless of how society is doing. I wasn't comparing slavery to downloading a pdf it's just that all this relativism is going to make my head explode.
If you are saying that it is true slavery is wrong, how could it possibly be right in the past. That's not how truth works.
Honestly I think I'm being off topic since I was addressing the relativism not the actual piracy stuff. Automatically Appended Next Post: Also as far as animal brains go I've had cow brains a few times, it's cold and creamy!
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
H.B.M.C. wrote:Monster Rain wrote:If you steal, you are a boil on the ass of humanity.
And thus we begin this week's performance at Exaggeration Theatre...
I prefer the term "hyperbole."
I skimmed a bunch of rationalizations and moral relativism in this thread, so I didn't miss much while preparing for finals. I did stop to read Kan's posts though.
Pretty much a big +1 to everything he said.
32190
Post by: asimo77
I always eat my cereal out of hyper boles
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Kurb wrote:Haha....
I'm sure none of you Holy Rollers have ever d/led a song from Napster back in the day or DL'ed a torrent.
Priceless
Actually I haven't.
Face!
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Scott-S6 wrote:Nurglitch wrote:Why should you be given money simply because you spent time and money making something? The labour theory of value is communist clap-trap.
Why should you get the benefit of something I've made without paying me?
Exactly, predicating value on the effort put into making something or the benefit received from using it is absurd. Value is determined by exchange. The value of something is determined by the matrix of how much I'm willing to give to you to benefit from whatever it is you produce, and how much you demand for someone to benefit from whatever it is you produce.
Now, if you demand $1 for your product and I can get it from somewhere else for free, then guess what, I'm not going to give you $1.
So you may say "Wait, if getting my product from elsewhere for free is wrong, because it's stealing or whatever, shouldn't you pay me $1?"
No, because as mentioned you have no more right to recompense for your labour than I have a right to your labour. Property, as the naive anarchists say, is theft, whether it be yours or mine.
However, if you don't gain sufficient benefit from your labour, chances are you're not going to bother continuing with it. So while I have no right to benefit from your labour and you have no right to benefit from your labour, and it's in both our interests that you continue to produce, then I should give you $1 because your labour is worth more than $1 (else I wouldn't give it to you in return for your labour). There's no morality here, merely prudence.
People who are illiterate in matters of ethics (such as subjectivists and relativists) will tell you that moral rules are subjective or relative because they don't understand the difference between morality and prudence. Prudence, or the advancement of the individual's interest, is purely subjective, although market forces work to make valuation inter-subjective (such as the trading relationship given above), and hence objective (markets have certain properties apart from actors within them).
That's an important thing that people are missing here: Our relationship to GW is an economic transaction. If we want them to continue to produce, we need to support them. We have no moral imperative to purchase their products, merely the interest in them continuing to participate in hobby as a supplier and central authority.
Take the Ultramarines movie. I bought that sight unseen because regardless of however awful it may be, I want market forces to return a positive value for the question of whether a bigger-budgeted movie will turn a profit, and thus be worth producing.
Likewise I bought A Thousand Sons and The First Heretic after reading them on Scribd.com because although they aren't particularly well-written, they are better than the run-of-the-mill Black Library publications. I bought them after reading them because I vote with my dollars.
That's why using Scribd and downloading is not morally wrong. There's no "should" involved here: Stealing is stupid if you want to support your supplier, but let's face it that there's always going to be free-loaders. The proportion of free-loaders is going to be part of the valuations equations by which I decide if I want to give you money for your service, and you need to figure out the equilibrium point at which you maximize your profit.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Eh, I use scribd for almost everything these days. I own a lot of old codexii from ebay, but I refuse to buy an actual codex until my army is fully painted. It's a personal thing, I guess. I don't play any games until the army's done, so why bother buying a codex? Now....Piracy. Personally, I have absolutely no qualms with it. A lot of stuff i use is pirated (edited for discrepancy) Anyway, my point is, most people could care less about pirating a book. Yes, games workshop puts a lot of time and effort into all their products and it is 'wrong' of us to just take them...But the large majority of people actually buy the books, so GW's loses are minimal. I'm sure piracy affects them less than you think.
32190
Post by: asimo77
^Be careful the cyber-police could be reading this thread right now!! It's only a matter of time until swift e-justice is served and you are light cycle roadkill
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Considering he steals things in real life, I'm not terribly shocked by this revelation.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Monster Rain wrote:Considering he steals things in real life, I'm not terribly shocked by this revelation. 
Chill out. It was only once. Never happened before or again
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Nurglitch wrote:Scott-S6 wrote:Nurglitch wrote:Why should you be given money simply because you spent time and money making something? The labour theory of value is communist clap-trap.
Why should you get the benefit of something I've made without paying me?
Exactly, predicating value on the effort put into making something or the benefit received from using it is absurd. Value is determined by exchange. The value of something is determined by the matrix of how much I'm willing to give to you to benefit from whatever it is you produce, and how much you demand for someone to benefit from whatever it is you produce. I think you're missing the point - something I've created is my property. Why should you be allowed to derive benefit from it? If you install a pool in your garden and I use it while you're out - is that okay? You aren't losing anything. But why should I get benefit from something that belongs to you without compensating you for it?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Scott-S6:
I'm not missing your point, because your point is a complement to mine:
The fact that you regard something as your property no more entitles you to benefit from it than I am entitled to benefit from it because I want it.
The notion that producing or owning something gives you some moral claim to that something is bunk.
Which is my point, asking why you should benefit from something that belongs to me without compensating me is not a correctly formulated question. You either will or you won't. A real question is whether it's worth your while that I benefit from it.
So, to take your example, if I install a pool in my garden with insufficient safeguard to prevent other people from using it, they might benefit from its use or they might not. There's no "should". If I don't want other people using my pool, I either need to create sufficient safeguards that it's not worth your time using my pool, or I need to realize that my interest in having a pool is outweighed by my interested in denying my pool to others. If I go against the cost/benefit analysis of the situation, then I'm an idiot for going ahead and building a pool that I don't want other people to use but which I either can't or won't prevent them from using.
34605
Post by: spireland
Best Thread EVER! Where is my popcorn??
25141
Post by: Chibi Bodge-Battle
Asimo has already scoffed it from out of his hyper bole.
Isn't the Hyper Bole the mother of all American Football games?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I thought that was Hypo Balls.
26603
Post by: InventionThirteen
I personally enjoy having a copy of a licensed book as the time and effort it takes to create one is not as easy as some people think. As for Scribe, it has been pretty good for viewing a book as an overview before you buy it or commit to a particular army.
32190
Post by: asimo77
Nurglitch wrote:I thought that was Hypo Balls.
I also scoff up hypo balls if you know what I mean
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
I'm not sure I want to know what that means.
32190
Post by: asimo77
According to google a Hypo Ball is a type of python.
So I guess that makes me a Snake Eater
35808
Post by: Mukkin'About
Jeez i'm glad i never did more than read a book there!
No i have never downloaded codices from scribd.
I have Read them, but i guess according to some of the mouth-foamers thats just as bad as if i did download.
Oh well, i enjoyed seeing the rogue trader stuff i joined too late to purchase. Someday if i'm lucky i will find one on ebay when i have money and add it to my stack of codices.
I await the day GW gets with the times and goes digital. Hell, even BL is doing it!
29507
Post by: Lotet
man, I've read the updates for this thread and I can't bring myself to post a counter argument because a big chunk of this has devolved into dissassembling paragraph fragments, theoretical extreme cases and references to unrelated groups merely because the main subject 'can' be linked to it.
this is for BOTH ends, gah! it's horrendous. but at least it's become more sensible for the moment...
32190
Post by: asimo77
Lotet wrote:man, I've read the updates for this thread and I can't bring myself to post a counter argument because a big chunk of this has devolved into dissassembling paragraph fragments, theoretical extreme cases and references to unrelated groups merely because the main subject 'can' be linked to it.
this is for BOTH ends, gah! it's horrendous. but at least it's become more sensible for the moment...
Welcome to the internet, please keep your head, arms, legs, and personal belogings within the safety of the vehicle. Have a nice ride and enjoy your visit to the wonderful and amazing world wide web!
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Nurglitch wrote:So, to take your example, if I install a pool in my garden with insufficient safeguard to prevent other people from using it, they might benefit from its use or they might not. There's no "should". If I don't want other people using my pool, I either need to create sufficient safeguards that it's not worth your time using my pool, or I need to realize that my interest in having a pool is outweighed by my interested in denying my pool to others. If I go against the cost/benefit analysis of the situation, then I'm an idiot for going ahead and building a pool that I don't want other people to use but which I either can't or won't prevent them from using.
And you don't see any problem with the people that are using the other person's property without his permission, just because he hasn't made it hard enough for them?
Nurglitch wrote:The fact that you regard something as your property no more entitles you to benefit from it than I am entitled to benefit from it because I want it.
So, you want something and it's perfectly okay for you to take it? The only thing stopping you is whether or not it's inconvenient?
I need to move to Texas, where you can shoot thieves after dark.
25139
Post by: micahaphone
Just thought I'd point out that Scribd (I'm assuming you're referring to scribed when you say "scribe") does have a legit purpose, it's just that some pirated books slip under the radar/company lawyers miss a few. Scribd is meant as a place for aspiring authors to publish/distribute their book, and hopefully receive feedback upon how to improve it. And MAN, you guys are coming up with some interesting analogies
29507
Post by: Lotet
asimo77 wrote:Lotet wrote:man, I've read the updates for this thread and I can't bring myself to post a counter argument because a big chunk of this has devolved into dissassembling paragraph fragments, theoretical extreme cases and references to unrelated groups merely because the main subject 'can' be linked to it.
this is for BOTH ends, gah! it's horrendous. but at least it's become more sensible for the moment...
Welcome to the internet, please keep your head, arms, legs, and personal belogings within the safety of the vehicle. Have a nice ride and enjoy your visit to the wonderful and amazing world wide web!
oh, I've seen people pointlessly argue, I do it all the time but the sites I visit don't tend to senselessly throw irrelevant points back and forth for almost and entire thread. it seemed that the only people who were getting replies were the people making insults(and the other sort of people in my last post), I thought this site lost those people early or they calm down but I know that can't happen when they get together and do what they love;
try to psych out thier enemies... or something like that...
then again, my timezone doesn't match up witht he typical wave of posts.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Scott-S6:
That's my point, that there isn't a moral problem with using other people's stuff without permission, merely practical and economic problems. If you're seeing a moral problem here, then, then I'm sorry, but you're just experiencing an illusion.
So yes, morally speaking if I want something, then it's perfectly okay to take it. Practically and economically speaking, it's probably a bad idea to take it.
I mean it's nice that you have this intuition that taking stuff without permission is wrong, because it's fashionable in our culture to ascribe moral value to amoral situations and actions (and probably the way you were brought up), but that intuition is false.
The problem you appear to be experiencing with this concept is that you believe your moral intuitions to be true simply by dint of having them. Hence your incredulity at the notion of someone rejecting moral beliefs that you feel are so right as to be universal, and hence the rejection of them to be evidence of moral turpitude.
But learning about moral illusions is a bit like learning about optical illusions, in that once you understand how vision works, you can identify and disregard optical illusions despite continuing to perceive them.
28315
Post by: GalacticDefender
Cantus wrote:Purely to play devils advocate, since everyone here seems to be pretty much of the same opinion..
Who's to say what is right and wrong? What is morality?
In reality it's just a series of rules that keep societies working and their people in line. It's not WRONG to steal, there is no WRONG- it's just a jerk thing to do because you wouldn't want someone stealing from you. etc etc
A more concrete reason in "favor" of pirating is that it encourages people to get involved in the game that wouldn't otherwise because of the price tag. I have a lot of friends who are huge geeks and really love playing games like 40k, but no one wants to pay 70$ for a rule book. I would argue sales would go up if they decreased their prices too. I can't imagine plastic soldiers cost that much to manufacture and they would have a lot more people buying. I almost never buy straight from GW, I always try to buy second hand if I can.
Of course you can't blame GW for their ridiculous prices, they get away with it, so power to them. However, I feel no guilt about not supporting them by paying their outrageous prices every time I want to get a new unit or codex. I don't have a lot of income- I'm not going to spend the small amount I do have buying overpriced soldiers and books in bulk. (And before someone pounces on me, I do have hard copies of the BRB and multiple codices- they came with the first army I bought.)
But what makes pirating a codex any worse than scratch-building your own leman russ? Why is it worse to pirate a codex than to share a codex with your friend? You're using GW's intellectual property without paying them. You're not taking anything away from anyone other than hypothetical profits. There's no difference, but for some reason pirating is frowned upon.
tl;dr Calling pirating "stealing" is wrong since nothing is taken from the "victim." It just assumes that one would go out and buy the item if they weren't able to pirate it. As I said, I have friends who would play but can't afford it. One of them pirates the books and that's the only reason he started playing..
However, I do acknowledge it's bad for GW's business, but... meh. They do alright and I do support them by buying their miniatures and keeping their product's value up.
As for the morality of pirating, morality is a social concept that I feel no obligation to pretend exists as anything other than "I won't kill you so please don't kill me." Maybe I'm a pariah for my views, but whatever.
Wow, I have to admit that that point about scratch building your own Leman Russ really got me thinking. Really, what is the difference?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dracos wrote:@ChrisCP
That's where it breaks down. No problem for personal use inside the house. But don't bring your ripped off stuff to the LGS - they make money selling models. They will get angry when they find out you make your own, and ban you. If I'm with you I might get banned, and I don't want to get banned.
Recast an entire army to use on your home board? No problem.
Why is using a downloaded codex for your home board wrong then?
11988
Post by: Dracos
I'm not sure you read all my posts, at no time did I ever say or imply that there is a problem with using a downloaded codex at home.
25703
Post by: juraigamer
Look, downloading something you haven't paid for is wrong, right?
Well I view downloading something you have already paid for as completely fine. I own a copy of X book, having a pdf version for quick reference so I can leave my books with my army instead of misplacing them, ect ect, is just fine.
And that's different. You could, personally, scan in whatever book you want. You paid for the book, you're making, say, a "backup". You own that copy of the book, now if you start distributing your "backup", then yes that's wrong.
28315
Post by: GalacticDefender
Dracos wrote:I'm not sure you read all my posts, at no time did I ever say or imply that there is a problem with using a downloaded codex at home.
I know, I was using it as an example for the people who insist that it is wrong. Yeah I probably should have been more clear
30689
Post by: Sanguinis
Hello everyone I'm surprised to see my thread get so much attention. Sorry I haven't been able to respond I just got on now since I posted the thread.
I've looked at the arguments and I agree and disagree with some you.
1. I agree that forgeworld stuff is overpriced but remember that it is optional, hence why it is called apocolypse and not part of 40k. I don't know about anyone living outside the U.S. but here in the U.S. 90% of tournaments do not allow IA armies to be used.
2. I've looked at every argument made and no matter what way you swing it piracy is wrong. You want to preview the codex? Go to your FLGS and look at the store copy, if needed take several hours out of your day and read it at the store, you can even use the store copy to play a game with the army, also idk about you guys but at my FLGS the owner owns every army and lets us use them to preview the army. The store copies can even be used to combat TFG who won't let you see his codex.
3. I have heard the argument so many times that, "Well only a few people steal so the company still makes money." The company charges each person who doesn't steal more money for product because of the lost revenue from the people who are stealing. It may not be a lot only a few cents every time someone steals but it adds up eventually to a few dollars then to 10 dollars etc etc. Oh and if everyone stole then the company would go out of business.
I'm sorry for the rant and I don't mean to attack those of you who use Scribe I'm just trying to get the point across that everyone has to pay the price no one is special or exempt and that piracy is wrong especially if you want to continue to play the game. The only person on here I will give credence to is the one guy (sorry I can't remember the name it was 4 pages ago) who said he uses Scribe because he doesn't live near a store. Thats okay especially if you have no way to get a store copy of the codex, yes should he buy the codex's online? Sure, but not if he isn't planning on playing the game, which he said he uses them just to look at.
23395
Post by: Gavo
To start off, I'm a high school student. Playing Warhammer is extremely expensive. I don't have much money to mess around with.
I've downloaded quite a few codexes. I only own one army. I would like to know what other armies can pull off. Does that mean I'm going to spend over $300 on codexes? No.
I will buy the codex that I will use. I own the Imperial Guard codex (bought it twice....long story), and I would like people I play with to have the legitimate codex.
If you're saying I can't download codexes for reference and such because it's "immoral", then I guess I'm immoral.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
juraigamer wrote:Look, downloading something you haven't paid for is wrong, right?
Well I view downloading something you have already paid for as completely fine. I own a copy of X book, having a pdf version for quick reference so I can leave my books with my army instead of misplacing them, ect ect, is just fine.
And that's different. You could, personally, scan in whatever book you want. You paid for the book, you're making, say, a "backup". You own that copy of the book, now if you start distributing your "backup", then yes that's wrong.
This i agree with completely, if you own a book you should be able to do whatever you want except distribute it. I would also be extreamly happy if book company's gave codes for a pdf version of your book.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
Problem is the previous laws and morality concerning theft was created a good few centuries before the invention of the computer, and common sense hasn't exactly caught on or made appropriate adjustments.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Sorry, how does new technology change the principles of ownership? I dont see how anyone could possibly try and create a convincing argument beyond a communist system with no personal possesions, everything belonging to that state. For 'appropriating' something for 'free'.
11
Post by: ph34r
An easy way to find out if what you are doing is bad is to ask yourself "if everyone did this, would it be a problem?".
Do you think there would be a problem is GW sold zero codexes? Perhaps relating to the discontinuation of codices altogether?
30914
Post by: The_Savior
I'm pretty sure everyone has done something illegal. Regardless if they're aware of it or not.
And if they haven't well congratulations you deserve a purity seal.
Enough with the White Knight charade, no one is perfect.
People take advantage of what they can get, whether it be right or wrong.
That's just how it is...
32481
Post by: Burgwatzk
I haven't bought codexes yet, because I'm a relatively new player and I'm already having to drop a lot of money on figures and a codex would be another cost. I intend to get one eventually, if for nothing else than the convenience.
The thing is, I have a budget for warhammer stuff, and if I took some of that to buy a codex I would spend less on other warhammer stuff. So really, it hasn't cost GW any business since they still got it through other products.
That said, I don't think it's moral or okay. I'm being cheap and I ought to buy the codex. I intend to once I have the coin to spare.
Although I think GW should provide online codexes. It's bad marketing to expect people to invest in armies with no official way to determine their strength, WH suffers when it comes to new player retention and this is an unnecessary barrier to entry that frankly does them more harm than good.
Warmachine offers free codex information alongside hard copy codexes, players can get the information to start building there armies and eventually will buy them for convenient reference.
11311
Post by: MasticatorDeelux
I personally download every sourcebook I think I might want to try out. If I like it, I buy it. If not, I don't. Doesn't make sense to me to waste my money on a product I won't intend to use on a regular basis. As it stands I have all of the supplemental books and three codexes (Don't care what the actual spelling is, sorry) in my inventory.
I'm a "Try it before you buy it" person--purchasing a codex, then scanning it for the PDF to use is obtuse, as is any person trying to rationalize themselves in that fashion. The same thing applies to vehicles(and even game emulators), so why not books?
11
Post by: ph34r
The_Savior wrote:I'm pretty sure everyone has done something illegal. Regardless if they're aware of it or not.
And if they haven't well congratulations you deserve a purity seal.
Enough with the White Knight charade, no one is perfect.
People take advantage of what they can get, whether it be right or wrong.
That's just how it is...
Sure, everyone does something illegal every once in a while. Most of the time, it's really not a big deal. Victimless crimes, one might say.
Downloading a codex you would never buy? I'd consider that alright. Downloading a codex in place of buying it, as in for your army? That is something different.
Do you think that just because nobody is perfect, makes it justified to commit crimes? No big deal, that's just how it is?
Is it okay if I steal some of your stuff? I mean... it wouldn't upset you, right?
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
So, in the context of Scribd, is viewing a codex you own a bad thing?
I think it might be, but what other actual use would there be for such a resource? Or should we just ban text from the internet
12821
Post by: RustyKnight
Sanguinis wrote:2. I've looked at every argument made and no matter what way you swing it piracy is wrong. You want to preview the codex? Go to your FLGS and look at the store copy, if needed take several hours out of your day and read it at the store, you can even use the store copy to play a game with the army, also idk about you guys but at my FLGS the owner owns every army and lets us use them to preview the army. The store copies can even be used to combat TFG who won't let you see his codex.
Why does driving to the store to look at their copy make it moral? Legality and morality are two different beasts. Sanguinis wrote:3. I have heard the argument so many times that, "Well only a few people steal so the company still makes money." The company charges each person who doesn't steal more money for product because of the lost revenue from the people who are stealing. It may not be a lot only a few cents every time someone steals but it adds up eventually to a few dollars then to 10 dollars etc etc. Oh and if everyone stole then the company would go out of business.
Did anyone even make this argument or are you tilting at windmills? ChrisCP wrote:So, in the context of Scribd, is viewing a codex you own a bad thing? I think it might be, but what other actual use would there be for such a resource?
Bad legally or morally? Legally, maybe, although I don't really see how I would deprive GW of anything if I looked at C: SM on Scribd instead of going and retrieving it from my game room. From a morals standpoint, why would it be? Their is zero difference between looking at your hardcopy and looking at the pirate copy. The_Savior wrote:I'm pretty sure everyone has done something illegal. Regardless if they're aware of it or not. And if they haven't well congratulations you deserve a purity seal. Enough with the White Knight charade, no one is perfect. People take advantage of what they can get, whether it be right or wrong. That's just how it is...
So? If everyone starts stealing tellies from Best Buy, does that make it okay? It may make it normal, but it wouldn't make it moral or legal. ph34r wrote:An easy way to find out if what you are doing is bad is to ask yourself "if everyone did this, would it be a problem?".
If everyone decided to join the army right now, there would be a rather large problem, but joining the army isn't bad. That's a rather limited index for determing the morality of an action. ChrisCP wrote:Sorry, how does new technology change the principles of ownership? I dont see how anyone could possibly try and create a convincing argument beyond a communist system with no personal possesions, everything belonging to that state. For 'appropriating' something for 'free'.
It has less to do with the principles of ownership and more to do with how technology interacts with them. Prior to computers, creating a back-up copy of a book required one to manually recreate the thing page by page, word by word. Now, making a back-up is as simple as putting the book in a scanner. If I memorized The Hungry Caterpillar word for word, would you consider that wrong? Why would it be wrong to ceate a digital back-up? In both cases, I purchased the item (the book) from the manufacturer (mayne through a middle-man). In both cases, I acted so as to prevent an accident from destroying my ability to enjoy what I purchased. I especially like the analogy of using Scribd to test driving a car. What harm is there in looking at a pirated codex before deciding to buy a hardcopy? Of course, those that never buy a codex are a different case, but those individuals will have a heck of a time playing in FLGS's. ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
 --- I also had to jump back to the OP for this: Sanguinis wrote:if EVERY Warhammer player in the world stopped buying codex's and models, and used Scribe and Ebay to buy their models, GW would go out of business and then guess what? No more Warhammer.
Emphasis mine. Are you likening the selling of property to theft?
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
Bringing up the prize of the objects illegally obtained is complete irrelevant,not to mention utter horse manure.
"I am a poor student"
"I have a family to support"
"X is simply overpriced"
HORSE MANURE!!
How about this; "I don't make enough money to buy an AUDI A8, but I really want one. So instead of buying it, I am going to steal it!"
How's that?
Yeah, yeah! I know piracy and stealing isn't the same thing in a legal sense.
But the justification used in both these examples certainly is.
And it is utter horse manure.
18698
Post by: kronk
For personal use? Knock youself out. Having a PDF of a codex would be nice when I'm traveling.
But buy the damn book, don't bring the pdf to my home, or the gamestore. Not buying th book but using downloaded pdfs is taking food from the mouths of the hard-working FLGS, writers, game designers, and everyone else in the industry.
It's wrong. If I caught you with pdfs and no books or intention to buy the books, we wouldn't be playing until you bought the books.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Yet the consequences are very differnet: in one you have deprived someone of property (stealing) in the other you have deprived them of either nothing (the base case) or the *potential revenue* of buying it.
Which is why your hyperbole is just that, pure hyperbole.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your books? Are you then guilty of stealing?
19370
Post by: daedalus
Downloading isn't even stealing. It's aligning the bits on my harddrive in a predetermined pattern necessary to produce the images and text I so desire to have rendered. Theoretically I could go the "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters' approach and just cat / dev/urandom to files for random lengths until I eventually get every MP3 and codex in existence! Long as we're generating pointlessly silly hypothetical situations and questioning the morality of it, is that wrong? Automatically Appended Next Post: Gibbsey wrote:ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your books? Are you then guilty of stealing?
What if someone breaks into your house, and cooks a steak, but undercooks it, and then feeds it to someone, and they get sick from it. Did you just illegally operate a diner without a permit?
18698
Post by: kronk
nosferatu1001 wrote: blah, blah, blah *potential revenue* blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for making my point. Now that you have admitted that piracy is wrong, may you live a long and fruitful life.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
daedalus wrote:Downloading isn't even stealing. It's aligning the bits on my harddrive in a predetermined pattern necessary to produce the images and text I so desire to have rendered. Theoretically I could go the "infinite monkeys on infinite typewriters' approach and just cat / dev/urandom to files for random lengths until I eventually get every MP3 and codex in existence! Long as we're generating pointlessly silly hypothetical situations and questioning the morality of it, is that wrong?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gibbsey wrote:ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your books? Are you then guilty of stealing?
What if someone breaks into your house, and cooks a steak, but undercooks it, and then feeds it to someone, and they get sick from it. Did you just illegally operate a diner without a permit?
While i get what your saying, thats exactly my point i was refering to this:
ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
i replied in the form of an equally rediculous statement
19370
Post by: daedalus
Gibbsey wrote:
While i get what your saying, thats exactly my point i was refering to this:
ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
i replied in the form of an equally rediculous statement
My apologies. My first comment was supposed to be unrelated to yours. I saw what you were doing with your ridiculous statement. I was just trying to one up you.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
daedalus wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
While i get what your saying, thats exactly my point i was refering to this:
ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
i replied in the form of an equally rediculous statement
My apologies. My first comment was supposed to be unrelated to yours. I saw what you were doing with your ridiculous statement. I was just trying to one up you. 
Ah okay i was confused for a second
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
kronk wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: blah, blah, blah *potential revenue* blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for making my point. Now that you have admitted that piracy is wrong, may you live a long and fruitful life.
I dont think your literacy skills are up to par. You missed the "potential" part out, and the importance of it.
You also fail to denote wha tyo umean by "wrong" - absolutism is a figment of your imagination, so please be more precise and useful to this discussion.
Oh wait...
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
nosferatu1001 wrote:kronk wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote: blah, blah, blah *potential revenue* blah, blah, blah.
Thank you for making my point. Now that you have admitted that piracy is wrong, may you live a long and fruitful life.
I dont think your literacy skills are up to par. You missed the "potential" part out, and the importance of it.
You also fail to denote wha tyo umean by "wrong" - absolutism is a figment of your imagination, so please be more precise and useful to this discussion.
Oh wait...
He was refering to you saying that you are only denying them "potential revenue" just because you have not physically stolen anything, does not mean you are not taking from the company. The information in the book is something that they have put time and money into making, by taking a copy without compensating them is to steal it, physical copy or not (also denying "potential revenue" becomes denying "revenue" when you take a copy without paying).
Also arguing that Stealing is not wrong is pendantic, this is the real world not philosophy.
34801
Post by: MechaEmperor7000
ChrisCP wrote:Sorry, how does new technology change the principles of ownership? I dont see how anyone could possibly try and create a convincing argument beyond a communist system with no personal possesions, everything belonging to that state. For 'appropriating' something for 'free'.
There was an outcry when Bill Gates first Copyrighted Computer programs, which people largely thought were free for anyone to use. And how did Communism get dragged into this? Take a look at it from the other perspective: Copying a digital file costs nothing to the owner himself. So selling said file also costs nothing for the owner. He's getting money without giving up anything in return, so also "appropriating" something for "free".
GW at least migate this fact by giving you a book instead of an online file. However it's still much more feasable if they just gave out online copies for free instead of selling us pay-through-the-nose booklets (seriously, my teacher once called it a magazine, and it nearly gave her a heart attack when she learned how much it costs).
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
ph34r wrote:An easy way to find out if what you are doing is bad is to ask yourself "if everyone did this, would it be a problem?"
This is a fallacy of moral reasoning. The idea that some things would be bad if everybody did them is very pervasive though. Your mother was probably as fond of this argument as mine. However it's shown to be false by the Nash Equilibrium of such structures as the Prisoner's Dilemma. Some actions morally dominate others, such that there may appear to be a problem if everyone does the same thing, but it's still the right thing to do.
juraigamer:
Could explain why "downloading something you haven't paid for is wrong"? Because simply asserting that it's wrong begs the question. While your prejudices are no doubt very important and valuable to you, they are nothing more than prejudices until other people have good reason to agree.
Gibbsey:
Your ignorance is hilarious. If arguing that stealing is not wrong was pedantic, then the assumption would be that stealing is not wrong and elaborating why it is not wrong would be pedantic...
Also, philosophy is about the real world. One part, the study of ethics, is about what is right or wrong. Another part is concerned with justification and correct thinking. If you apply one to the other, you will discover that there are facts about morality, and that morality is a feature of the real world. One of those facts is that one cannot steal information in the moral sense, even if one can in the legal sense depending on your jurisdiction.
Of course, being illegal doesn't make something wrong. Likewise being imprudent or economically undesirable doesn't make something wrong either. Interfering with someone's property morally impermissible? Nope, as it turns out an owner is no more morally entitled to property than a non-owner, as I explained earlier.
I think the problem in this thread is three-fold. Firstly, very few people here seem to be aware of and capable of discussing ethical issues. If you're going to claim something is wrong, you need to show your work and justify your claim with the appropriate ethical calculation.
Secondly, there's a great number of fallacies of reasoning going on here, particularly the "Stealing is wrong, if you steal, you suck" ad hominem which is great for identifying the morally stunted in the thread, but less useful for determining whether downloading GW products and reading them online without paying for them is wrong.
Thirdly, people are approaching this backwards, trying to promote their own 'answer', pre-judging the case, instead of investigating what is the case and discovering its moral value.
But hey, don't let me interrupt the great Red vs Blue going on here.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
nosferatu1001 wrote:Yet the consequences are very differnet: in one you have deprived someone of property (stealing) in the other you have deprived them of either nothing (the base case) or the *potential revenue* of buying it.
Which is why your hyperbole is just that, pure hyperbole.
Well, duh!
I pointed that out in my post.
But the lame justification used by these teenage-rebel mouth-breathers is exactly the same.....and it is lame indeed.
Just like the pseudo-anarchists who sprout idiocy like; "Well, I don't think the law is right, so I don't have to follow it". Thank God, we have places to put people like that.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Steelmage99 wrote:
Well, duh!
I pointed that out in my post.
But the lame justification used by these teenage-rebel mouth-breathers is exactly the same.....and it is lame indeed.
Just like the pseudo-anarchists who sprout idiocy like; "Well, I don't think the law is right, so I don't have to follow it". Thank God, we have places to put people like that.
Sir, I might suggest to you that name calling does not help your argument nearly as much as you think it may.
Furthermore, I'll have you know that what you describe is civil disobedience, not 'pseudo-anarchy', and if that kind of mentality is wrong, then so was the Boston Tea Party, Mahatma Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther to name a few.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Nurglitch wrote:ph34r wrote:An easy way to find out if what you are doing is bad is to ask yourself "if everyone did this, would it be a problem?"
This is a fallacy of moral reasoning. The idea that some things would be bad if everybody did them is very pervasive though. Your mother was probably as fond of this argument as mine. However it's shown to be false by the Nash Equilibrium of such structures as the Prisoner's Dilemma. Some actions morally dominate others, such that there may appear to be a problem if everyone does the same thing, but it's still the right thing to do.
juraigamer:
Could explain why "downloading something you haven't paid for is wrong"? Because simply asserting that it's wrong begs the question. While your prejudices are no doubt very important and valuable to you, they are nothing more than prejudices until other people have good reason to agree.
Gibbsey:
Your ignorance is hilarious. If arguing that stealing is not wrong was pedantic, then the assumption would be that stealing is not wrong and elaborating why it is not wrong would be pedantic...
Also, philosophy is about the real world. One part, the study of ethics, is about what is right or wrong. Another part is concerned with justification and correct thinking. If you apply one to the other, you will discover that there are facts about morality, and that morality is a feature of the real world. One of those facts is that one cannot steal information in the moral sense, even if one can in the legal sense depending on your jurisdiction.
Of course, being illegal doesn't make something wrong. Likewise being imprudent or economically undesirable doesn't make something wrong either. Interfering with someone's property morally impermissible? Nope, as it turns out an owner is no more morally entitled to property than a non-owner, as I explained earlier.
I think the problem in this thread is three-fold. Firstly, very few people here seem to be aware of and capable of discussing ethical issues. If you're going to claim something is wrong, you need to show your work and justify your claim with the appropriate ethical calculation.
Secondly, there's a great number of fallacies of reasoning going on here, particularly the "Stealing is wrong, if you steal, you suck" ad hominem which is great for identifying the morally stunted in the thread, but less useful for determining whether downloading GW products and reading them online without paying for them is wrong.
Thirdly, people are approaching this backwards, trying to promote their own 'answer', pre-judging the case, instead of investigating what is the case and discovering its moral value.
But hey, don't let me interrupt the great Red vs Blue going on here.
Philosophy is dead
Arguing Philosophicaly is an amazingly large waste of time, if you feel this is vital to the thread by all means continue
"then the assumption would be that stealing is not wrong and elaborating why it is not wrong would be pedantic"
MY point is we can argue all day about the value and usefullness of morals and why or why not they matter, in the end a company has invented a game for us all to enjoy and to make money by providing rules and supplies. The game is their intellectual property, taking it withought any compensation or intention of compensation (im talking about use withought just looking / sharing rules within a gaming group) is stealing.
You want to argue the point if stealing is wrong or right go ahead
11029
Post by: Ketara
You want to argue the point if stealing is wrong or right go ahead
Before I can do that, I first need to establish whether your understanding of grammatical definitions is extensive enough for such a debate. Because in terms of pure linguistics, by downloading a codex, I am not stealing, by the definition of stealing. Piracy, certainly, unethical duplication, possibly, but stealing? No.
If you do not recognise that simple fact, then any further debate is pointless, as I would be effectively attempting to argue the colour of the sky with someone who believes that colours do not exist.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Ketara wrote:You want to argue the point if stealing is wrong or right go ahead
Before I can do that, I first need to establish whether your understanding of grammatical definitions is extensive enough for such a debate. Because in terms of pure linguistics, by downloading a codex, I am not stealing, by the definition of stealing. Piracy, certainly, unethical duplication, possibly, but stealing? No.
If you do not recognise that simple fact, then any further debate is pointless, as I would be effectively attempting to argue the colour of the sky with someone who believes that colours do not exist.
So you deny any stealing of intellectual property when you do this?
Also colours dont exist, they are a representation created by our brains of reflected/ direct light from a source! (As you will probebly agree this is a stupid pendantic argument, but technically not false)
21196
Post by: agnosto
ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
No, because you did not make it available. The illegal actions of the hacker made the copyrighted material available.
What the previous poster suggested (making copies of items you already own) is actually a form of "fair use" in most countries. You can make a copy of a CD you purchase to place it on your MP3 player, if someone steals your MP3 player and posts your music files on the internet, that's not through any fault of your own.
Look at it this way. For someone to come after you, GW for example, they have to prove damages. Yes, they actually have to prove that you have somehow removed from them the fruits of their labor. If you bought and own the hardcopy, fair use dictates that you are not depriving the company of the benefits of its product (i.e. money). No damages=no law suit. This went round and round in the courts years ago when people first were able to copy CDs that they purchase and then later DVDs. Now, many DVDs are sold with a "bonus" digital copy included. Companies are finally catching on that they can't keep their outmoded status quo business model and survive.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
agnosto wrote:ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
No, because you did not make it available. The illegal actions of the hacker made the copyrighted material available.
What the previous poster suggested (making copies of items you already own) is actually a form of "fair use" in most countries. You can make a copy of a CD you purchase to place it on your MP3 player, if someone steals your MP3 player and posts your music files on the internet, that's not through any fault of your own.
Look at it this way. For someone to come after you, GW for example, they have to prove damages. Yes, they actually have to prove that you have somehow removed from them the fruits of their labor. If you bought and own the hardcopy, fair use dictates that you are not depriving the company of the benefits of its product (i.e. money). No damages=no law suit. This went round and round in the courts years ago when people first were able to copy CDs that they purchase and then later DVDs. Now, many DVDs are sold with a "bonus" digital copy included. Companies are finally catching on that they can't keep their outmoded status quo business model and survive.
Exactly
Owning book/music/movie + having a copy = No damages = Fair Use
Not owning book/music/movie + having a copy = damages = not Fair Use
Can we all at least agree that in most legal systems and society's this is the case and piracy is considered illegal?
Or are we going into the never ending discussion that "Piracy is wrong" is a false statement because "right" and "wrong" dont exist?
19917
Post by: Mr. DK
I personally like access to codices online. I still have to buy the books of course, but having access to it online allows you to check up codices if you forget it somewhere or don't have it on you and you want to read it.
But come on, what if your just interested in another army and you want to read the codex without spending 30 US $ on it? Check online, see if you like it and there you go. Plus, GW is still making money off their expensive models.
27447
Post by: ShivanAngel
Yeah i read other army books/codexes online all the time. Part of being good at the game is knowing what your oponents armies are capable of. Im not going to spend 30 bucks a book just to learn about that.
If I own the army i buy the codex, not going to show up to a tourney with something I printed from my computer hehe.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
I love that these threads always devolve like this.
(sarcasm, BTW)
Two things of import. One fact, one opinion.
Fact:
Definition of "stealing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
I'm unable to find a definition at any respectable source which indicates that stealing requires someone to not be able to use the item any longer. In fact, numerous definitions at numerous sites seem to support those who call it stealing to copy a codex or other copyrighted work.
Now, for the opinion:
People are hypocrites. Many, if not most or all of those here decrying the usage of copied codices would think nothing of jaywalking or speeding in their car.
Or, perhaps, they'd buy cigarettes or alcohol for a minor (in countries where that matters)... perhaps the ARE a minor who uses alcohol or cigarettes (in countries where that matters)?
Maybe they use illegal drugs (even "just" pot) or abuse LEGAL drugs.
To those people, those hypocrites (and you know who you are), I say you should pipe down, keep out of the conversation and stop imposing your version of the law on someone else, when you can't seem to follow the letter of the law, yourself.
To those of you who do not break any law, what-so-ever, I say, "Keep on condemning."
Eric
32545
Post by: Element206
I agree to a certain extent....after all I dont think this argument is completely black or white. I buy the bulk of my models off the internet (ebay) specifically because paying 62$ for a tank the size of a digital camera (slight exaggeration) is beyond my comprehension. Now, I dont buy everything from the internet. I do feel compelled to keep my local hobby stores open as well as GW, so I sort of split my purchases between the two. But i certainly dont rule out taking advantage of a discount on something I want because of some sort of consumer ethics. I also dont feel bad if I do buy something from the internet, because GW is a commodity and once it is sold, to a greater extent, the consumer can do what they want with it. I also think if you want to encourage new players or enthusiasts to the hobby, you dont start by shoving a 50$ box of terminators in their face. Sometimes its difficult to convince people to spend their money on a bunch of modeled plastic in which the manufacturer ( GW) acts as though it is gilded or something! I think that selling from a 2nd market helps perpetuate a level of interest in the game that it wouldnt have if everyone was forced to buy MSRP. Furthermore, I definately think second hand minis give the chance for kids wihout income to get interested in the game and this can only result in good things. It continues building a market for the next generation of players, gets our gelatinous little kids out of their houses and away from the computer and forces them to socialize a little. Besides, maybe you should be upset at GW rather than consumers. It is likely even if GW lowered their prices, there would still be a place for Scribe and Piracy; however, expecting to get away with blatent retail robbery just because of free market doesnt strike you as unfair either? It is rare that there isnt a point when im in the process of buying something from a GW store that I dont think to myself "am I really spending my hard earned money on this?" Its not because I dont love the game and the creativity it inspires, but its because its absolutely asinine and foolish to poor incredible amounts of money into a GAME! At any rate, thats my 2 cents
11029
Post by: Ketara
Gibbsey wrote:Ketara wrote:You want to argue the point if stealing is wrong or right go ahead
Before I can do that, I first need to establish whether your understanding of grammatical definitions is extensive enough for such a debate. Because in terms of pure linguistics, by downloading a codex, I am not stealing, by the definition of stealing. Piracy, certainly, unethical duplication, possibly, but stealing? No.
If you do not recognise that simple fact, then any further debate is pointless, as I would be effectively attempting to argue the colour of the sky with someone who believes that colours do not exist.
So you deny any stealing of intellectual property when you do this?
Also colours dont exist, they are a representation created by our brains of reflected/ direct light from a source! (As you will probebly agree this is a stupid pendantic argument, but technically not false)
Yes. Yes I do. I do not deny the acquisition of intellectual property, but due to its intangible nature, it is impossible to steal, in the same way I cannot 'steal' your honour or dignity.
Colour does indeed exist. It exists in
a) Our minds, similar to intellectual property. So if you deny the existence of colour, you must also deny the existence of intellectual property, and
b) It would not be impossible to say that colour does exist, if one defines a colour as being the atomic arrangement of a matter that it appears to Eyeball X in a certain way when light hits it.
MagickalMemories wrote:
I'm unable to find a definition at any respectable source which indicates that stealing requires someone to not be able to use the item any longer. In fact, numerous definitions at numerous sites seem to support those who call it stealing to copy a codex or other copyrighted work.
Your link defines stealing as 'to take the property of another wrongfully'.
I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication. If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet). If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either.
This is of course, without even getting into the subjective ethics of the word 'wrongfully'.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Gibbsey:
So you say philosophy is dead and then go on to espouse the philosophy that intellectual property rights entail moral right for the owner. I mean it's understandable that you might think philosophy is dead if you believe that simply asserting something makes it true, but such dogmatism merely indicates intellectual limits rather than supporting your claims.
So you think that there is such a thing as intellectual property. Okay. Sure, why not, most people like to gloss over the details of things like copyrights, trademarks, patents, disclosure, that act as legal remedies to the free flow of information. Why do these legal instruments, these laws, exist?
Contrary to popular belief, laws exist because somebody creates, promulgates, and enforces them. Laws are not merely the codification of a set of ethics or system of morality. For example in England they drive on the wrong side of the road. They also drive on the wrong side of the road in the USA. Actually no, there is no right or wrong side of the road, there's an economically convenient convention that allows for some higher level of efficiency in travel and commerce.
If we consider the basis of a legal framework for intellectual property to be moral, such that people deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labours, guess what happens? It turns out that effort isn't commensurate to value: Nobody is going to pay you for your exertions no matter how much they cost you unless you give them something of value. Some people will earn far more than you while contributing much less, and some will earn less and be dependent upon you.
This moral basis of law is the labour theory of value, the notion that everyone gets what they put in. It's the basis of both capitalism and communism. Capitalism benefits from paying the commission fees of capitalist because they can efficiently allocate capital for investment. Communism suffers from the inefficiency of central planning, and the problem of what we can call "reputational capitalism". Even in a cashless egalitarian society some people are going to be in demand while others will not.
Regardless of your approach to political-economy, they are both derivable from the notion of property as having moral value. That is because the notion of property is better considered as having economic value, and there's a sort of ethics called "consequentialism". Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism, measuring the good by utils of 'happiness', sought to maximize utility of everyone. Unfortunately one of the implications is that sometimes it'll be better to give a warehouse full of rabbits a mild orgasm than save a child from drowning. It depends on the size of the warehouse.
Despite these mild impediments, it was a popular notion in mercantile Britain, until the development of financial interests and markets. Once trade was organized, the moral theory of consequentialism found a practical application as the dismal science of economics.
Fortunately property rights, and the market itself, precede these developments. However, once the philosophy was out there, it could be developed as a science, with structure, and evidence. Evidence for economic theories became evidence for the philosophical foundations of economics. The triumph of liberalism was the entrenchment of constitutions and rights. Several hundred years later and no one distinguishes between political rights, economic rights, and moral rights. Nobody even imagines there might not be rights. Apparently you even have a right to savings now...
Which explains why you cannot seem to understand that nobody is saying "Stealing is good" when they point out that downloading or viewing GW's published materials is not wrong, and in fact the right thing to do. As a 40,000 player you have a duty to know the friggin' rules, and you have no excuse when they are freely available.
Wait, why you aren't paying for them? Isn't that stealing? No, you are a 40,000 player. You play with real objects, on real boards, at real tournaments, you want to own real things. If you're too cheap to get the books, you're not going to contribute any real money towards the hobby. If you're not too cheap to get the books, chances are you're doing it because you want to own multiple copies of every army made entirely with Forgeworld models.
Chances are you're somewhere in between these two extremes, but as a 40,000 player you occasionally dither when deciding what to invest in a 40,000 army. You could have everything Space Marine but have no different armies, or I could have multiple armies, but semi-fixed configuration. You read a novel, it makes you want to buy an army. You read a codex and become inspired. You see a White Dwarf magazine and make it past the sticker shock to buy whatever is on the cover. It's marketing material.
Props to them for having the balls to monetize it, but it's better for their business and my hobby if that material is more easily accessible. Much like places like Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spend far more money on giving stuff away for free and benefit far more from furthering their respective programs, access to information promotes our hobby, and promoting our hobby means that GW will survive to produce miniatures another year.
It isn't stealing, it's spreading the good word.
Which, incidentally why philosophy is alive and kicking, like the best kind of Hammer Pictures vampire. Without this ability to reason out our differences, the only thing I could say would be a reply that implied you are moral midget. But calling people who disagree with me "evil" is an ad hominem, or a fancy philosophical way of pointing out that name-calling is evidence of intellectual bankruptcy.
37141
Post by: deddog
Dracos wrote:Meh. I don't think piracy is immoral. Then again, I don't really support the idea of intellectual property. In fact, there are many things about property in general that I disagree with. But then again I'm just an odd ball.
I don't care if my friends buy their codex or not, so long as it doesn't interrupt us from playing the game. I go down to the local GW often, so I have to have a codex to play there. Granted I bought my codex before I started playing there regularly, but that was because I believed it had value to me. If a book is priced far above its value to me, then I'm not going to buy it if I can access is somewhere else. In this case, its not like the're losing the sale - if I can't access it though piracy I just wouldn't buy it or have access to it. In many ways, I don't see how this is different from a friend having it and I just look at it frequently.
GW sells them very expensive. If it started go bad they would problaby sell them cheaper. By the way, is it illegal to check on scribd but not download anything
18698
Post by: kronk
Wow. The bs in this thread is overwhelming.
Buy the fething books if you want to play, dickheads. Rationalize that.
16387
Post by: Manchu
Please be mindful of Rule Number One, which can be reviewed via the link in my signature.
32545
Post by: Element206
kronk wrote:Wow. The bs in this thread is overwhelming. Buy the fething books if you want to play, dickheads. Rationalize that. says the guy who uses the words 'fething' and 'dickheads' in his post --love your Avatar though!
18698
Post by: kronk
Element206 wrote:
--love your Avatar though!
Thanks! Back at ya!
21196
Post by: agnosto
Social maturity first, espousing what you believe to be law second, please.
4353
Post by: Taoofss
It is stealing. No matter if you agree with it or not, its still stealing. I have most of the codex torrented because I do research on the army I want to play. When I decide on the army, thats when I buy a hard copy. I justify this by saying that I could just go into any GW store, spend half an hour reading the physical codex on the shelves. I am under no delusion however, that what I am doing is stealing.
Weather you think this is immoral or not is another issue. But piracy is piracy. Dont be a clown and say something like "It isn't stealing, it's spreading the good word. "
19370
Post by: daedalus
MagickalMemories wrote:
Fact:
Definition of "stealing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
I'm unable to find a definition at any respectable source which indicates that stealing requires someone to not be able to use the item any longer. In fact, numerous definitions at numerous sites seem to support those who call it stealing to copy a codex or other copyrighted work.
I'll see your M-W and raise you an Oxford:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1294092#m_en_us1294092
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
Now, the first half of that I can agree with... if and only if we concur that ideas are property. Without getting into that at this moment, I also argue that there is no possible way to return what was taken, because it's not 'real'. Take what a downloader 'stole' and hold it out for the audience to see. No... that's his hard drive. No, that's a monitor. Okay then, we're done here.
It's also said to not be stealing because the penalties (at least in the music/movie world) are typically not those for stealing, it's those for 'copyright infringement', which, assuming the normal fine of theft is $, comes out to be something more akin to $$$$$!!1. Plus that's done in a civil setting, not always criminal. Sometimes both, but not usually, because for criminal suits, you have some rights. Theft is typically criminal, though I suppose it could be civil too, depending. I'm not a lawyer; I've just been reading up on the topic.
Now, for the opinion:
People are hypocrites. Many, if not most or all of those here decrying the usage of copied codices would think nothing of jaywalking or speeding in their car.
Or, perhaps, they'd buy cigarettes or alcohol for a minor (in countries where that matters)... perhaps the ARE a minor who uses alcohol or cigarettes (in countries where that matters)?
Maybe they use illegal drugs (even "just" pot) or abuse LEGAL drugs.
To those people, those hypocrites (and you know who you are), I say you should pipe down, keep out of the conversation and stop imposing your version of the law on someone else, when you can't seem to follow the letter of the law, yourself.
To those of you who do not break any law, what-so-ever, I say, "Keep on condemning."
Eric
This I completely agree with. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
18698
Post by: kronk
agnosto wrote:Social maturity first, espousing what you believe to be law second, please.
When did I bring the law into this discussion?
4353
Post by: Taoofss
Oh and the fact that some of you rationalize by saying "if GW sold these books cheap..." is complete BS. Even if the codex are less then 10 dollars a piece, people would still use scribe
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Nurglitch wrote:Gibbsey:
So you say philosophy is dead and then go on to espouse the philosophy that intellectual property rights entail moral right for the owner. I mean it's understandable that you might think philosophy is dead if you believe that simply asserting something makes it true, but such dogmatism merely indicates intellectual limits rather than supporting your claims.
So you think that there is such a thing as intellectual property. Okay. Sure, why not, most people like to gloss over the details of things like copyrights, trademarks, patents, disclosure, that act as legal remedies to the free flow of information. Why do these legal instruments, these laws, exist?
Contrary to popular belief, laws exist because somebody creates, promulgates, and enforces them. Laws are not merely the codification of a set of ethics or system of morality. For example in England they drive on the wrong side of the road. They also drive on the wrong side of the road in the USA. Actually no, there is no right or wrong side of the road, there's an economically convenient convention that allows for some higher level of efficiency in travel and commerce.
If we consider the basis of a legal framework for intellectual property to be moral, such that people deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labours, guess what happens? It turns out that effort isn't commensurate to value: Nobody is going to pay you for your exertions no matter how much they cost you unless you give them something of value. Some people will earn far more than you while contributing much less, and some will earn less and be dependent upon you.
This moral basis of law is the labour theory of value, the notion that everyone gets what they put in. It's the basis of both capitalism and communism. Capitalism benefits from paying the commission fees of capitalist because they can efficiently allocate capital for investment. Communism suffers from the inefficiency of central planning, and the problem of what we can call "reputational capitalism". Even in a cashless egalitarian society some people are going to be in demand while others will not.
Regardless of your approach to political-economy, they are both derivable from the notion of property as having moral value. That is because the notion of property is better considered as having economic value, and there's a sort of ethics called "consequentialism". Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism, measuring the good by utils of 'happiness', sought to maximize utility of everyone. Unfortunately one of the implications is that sometimes it'll be better to give a warehouse full of rabbits a mild orgasm than save a child from drowning. It depends on the size of the warehouse.
Despite these mild impediments, it was a popular notion in mercantile Britain, until the development of financial interests and markets. Once trade was organized, the moral theory of consequentialism found a practical application as the dismal science of economics.
Fortunately property rights, and the market itself, precede these developments. However, once the philosophy was out there, it could be developed as a science, with structure, and evidence. Evidence for economic theories became evidence for the philosophical foundations of economics. The triumph of liberalism was the entrenchment of constitutions and rights. Several hundred years later and no one distinguishes between political rights, economic rights, and moral rights. Nobody even imagines there might not be rights. Apparently you even have a right to savings now...
Which explains why you cannot seem to understand that nobody is saying "Stealing is good" when they point out that downloading or viewing GW's published materials is not wrong, and in fact the right thing to do. As a 40,000 player you have a duty to know the friggin' rules, and you have no excuse when they are freely available.
Wait, why you aren't paying for them? Isn't that stealing? No, you are a 40,000 player. You play with real objects, on real boards, at real tournaments, you want to own real things. If you're too cheap to get the books, you're not going to contribute any real money towards the hobby. If you're not too cheap to get the books, chances are you're doing it because you want to own multiple copies of every army made entirely with Forgeworld models.
Chances are you're somewhere in between these two extremes, but as a 40,000 player you occasionally dither when deciding what to invest in a 40,000 army. You could have everything Space Marine but have no different armies, or I could have multiple armies, but semi-fixed configuration. You read a novel, it makes you want to buy an army. You read a codex and become inspired. You see a White Dwarf magazine and make it past the sticker shock to buy whatever is on the cover. It's marketing material.
Props to them for having the balls to monetize it, but it's better for their business and my hobby if that material is more easily accessible. Much like places like Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy spend far more money on giving stuff away for free and benefit far more from furthering their respective programs, access to information promotes our hobby, and promoting our hobby means that GW will survive to produce miniatures another year.
It isn't stealing, it's spreading the good word.
Which, incidentally why philosophy is alive and kicking, like the best kind of Hammer Pictures vampire. Without this ability to reason out our differences, the only thing I could say would be a reply that implied you are moral midget. But calling people who disagree with me "evil" is an ad hominem, or a fancy philosophical way of pointing out that name-calling is evidence of intellectual bankruptcy.
While "Philosophy is Dead" was a tongue in cheek statement, it originally came from the point that now new breakthroughs have happened in philosophy. I agree completely with "laws exist because somebody creates, promulgates, and enforces them" my point is No value can be added to this thread by having a philosophical discussion.
I could run down the street naked, there is nothing stopping me except my own mind. Is this wrong? apparently no. Does not change the fact that in our society it is considered wrong.
While i do agree that getting a copy to look through can help you to get into the game and to promote it. But arguing that intellectual property a widely accepted thing does not exist is an irrelevant discussion, information at least in our legal system can be treated as property.
(Incase noone noticed the colour argument was sarcastic)
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
kronk wrote:Buy the books if you want to play
What if I just want to read them? Do I have to go and find a physical copy?
35004
Post by: guiltl3ss
I downloaded my codex until I have the money to pay for a proper book.
Oops.
18698
Post by: kronk
The Dreadnote wrote:kronk wrote:Buy the books if you want to play
What if I just want to read them? Do I have to go and find a physical copy?
Yes, actually.
11029
Post by: Ketara
No value can be added to this thread by having a philosophical discussion.
I agree. At least, a philosophical discussion with you. Simply because you are incapable.
To quote:-
Before I can do that, I first need to establish whether your understanding of grammatical definitions is extensive enough for such a debate. Because in terms of pure linguistics, by downloading a codex, I am not stealing, by the definition of stealing. Piracy, certainly, unethical duplication, possibly, but stealing? No.
If you do not recognise that simple fact, then any further debate is pointless, as I would be effectively attempting to argue the colour of the sky with someone who believes that colours do not exist.
You do not recognise this fact, even if it is dissected in a logical, rational, and coherent way, and refuse to respond in a like manner. Therefore yes, no value can be added to this thread by attempting to have a philosophical discussion with you.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Gibbsey wrote:
But arguing that intellectual property a widely accepted thing does not exist is an irrelevant discussion, information at least in our legal system can be treated as property.
Then why question anything? Progress is not made by means of sitting around accepting everything spoonfed to you. I don't believe in 'intellectual property', and yes, I have produced content. Not starving yet.
32545
Post by: Element206
If this is simply an argument about ripping off pdf codices from the internet....Im not really into that. Prefer the physical book. I have 1 pdf ( SM) and 14 physical codices, so I think ive paid my dues to GW
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
kronk wrote:The Dreadnote wrote:kronk wrote:Buy the books if you want to play
What if I just want to read them? Do I have to go and find a physical copy?
Yes, actually.
Why? What is the difference with looking at a friend's copy?
18698
Post by: kronk
One was purchased and one wasn't.
Pretty big difference to me.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
So "potential revenue" == "actual revenue"
Nope, not at all. Entirely, 100% wrong in fact.
32545
Post by: Element206
some of you sound like you need to go join the 'Lars Ulrich Campaign!' --im just curious, is anyone who is vehemently objecting to piracy and scribe benefiting in any way from their argument?
21196
Post by: agnosto
nosferatu1001 wrote:So "potential revenue" == "actual revenue"
Nope, not at all. Entirely, 100% wrong in fact.
When it comes to damages in the American court system, it's true.
RIAA sued and won against a single mother that had a few songs on her computer that were uploaded onto the internet.... $1.5 million in damages from loss of "potential revenue". 24 songs unleashed on the internet and the poor woman's forever a pauper.
19370
Post by: daedalus
kronk wrote:One was purchased and one wasn't.
Pretty big difference to me.
How do you know his friend's copy was purchased? Okay, now using the same amount of proof, how do you know that the copy that was scanned WASN'T purchased?
18698
Post by: kronk
Element206 wrote:some of you sound like you need to go join the 'Lars Ulrich Campaign!'
--im just curious, is anyone who is vehemently objecting to piracy and scribe benefiting in any way from their argument?
Not at all, why? (I don't consider myself vehement on this issue, though.)
But defending the act of piracy just boggles my mind, I guess. Weird how the people in the right in this thread are being attacked.
19370
Post by: daedalus
kronk wrote:
Weird how the people in the right in this thread are being attacked.
I know! Here we are, simply pointing out that there is no universal right or wrong, that potential revenue /= actual revenue, and proposing rousing philosophical debate on this whole morality thing, only asking for a logical argument in return, and look what happens: We get berated, hissed at, told we're terribad people, called teenage-rebel mouth-breathers, pseudo-anarchists, and dickheads!
End User License Agreement: By reading this line, you consent to the following contractual arrangement. Anyone who reads this thread owes me eleventy billion Zorkmids as a license fee for viewing this content.
---
One day we'll look back on this and laugh. Heartedly.
11
Post by: ph34r
It's funny how you think writing a line on a forum with no legal value whatsoever is a good enough analogy to defend your piracy.
daedalus wrote:One day we'll look back on this and laugh. Heartedly.
I'm already there.
19370
Post by: daedalus
Well, I'm not a lawyer, but I think I've seen enough wacky lawyer sitcoms to have a pretty good understanding of whats going on if I don't say so myself...
And I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night!
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
daedalus wrote:kronk wrote:
Weird how the people in the right in this thread are being attacked.
I know! Here we are, simply pointing out that there is no universal right or wrong, that potential revenue /= actual revenue, and proposing rousing philosophical debate on this whole morality thing, only asking for a logical argument in return, and look what happens: We get berated, hissed at, told we're terribad people, called teenage-rebel mouth-breathers, pseudo-anarchists, and dickheads!
End User License Agreement: By reading this line, you consent to the following contractual arrangement. Anyone who reads this thread owes me eleventy billion Zorkmids as a license fee for viewing this content.
---
One day we'll look back on this and laugh. Heartedly.
QFT
Just because someone believes something is wrong doesn't make it wrong, and vice versa. Since this isn't a court of law, I'm not sure how anyone here can be "in the right" like their opinion is the only one that matters.
I am currently unable to reach any LGS to read a codex, let alone fit in 7-8 hours to read it over the course of the day, given my busy schedule. Also, no LGS that I am familiar with is open at 1am, and no, I am NOT going to spend several hundred dollars on material I can get for free (I'm sorry, I'm a capitalist). On the other hand, I do want to support the continuation of my hobby, so I purchase - at full price - all of my models from GW directly (not through marked down stores), as well as codices for armies that I play, so I can have the rules on the go (I hate wasting paper).
In my opinion, if I am presented with two identical products of equal quality, one of which is free and easily transferable across huge distances, I will always choose the free option. In short, I vote with my wallet. I am willing to give GW a certain amount of money in exchange for the entertainment services they render to me, but at some point I draw the line. If that isn't enough for them, then I recommend they do like any good business and adjust their policies to be more appealing to the customer.
@daedalus: your Zorkmids are on the way.
23223
Post by: Monster Rain
Stealing isn't voting with your wallet.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
I think it's kind of sad that collaboration has become stealing, and is thus a mortal sin.
The whole point of copyright law is to ENHANCE the ability for people to build off of what other people have done, not to destroy it. It was bad enough that we have bad laws, but to make the belief in those bad laws a moral duty is quite a shame.
I personally like Scribd. It allows me to have access to the information I require in order to be an informed consumer. Not only does it not reduce the amount of stuff I buy from GW, but, because I have access to the information beforehand, it actually has increased the amount of money I've spent on stuff.
People made this same case back in the 1800's with regard to food labelling. Once they had to say what was in their product, anybody and everybody would "steal" their "property". In the end, forcing transparency caused our food to contain far fewer fingers, rat feces, and toxins. Consumer culture and capital investment were not diminished. Perhaps we'd all be better off if we stopped "stealing" from people by accessing information about their products? Perhaps we should also extend this same privacy to all aspects of everything, and make sure the police are there to enforce it?
You'll have to pardon me if I don't consider this some sort of immoral theft.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
kronk wrote:One was purchased and one wasn't.
Pretty big difference to me.
The scanned copy was purchased. The friend's copy was purchased. If all I do with either is read a paragraph or two, I ask again, what's the difference?
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
Monster Rain wrote:Stealing isn't voting with your wallet. You are assuming I have downloaded codices. I never said that. I only said that I am not willing to pay GW beyond a certain (undefined) amount of money for their services, and that IF presented with free options, I would choose them over paid options. I do vote with my wallet. I don't buy very many GW products, but when I do, I buy direct, so my money goes to GW and not third-party retailers - unless a product is no longer available for purchase of course. The entire "reducing potential profit is criminal" argument doesn't hold much water to me. Privateer Press reduces GW's potential profit by offering an alternative wargame. If they invented something infinitely better than Warhammer/ 40k, and everyone moved over to them, would they be stealing from GW? No, they're just a competitor. EDIT: Basically what Ailaros said.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Also, I might note, how is Scribd different than a local library?
Some guy bought a copy and then lots of other people see it for free. Are libraries sinful?
30914
Post by: The_Savior
Yeah, I do find it different and if you want to try and steal from my home go for it.
Texas has some interesting laws about trespassing, hate to see you on the business end of it.
This is addressed at those replying to my statement.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
agnosto wrote:nosferatu1001 wrote:So "potential revenue" == "actual revenue"
Nope, not at all. Entirely, 100% wrong in fact.
When it comes to damages in the American court system, it's true.
RIAA sued and won against a single mother that had a few songs on her computer that were uploaded onto the internet.... $1.5 million in damages from loss of "potential revenue". 24 songs unleashed on the internet and the poor woman's forever a pauper.
Incorrect.
They used Statutory Damages of, iirc, between $250 and $750 per instance of copyright infringment.
NOT "potential revenue" at all - the entire point is that you *cannot* claim "potential revenue" damage - they had to show either actual damages - 24x.99USD - or fall back on the hilarity of punishing some for 700 times the actual damage they caused.
Pulling up one of the greatest examples of the idiocy of the entire copyright farce (reasonable limitation on the right to copy my arse at life + 50 years my A&*E) that the law has begun does nothing more than highlight how absolutely absurd the entitlement culture of Disney et al have.
30914
Post by: The_Savior
I think this Scrib'd thread has gone long enough.
Everyone will have their opinion, but it's not going to change anything at least not to soon.
There will always be torrents, leaks, and things alike.
21196
Post by: agnosto
nosferatu1001 wrote:
NOT "potential revenue" at all - the entire point is that you *cannot* claim "potential revenue" damage - they had to show either actual damages - 24x.99USD - or fall back on the hilarity of punishing some for 700 times the actual damage they caused.
Looking back on that, I realize that you're correct on the case I put out there first so I did a bit more digging because something was really sitting in the back of my mind in relation to potential damages. I googled around and wound up with the recent Oracle case in which there was a suit for potential damages that was originally granted by the court:
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/111010-sap-court-lops-500m-off.html
It eventually got pared down but they still wound up with a chunk of change due to "hypothetical" damages.
3197
Post by: MagickalMemories
@Xca|iber
By one definition of the word, they would be stealing. They'd be stealing away GW's customers.
Not, however, in the legal sense.
daedalus wrote:MagickalMemories wrote:
Fact:
Definition of "stealing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/steal
I'm unable to find a definition at any respectable source which indicates that stealing requires someone to not be able to use the item any longer. In fact, numerous definitions at numerous sites seem to support those who call it stealing to copy a codex or other copyrighted work.
I'll see your M-W and raise you an Oxford:
http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1294092#m_en_us1294092
take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it
Now, the first half of that I can agree with... if and only if we concur that ideas are property. Without getting into that at this moment, I also argue that there is no possible way to return what was taken, because it's not 'real'. Take what a downloader 'stole' and hold it out for the audience to see. No... that's his hard drive. No, that's a monitor. Okay then, we're done here.
It's also said to not be stealing because the penalties (at least in the music/movie world) are typically not those for stealing, it's those for 'copyright infringement', which, assuming the normal fine of theft is $, comes out to be something more akin to $$$$$!!1. Plus that's done in a civil setting, not always criminal. Sometimes both, but not usually, because for criminal suits, you have some rights. Theft is typically criminal, though I suppose it could be civil too, depending. I'm not a lawyer; I've just been reading up on the topic.
Keep in mind that I'm kind of playing Devil's Advocate here and am, in NO WAY, attempting to express MY feelings on the subject, except to say that anyone stating things as FACTS -on either side- needs to make sure they know what a FACT is, and ensure that their statement qualifies. I'm seeing a LOT of opinions being touted as "fact."
As, it seems, we agree on "take (another person's property) without permission or legal right," I won't bother with this portion, unless is applies to something below.
The rest is, "and without intending to return it."
Now, IMO, in this digital age, we need to use reason and apply it to laws. The courts would. That's how precedence is created.
So, yes. You are correct. You can't really "return" the download. Can you?
Some have claimed to download codices prior to purchase, so they can know what models they wayt to buy when they buy the hard copy of the dex. I "get" that, and can (again, IMO) support it as "returning" it, as you're giving GW the money they'd have gotten from you if you'd bought the item in the first place.
Also, povided no copies are shared, printed or saved elsewhere, I could be persuaded to accept deletion as "returning" the item, provided it's done in a reasonable amount of time (I'm still open on what I might be convinced is "reasonable." Nothing more than 30 days, probably, though).
I disagree that what was taken isn't "real." The pdf copy is real. It exists. It's not a physical, tangible item, but it does have the capability to be made into one. It's as real as a song or picture on your computer.
It's not real in that it isn't a genuine (hard) copy, but it is real in that it is a genuine copy.
Now, something else to consider in regards to, "and without intending to return it" is that the law of the land (in the US, at least) is pretty generous with this (and not in favor of those who are doing the taking). I could put a CD in my pants pocket, walk out of the store and attempt to take it home. If I'm caught and tell them that I was only holding it for a while (for whatever reason), and I intended on returning it in exactly the same condition it was currently in," I doubt there's a judge in the land that's going to give me the benefit of the doubt. There is a point where the law no longer gives you that benefit of the doubt on what you claim to have been your intentions.
So, while I may not be qualified to define when intent to return begins and ends, I do know that people who ARE (legally) qualified to make that decision do not tend to be lenient or generous with it.
If we use your example:
Take what a downloader 'stole' and hold it out for the audience to see. No... that's his hard drive. No, that's a monitor. Okay then, we're done here.
Then many things aren't real. Songs are only real as long as you're hearing them directly from the singer's mouth. Once they're gone, they're not real (even then, you couldn't hold the song up for an audience to *see*). Digital pictures also aren't real. Etc.
I really just cannot accept that as what defines "real" or not.
daedalus wrote:
Now, for the opinion:
People are hypocrites. Many, if not most or all of those here decrying the usage of copied codices would think nothing of jaywalking or speeding in their car. <SNIP>
To those of you who do not break any law, what-so-ever, I say, "Keep on condemning."
Eric
This I completely agree with. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
So, we agreed on the most important part. Excellent. : )
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I don't really feel that debating what is and is not "right" is a waste of time when -as in here- you have 2 groups of people who can or will not agree on certain base principals. You have to have a foundation for your debate, or you'll run in circles, as is happening here.
There are those who want to use the law of the land as basis for right and wrong. Those who disagree claim it to be a personal choice on right and wrong. Neither of you is wrong, but both are.
Until you can establish a framework, you'll accomplish nothing.
Eric
23534
Post by: Macok
Xca|iber wrote:daedalus wrote:kronk wrote:
Weird how the people in the right in this thread are being attacked.
I know! Here we are, simply pointing out that there is no universal right or wrong, that potential revenue /= actual revenue, and proposing rousing philosophical debate on this whole morality thing, only asking for a logical argument in return, and look what happens: We get berated, hissed at, told we're terribad people, called teenage-rebel mouth-breathers, pseudo-anarchists, and dickheads!
End User License Agreement: By reading this line, you consent to the following contractual arrangement. Anyone who reads this thread owes me eleventy billion Zorkmids as a license fee for viewing this content.
---
One day we'll look back on this and laugh. Heartedly.
QFT
Just because someone believes something is wrong doesn't make it wrong, and vice versa. Since this isn't a court of law, I'm not sure how anyone here can be "in the right" like their opinion is the only one that matters.
I am currently unable to reach any LGS to read a codex, let alone fit in 7-8 hours to read it over the course of the day, given my busy schedule. Also, no LGS that I am familiar with is open at 1am, and no, I am NOT going to spend several hundred dollars on material I can get for free (I'm sorry, I'm a capitalist). On the other hand, I do want to support the continuation of my hobby, so I purchase - at full price - all of my models from GW directly (not through marked down stores), as well as codices for armies that I play, so I can have the rules on the go (I hate wasting paper).
In my opinion, if I am presented with two identical products of equal quality, one of which is free and easily transferable across huge distances, I will always choose the free option. In short, I vote with my wallet. I am willing to give GW a certain amount of money in exchange for the entertainment services they render to me, but at some point I draw the line. If that isn't enough for them, then I recommend they do like any good business and adjust their policies to be more appealing to the customer.
@daedalus: your Zorkmids are on the way.
It's all nice and all, but you are breaking the law. You are doing something wrong, no matter how you try to justify your actions.
Stealing is also getting something for free, instead of buying it.
You say breaking the copy-write isn't stealing. Ok, I can agree. But that doesn't make it "not wrong".
Hey, apparently I can kill somebody because "I ain't stealing".
The current law isn't "the opinion". It's a fact. You may not think that breaking the law is ok, but that doesn't make it true.
OK, tell me this. Do you think cinemas should be free? Because watching a movie in a cinema which you didn't pay for is very similar to downloading sth. from the internet. Owner still has the original. Nothing is missing from him. Do you think I'm allowed to come to your house and use your things, or watch your TV? You still have everything, I'm just using it without your permit.
Taking somebody's physical thing - not good.
Taking somebody's idea - not wrong?
Please read, and try to answer this:
Let's make another step - you are irritated that somebody calls you:
teenage-rebel mouth-breathers, pseudo-anarchists, and dickheads
Ok, tell me this. Did he take something from you? Are you missing something? It's just his opinion. Is there a need of philosophical debate to determine if he is able to do that without consequences?
No, no and no. It is wrong. Period.
You ARE hurting the industry when you copy somebody's work illegally. YOU may not see this, but this still happens. This is the fact.
There are hundreds and thousand of people that use ONLY illegal copies of computer software. If there were NO illegal copies the companies income would be definitely higher. There is no way you can try to claim otherwise and be taken seriously.
I can't say that GW looses exactly one codex's worth when you download it from the internet. But it is loosing. Besides you
I also want to say, that I don't want to hang you, punish you etc, but saying that breaking the law and " " " stealing " " " somebody's work is ok - is just wrong. My post is also more towards everybody 'on the other side', not particularly you.
EDIT:
One more thing. Counterfeiting money in your basement is wrong. I really hope we can all agree. Are you saying that making illegal copy of something else using your computer or printer is ok?
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
It's all nice and all, but you are breaking the law. You are doing something wrong, no matter how you try to justify your actions.
It used to be illegal for women to vote. Do you see where I'm going with this?
23534
Post by: Macok
The Dreadnote wrote:It's all nice and all, but you are breaking the law. You are doing something wrong, no matter how you try to justify your actions.
It used to be illegal for women to vote. Do you see where I'm going with this?
OK. Are you saying that we should throw away ALL laws? Disregard them completely? Was this law eventually changed?
Also, nice taking ONE sentence from my post and disregarding everything else. There are numerous issues there - try to prove them all wrong.
7899
Post by: The Dreadnote
I've no need to prove you wrong. Piracy is illegal. It might be morally wrong. I don't really care about either of those things.
32190
Post by: asimo77
It should be illegal for threads this stupid to exist.
Someone please take us all to jail
37151
Post by: da001
Macok wrote:
You ARE hurting the industry when you copy somebody's work illegally. YOU may not see this, but this still happens. This is the fact.
There are hundreds and thousand of people that use ONLY illegal copies of computer software. If there were NO illegal copies the companies income would be definitely higher. There is no way you can try to claim otherwise and be taken seriously.
This is not a fact. And I claim otherwise.
Two years ago I discovered Warhammer thanks to the Dawn of War videogames (again, I was a Rogue Trader player back in 1993). I downloaded everything I could and found that it was good. So I started playing, and buying things. I spent $300 last month in GW stuff, so I do not believe I am cheating them at all. And I did this because I knew it was good enough. I would never have spent a penny otherwise.
So it was actually good for GW. And they know it, and sometimes they allow people to download stuff for free. Remember the Blood Angels.
You call downloading “stealing”. I call it “sharing”. It is exactly what you do in a library. Only bigger. It is a good thing. If there were NO illegal copies the companies income would be definitely lower. The “try before buy” thing actually works.
I love this thread
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
Macok wrote: It's all nice and all, but you are breaking the law. You are doing something wrong, no matter how you try to justify your actions. Stealing is also getting something for free, instead of buying it. You say breaking the copy-write isn't stealing. Ok, I can agree. But that doesn't make it "not wrong". Hey, apparently I can kill somebody because "I ain't stealing". The current law isn't "the opinion". It's a fact. You may not think that breaking the law is ok, but that doesn't make it true. OK, tell me this. Do you think cinemas should be free? Because watching a movie in a cinema which you didn't pay for is very similar to downloading sth. from the internet. Owner still has the original. Nothing is missing from him. Do you think I'm allowed to come to your house and use your things, or watch your TV? You still have everything, I'm just using it without your permit. Taking somebody's physical thing - not good. Taking somebody's idea - not wrong? Please read, and try to answer this: Let's make another step - you are irritated that somebody calls you: teenage-rebel mouth-breathers, pseudo-anarchists, and dickheads
Ok, tell me this. Did he take something from you? Are you missing something? It's just his opinion. Is there a need of philosophical debate to determine if he is able to do that without consequences? No, no and no. It is wrong. Period. You ARE hurting the industry when you copy somebody's work illegally. YOU may not see this, but this still happens. This is the fact. There are hundreds and thousand of people that use ONLY illegal copies of computer software. If there were NO illegal copies the companies income would be definitely higher. There is no way you can try to claim otherwise and be taken seriously. I can't say that GW looses exactly one codex's worth when you download it from the internet. But it is loosing. Besides you I also want to say, that I don't want to hang you, punish you etc, but saying that breaking the law and " " " stealing " " " somebody's work is ok - is just wrong. My post is also more towards everybody 'on the other side', not particularly you. EDIT: One more thing. Counterfeiting money in your basement is wrong. I really hope we can all agree. Are you saying that making illegal copy of something else using your computer or printer is ok? I should just point out, I never said I did any of those things. It's purely hypothetical. I just stand on the other side of the line. Cinemas should be free, yes. In fact, the only reason any cinema is still open is because movies don't go straight to DVD, and not everyone has a huge television. My family is fortunate enough to have a substantially sized TV, and the technical components to play any type of movie (DVD, Bluray, HDDVD, etc). The nearest theater costs ~$15 per movie (just a ticket). For about twice that, I can watch a movie an infinite amount of times until the DVD breaks, and zero of that money goes to the cinema (and only some goes to the actual producer). Thus the value of the DVD is vastly greater than that of the theater. For that reason I have been to a theater maybe twice in the last three years. It's so much cheaper to buy or rent DVDs. If theaters provided better service (the one near my house is actually pretty nice, but not nice enough), and cost a lot less, then I would visit the theater quite a bit more than I do. In fact, Netflix is even better. For ~$10 a month, you can watch as many movies as you want, and the selection is enormous. My family watches enough films to make this even cheaper than DVDs. We haven't bought a DVD in quite some time, which is amazing considering we used to buy them all the time. Now, why don't I pirate movies? Inconvenience. The overall inconvenience of having to maintain a much higher level of virus protection (and the often lower quality product) is not worth the $0 price tag. I'm also not trying to say that breaking the law is okay. I'm saying that the current law is bad, and I do not support it. Breaking it is a whole other matter. However, on that point, I'd like to bring up that not everyone who breaks the law did something "wrong" nor are they all evil. During the era of the Underground Railroad, plenty of people broke the law to help escaped slaves. Were these people in the wrong? Were they evil criminals? I think not. We look back on that time period and wonder why the law allowed a person to own another person. In a hundred years, I hope we look back on this time and wonder how we thought a person could own an idea. To really drive home my point, I could very well spend a long time (and no $ to GW) memorizing the exact wording of every name and rule in every codex by simply reading store copies. I've basically done this with the codices I own. In this hypothetical situation, have I stolen from GW because I have all the relevant information from their codices at my disposal without paying a cent? I can reproduce it and share it (when I speak) and use it without their permission, because it is in my mind. Do they now have the right to scramble my brain to prevent this? That's an awfully Orwellian notion, and I hope the world never comes to that.
37102
Post by: Kamikaze14
Here's my 2 cents. I haven't started playing yet. I downloaded codicies to decide on and plan an army. I fully intend to buy the codex when I start playing, but I'll keep the downloaded codex as a backup, since that has saved me on several occasions DMing RPGs that I have the books for, but forgot to bring (I take my laptop everywhere.)
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
agnosto wrote:daedalus wrote: Gibbsey wrote:ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your books? Are you then guilty of stealing? This really doesn't make sense at all, as piracy isn't stealing
What if someone breaks into your house, and cooks a steak, but undercooks it, and then feeds it to someone, and they get sick from it. Did you just illegally operate a diner without a permit? This is an interesting situation, but similar to the books in that, it's not a copy of the orginal that is being 'taken' and you personally and other people can't benefit from follow on effects in the context of the discussion (because, sure, they could sell the books second hand). No, because you did not make it available. The illegal actions of the hacker made the copyrighted material available. What the previous poster suggested (making copies of items you already own) is actually a form of "fair use" in most countries. You can make a copy of a CD you purchase to place it on your MP3 player, if someone steals your MP3 player and posts your music files on the internet, that's not through any fault of your own. Look at it this way. For someone to come after you, GW for example, they have to prove damages. Yes, they actually have to prove that you have somehow removed from them the fruits of their labor. If you bought and own the hardcopy, fair use dictates that you are not depriving the company of the benefits of its product (i.e. money). No damages=no law suit. This went round and round in the courts years ago when people first were able to copy CDs that they purchase and then later DVDs. Now, many DVDs are sold with a "bonus" digital copy included. Companies are finally catching on that they can't keep their outmoded status quo business model and survive. And now not through any fault of my own, I become careless with these copies I made (after all I can make as many as I want) and accidentally leave them on buses, trains, planes, in the doctors, at the dentists - GW could most certainly show evidence of 'damages' there - but you're saying that these copies were fair use, and the only crime committed was my carelessness no? But if one hadn't made these 'copies' or 'replications' of the original it would be impossible for this distribution to occur. You have made it possible by making the copy to begin with - that use may have been 'fair' but if one had never made the copy there'd only be the original to be viewed/stolen/downloaded. What if you buy a copy of a codex second hand? That surely isn't illegal, and surely the person you just bought it off would have been responsible and remove their copies from all their electronic devices, and that printout they did once when they had lost the codex for a weekend... so there'll be no problem when you make a copy, but you also never paid GW, isn't that damaging GW. (damn there goes our second hand book business) The problem is - people don't like being told what they can or can't do with 'their property' - fair enough. It doesn't give one the right however to do illegal this with one's property, it also doen't give one the right to support the distrabution of illegal documents etc 'because you own a copy'.
35342
Post by: rivers64
OK. So hypothetical situation: (Although this has happened to me before) If I have purchased the GW codex, but have gone away and left it behind but want to check something on it, should I be allowed to use scribd then? Also if I've bought MY codex, but just played an army and want to look over what the army can do again, then can I use scribd?
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
daedalus wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
But arguing that intellectual property a widely accepted thing does not exist is an irrelevant discussion, information at least in our legal system can be treated as property.
Then why question anything? Progress is not made by means of sitting around accepting everything spoonfed to you. I don't believe in 'intellectual property', and yes, I have produced content. Not starving yet.
My post was rushed because i had to leave, my point is arguing from a purely philosophical point of view is one of the most pointless things you can do. You need some basis in reality, (cultural relativism) arguing that rights / correctness and intellectual properties do not exist has no bases in most Western Nations (im sure there are some western countries where these laws are more lax). The only relevant discussion we can have is from a legal stand point, because if you start from no moral basis then nothing is wrong, stealing is okay, by all means rape and pillage as you please.
So Can we please get back to some basis in reality? I dont hate philosophy, i hate it being used like this.
Ketara wrote:No value can be added to this thread by having a philosophical discussion.
I agree. At least, a philosophical discussion with you. Simply because you are incapable.
Your maturity is astounding, please return to reality, its better here
Ketara wrote:
To quote:-
Before I can do that, I first need to establish whether your understanding of grammatical definitions is extensive enough for such a debate. Because in terms of pure linguistics, by downloading a codex, I am not stealing, by the definition of stealing. Piracy, certainly, unethical duplication, possibly, but stealing? No.
If you do not recognise that simple fact, then any further debate is pointless, as I would be effectively attempting to argue the colour of the sky with someone who believes that colours do not exist.
You do not recognise this fact, even if it is dissected in a logical, rational, and coherent way, and refuse to respond in a like manner. Therefore yes, no value can be added to this thread by attempting to have a philosophical discussion with you.
To beleive that there is a theft you need to beleive in intellectual property, the legal system at least in the US/ UK does beleive in intellectual property. To argue that there is not intellectual property has no basis in reality, by all means argue with a judge about it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
21640
Post by: Darien13
I agree that using a printed out codex in games is wrong, not only because it looks janky, but I have something against people using printed codexes and making models out of toilet paper (no offense random dude I played who used a toilet paper tube as a zzap cannon). The only reason I pirate codexes, or use scribe, is to study up on other faction's codexes on my leisure, which is fine since knowing the rules is useful, and helpful when writing lists. I would never use a printed out codex, I mean seriously, if someone plays a game with a printed codex I just tell them "Dude, just pay the $20 bucks for an actual codex. I mean god you already payed more than that for your army".
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
rivers64 wrote:OK. So hypothetical situation: (Although this has happened to me before) If I have purchased the GW codex, but have gone away and left it behind but want to check something on it, should I be allowed to use scribd then? Also if I've bought MY codex, but just played an army and want to look over what the army can do again, then can I use scribd?
1. You do have a right to have a backup, using a 3rd party site is questionable, having no proof of purchase you could get in trouble. That is from a legal stand point, personally i would be okay with it.
2. Technically/ Legally no, from a personal point of view i would be okay with it though. Automatically Appended Next Post: ChrisCP wrote:Gibbsey wrote:ChrisCP wrote:So what if someone hacks your computer with your scanned copy on it and they copy it and use it - haven't you just committed a crime by making copyrighted materials available for distribution?
What if someone breaks into your house and steals all your books? Are you then guilty of stealing? This really doesn't make sense at all, as piracy isn't stealing
... i think you missed the point. You compared people taking your scanned info copying it and selling it = You commiting crime. I compared someone Stealing Books (how is this not stealing?) from your home and selling them.
So:
IF
1. stealing your electronic copy and selling it = you commiting a crime
2. Stealing physical copy and selling it = you commiting a crime (stealing book)
Am i missing something? We were both replying to show you how rediculous your original question was.
So let me answer it for you: NO, how does someone stealing from you make you guilty of a crime, sure you could be charged if you made it rediculously easy for it to be stolen but thats not the point.
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.
We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.
Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.
Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.
For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).
11029
Post by: Ketara
To beleive that there is a theft you need to beleive in intellectual property, the legal system at least in the US/UK does beleive in intellectual property. To argue that there is not intellectual property has no basis in reality, by all means argue with a judge about it.
Gibbsey, I'd like you to meet Mr Strawman. What's this? You're already well acquainted? Well, you could have fooled me!
I believe in theft.
I believe in intellectual property.
Theoretically, I even believe that you could steal intellectual property, as long as it was in a manifest physical form, such as a written patent, or you blackmailed someone to have their intellectual property made out in your name.
I do not believe downloading a codex is theft.
Why?
Because, as already said, and repeatedly ignored:-
Your link defines stealing as 'to take the property of another wrongfully'.
I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication. If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet). If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either.
Please point out at which stage in this argument I am attempting to 'argue that intellectual property has no basis in reality'. Perhaps Mr Strawman can help you?
When it comes to pointing out realities, I'd prefer you bothered with one in which you actually read people's posts.
My key point, as it has been, the whole time, is that downloading a codex is not stealing by the factual definition of the word. I haven't even made any attempt at discussing philosophy or the ethics of the situation, because if you cannot comprehend this one simple fact, even when it is broken down in a logical manner for you, you clearly lack the capacities required for an actual philosophical debate.
23534
Post by: Macok
da001 wrote:[Snipped some of the post - Macok]
Two years ago I discovered Warhammer thanks to the Dawn of War videogames (again, I was a Rogue Trader player back in 1993). I downloaded everything I could and found that it was good. So I started playing, and buying things. I spent $300 last month in GW stuff, so I do not believe I am cheating them at all. And I did this because I knew it was good enough. I would never have spent a penny otherwise.
So it was actually good for GW. And they know it, and sometimes they allow people to download stuff for free. Remember the Blood Angels.
You call downloading “stealing”. I call it “sharing”. It is exactly what you do in a library. Only bigger. It is a good thing. If there were NO illegal copies the companies income would be definitely lower. The “try before buy” thing actually works.
I can call murdering "hugging fluffy kittens", but that's not the point.
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".
And no. It's not like in a library. Do you know why? Because library ALLOWS you to do it.
I'm not saying that they should not make their work available for free. I think that would be a great idea, for both parties. But they didn't, and that doesn't give me a permission to use their work.
I'm also not trying to say that breaking the law is okay. I'm saying that the current law is bad, and I do not support it. Breaking it is a whole other matter. However, on that point, I'd like to bring up that not everyone who breaks the law did something "wrong" nor are they all evil. During the era of the Underground Railroad, plenty of people broke the law to help escaped slaves. Were these people in the wrong? Were they evil criminals? I think not. We look back on that time period and wonder why the law allowed a person to own another person. In a hundred years, I hope we look back on this time and wonder how we thought a person could own an idea.
I agree to some extent. Not every idea should be owned. Law isn't perfect, and it isn't even great. About your example: breaking the law to help human beings is not an excuse to break the law to gain benefits to yourself, and yourself only.
This really doesn't make sense at all, as piracy isn't stealing
It is. You just don't understand the difference between taking somebody's physical item and taking intellectual property. They are not the same, but they are both stealing.
Even if you define stealing as taking somebody's material thing. Even if piracy isn't exactly stealing. This doesn't make it right. Murdering isn't stealing either. Am I allowed to murder..?
15477
Post by: Mattieau
Murder is stealing because you are physically taking someones life.
37151
Post by: da001
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.
Macok wrote:
And no. It's not like in a library. Do you know why? Because library ALLOWS you to do it.
There was a time when it wasn´t like this. Culture was restricted. And recently, in my country (Spain), Intellectual Property Official Fanboys called SGAE have tried to go back in time. They talked about people stealing from the authors every time they get a book in a library (yeah, seriously). Politics got their money and the law was approved in 2007, but the librarians just said NO WAY. There were lots of legal issues, most of them still unresolved. If you want to learn more about this epic battle between Good and Evil,... google it (sorry, I got many links in Spanish, like this: http://noalprestamodepago.org/ , but it is not important enough out of here I guess).
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.
We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.
Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.
Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.
For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).
My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant
35342
Post by: rivers64
If I download the rules for monopoly is that illegal? No. They're simply rules and really if somebody wants to look something up online that's also in a book in order to play a game then why cry about it? About this intellectual property bull of course there is intelectual property – according to the laws of today which is all that matters, but these are rules. If somebody buys something they should at least know how it works.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Ketara wrote:To beleive that there is a theft you need to beleive in intellectual property, the legal system at least in the US/UK does beleive in intellectual property. To argue that there is not intellectual property has no basis in reality, by all means argue with a judge about it.
Gibbsey, I'd like you to meet Mr Strawman. What's this? You're already well acquainted? Well, you could have fooled me!
I believe in theft.
I believe in intellectual property.
Theoretically, I even believe that you could steal intellectual property, as long as it was in a manifest physical form, such as a written patent, or you blackmailed someone to have their intellectual property made out in your name.
I do not believe downloading a codex is theft.
Why?
Because, as already said, and repeatedly ignored:-
Your link defines stealing as 'to take the property of another wrongfully'.
I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication. If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet). If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either.
Please point out at which stage in this argument I am attempting to 'argue that intellectual property has no basis in reality'. Perhaps Mr Strawman can help you?
When it comes to pointing out realities, I'd prefer you bothered with one in which you actually read people's posts.
My key point, as it has been, the whole time, is that downloading a codex is not stealing by the factual definition of the word. I haven't even made any attempt at discussing philosophy or the ethics of the situation, because if you cannot comprehend this one simple fact, even when it is broken down in a logical manner for you, you clearly lack the capacities required for an actual philosophical debate.
Ketara, I'd like you to meet reality and culturam relativism What's this? You've never met? Seriously? not once?
"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."
Now that we have that out of the way:
1. "I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication."
Of intellectual property, which just happens to be under copyright. Would you not agree as most judges and lawyers that duplication is a form of taking even if it is a copy? (we are talking about intellectual property duplication is irrelevant) if not then this does not match legal reality.
2."If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet)."
What the brain hears and sees is of no importance when it comes to Intellectual Property, as long as you do not copy from memory and attempt to sell / store this is completely fine. Reading a freinds copy is equally okay, the copy belongs to your freind, not you.
3."If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either." To claim that by having a copy on your computer there is no physical property equally has no basis in reality otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright would like to have a word with you, also computers store information, digitaly or physically you have a copy. (incidently the arrangement of charged parts on a disk that is interpreted as 1's and 0's is information)
To have a copy or duplicate of the original is to have stolen Intellectual Property, although you can argue that Intellectual property is not physical that argument is completely null and void, in the real world Intellectual property is commonly regarded as physical items in the case of theft.
I have repeatedly said i dont want to get into a philosophical debate which is completely pointless without any (current) cultural reletevism or at the very least a rule-ethical-egoism philosophy. If you want to discuss the intricate details of philosophy and ethics when it comes to software piracy (even a virtual copy is still considered under copyright so would fall under this), please understand, this has been done to death on hundreds of philosophy forums elseware.
Also in my 2 minute attempt to come across a relevant board i came across this:
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/academics/courses/fall00/ethics/papers/bironj2.html
Personally i think he makes a few good points.
35342
Post by: rivers64
What if you never download the codex, and simply read it online?
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
Gibbsey wrote:Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted. We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things. Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality. Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not. For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas). My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant But the current culture is changing rapidly. Two decades ago (within my lifetime), these issues were very different. The massive proliferation of information technology in the past few years has irreversibly changed the way people learn and disseminate knowledge. I think it's very relevant to discuss the validity of intellectual property as a concept, now that someone can take any piece of information and spread it across the globe in seconds. We live in a world where instant gratification is not only possible, it is becoming the norm. A person who wants to play chess with their friend no longer has to establish a meeting place and time; instead they can simply call their friend and play over the internet instantly. Someone who wants to learn about physics need only open up the internet and demonstrate good search habits in order to become introduced to some basic relevant topics. What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability for a person to access any information they want, instantly, for free, (regardless of the source - it only takes one person), has made the exchange of money for a physical medium of sharing information essentially obsolete. I mean, piracy is no doubt illegal under existing law, but do we need such a law? And if we do need such a law, how will it cover the human ability to remember? Surely memorization is copying, and it is just as intangible as converting a physical item to computer data. If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law? I guess I'm just trying to say that it is very relevant to discuss the philosophy behind the issues, since the "norm" may very well change in the next couple of decades, and there are people living right now that are trying to do just that. EDIT: @ your second post: Point 2: Why is what the brain stores not covered under IP law? If I have a document memorized completely, or part of a document memorized, how is that any different from having a copy of said document sitting in front of me? I can reproduce it at any time, and I can distribute it at any time. If the act of distribution and reproduction is what makes it illegal, then the mental reproduction that must occur for a person to remember it must make memorization illegal.
35342
Post by: rivers64
Well in about two hundred years I think stealing codexes online shouldn't be allowed, but in the present I see no problem with it.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Xca|iber wrote:Gibbsey wrote:Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.
We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.
Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.
Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.
For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).
My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant
But the current culture is changing rapidly. Two decades ago (within my lifetime), these issues were very different. The massive proliferation of information technology in the past few years has irreversibly changed the way people learn and disseminate knowledge. I think it's very relevant to discuss the validity of intellectual property as a concept, now that someone can take any piece of information and spread it across the globe in seconds.
We live in a world where instant gratification is not only possible, it is becoming the norm. A person who wants to play chess with their friend no longer has to establish a meeting place and time; instead they can simply call their friend and play over the internet instantly. Someone who wants to learn about physics need only open up the internet and demonstrate good search habits in order to become introduced to some basic relevant topics. What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability for a person to access any information they want, instantly, for free, (regardless of the source - it only takes one person), has made the exchange of money for a physical medium of sharing information essentially obsolete.
I mean, piracy is no doubt illegal under existing law, but do we need such a law? And if we do need such a law, how will it cover the human ability to remember? Surely memorization is copying, and it is just as intangible as converting a physical item to computer data. If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?
I guess I'm just trying to say that it is very relevant to discuss the philosophy behind the issues, since the "norm" may very well change in the next couple of decades, and there are people living right now that are trying to do just that.
Dammit i kind of agree with you...
"If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?"
This would be impossible to enforce except if the thought police came knocking, laws against memorizing is a good point, so lets break it down
1. you own the property - memorization is a form of fair use.
-although only buying a tempory license/ renting would still posses a problem
2. You view a freinds/library copy
So this as far as i can tell at the moment leaves one type, a previously viewed copy that you do not own.
To crete a law against memorizing there would have to be a system in place where you can only read owned or public information, where information that you have to buy is regulated so that you dont accidently "steal" the information by reading part of it
24956
Post by: Xca|iber
Gibbsey wrote:
Dammit i kind of agree with you...
"If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?"
This would be impossible to enforce except if the thought police came knocking, laws against memorizing is a good point, so lets break it down
1. you own the property - memorization is a form of fair use.
-although only buying a tempory license/ renting would still posses a problem
2. You view a freinds/library copy
So this as far as i can tell at the moment leaves one type, a previously viewed copy that you do not own.
To crete a law against memorizing there would have to be a system in place where you can only read owned or public information, where information that you have to buy is regulated so that you dont accidently "steal" the information by reading part of it
Exactly. My issue then is that such a high level of information regulation terrifies me to the core, in a way that not much else does. The potential for a government to claim inconvenient information is being withheld "to protect intellectual property" is huge, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's my personal opinion that GW (and other similar companies) should change with the times to release things like codices for free (or free with a purchase or whatever). It would improve customer relations, and support the growing freedom of information. A great example of how this is working well is Hulu, where a person can watch many great shows for free, no account needed, but sometimes the episodes are delayed. This opens up the ability for others to offer paid viewings or episode-purchases on a shorter timetable, and everyone ends up happy. I could easily see GW adopting a workable system in which codices are free with the purchase of a new unit, or some such system, and come with a digital copy for ease of viewing. This would help customers not feel quite so gouged, and I for one would probably get duped into buying more stuff I really don't need (for better or worse I suppose  )
It's obviously not a total solution to the issue, but I see it as a good step towards the future.
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Xca|iber wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
Dammit i kind of agree with you...
"If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?"
This would be impossible to enforce except if the thought police came knocking, laws against memorizing is a good point, so lets break it down
1. you own the property - memorization is a form of fair use.
-although only buying a tempory license/ renting would still posses a problem
2. You view a freinds/library copy
So this as far as i can tell at the moment leaves one type, a previously viewed copy that you do not own.
To crete a law against memorizing there would have to be a system in place where you can only read owned or public information, where information that you have to buy is regulated so that you dont accidently "steal" the information by reading part of it
Exactly. My issue then is that such a high level of information regulation terrifies me to the core, in a way that not much else does. The potential for a government to claim inconvenient information is being withheld "to protect intellectual property" is huge, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
It's my personal opinion that GW (and other similar companies) should change with the times to release things like codices for free (or free with a purchase or whatever). It would improve customer relations, and support the growing freedom of information. A great example of how this is working well is Hulu, where a person can watch many great shows for free, no account needed, but sometimes the episodes are delayed. This opens up the ability for others to offer paid viewings or episode-purchases on a shorter timetable, and everyone ends up happy. I could easily see GW adopting a workable system in which codices are free with the purchase of a new unit, or some such system, and come with a digital copy for ease of viewing. This would help customers not feel quite so gouged, and I for one would probably get duped into buying more stuff I really don't need (for better or worse I suppose  )
It's obviously not a total solution to the issue, but I see it as a good step towards the future.
In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen
They need to make money, even if they just charge the cost of making the book and provide free pdf's they arnt making money doing this, they would have to move to ad based revenue for codexes, maybe they could lower the cost but this is something they spend alot of time and effort into (except the rules XP) and they expect to be compensated somehow.
Digital copy's would be good, except they would probebly include some form of DRM.
Marketing wise it could be a good idea to lower the cost of codexes to get people into the game, and make most of their money on models sold.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Gibbsey wrote:
Ketara, I'd like you to meet reality and culturam relativism What's this? You've never met? Seriously? not once?
Cultural relativism? What has that got to do with the price of cheese? I'm talking about the linguistic definition of the word 'stealing'. Stop dragging things of irrelevance into the discussion.
"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."
Now that we have that out of the way:
Sure. That's a definition of intellectual property. Something which I have never disputed.
Ketara wrote:1. "I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication."
Of intellectual property, which just happens to be under copyright. Would you not agree as most judges and lawyers that duplication is a form of taking even if it is a copy? (we are talking about intellectual property duplication is irrelevant) if not then this does not match legal reality.
'As most judges and lawyers'? Again, irrelevance. But you know what? I don't mind. I'll agree with you. Let's run with this logic, all the way to the end and see how it turns out.
Ketara wrote:2."If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet)."
What the brain hears and sees is of no importance when it comes to Intellectual Property, as long as you do not copy from memory and attempt to sell / store this is completely fine. Reading a freinds copy is equally okay, the copy belongs to your freind, not you.
No. By reading my friends copy I have stolen the intellectual property. I have made a copy of the data involved, and stored it in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. It can be copied down by pen and paper, it can be on a hard-drive, or it can be in my mind. Using the logic you have given me, taking my friends codex to one side for an hour and memorising is me stealing intellectual property.
Ketara wrote:3."If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either."
To claim that by having a copy on your computer there is no physical property equally has no basis in reality otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright would like to have a word with you, also computers store information, digitaly or physically you have a copy. (incidently the arrangement of charged parts on a disk that is interpreted as 1's and 0's is information)
To have a copy or duplicate of the original is to have stolen Intellectual Property, although you can argue that Intellectual property is not physical that argument is completely null and void, in the real world Intellectual property is commonly regarded as physical items in the case of theft.
I've said I'll agree with your logic, and this statement supports that logic. In the same way GW can sue me for having a chip/floppy disc/CD/memory stick with the intellectual property on, they should theoretically be able to sue me for having the information in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. I have acquired the intellectual property, without permission or payment. This is a fact. Even worse, what if I have a photographic memory? I've got the whole codex word perfect then, simply by examining my friends copy.
The problem with this logic, of assuming that acquisition of intellectual property automatically equals theft, is how ridiculous it gets. By this logic, by watching a film at a friends, I've stolen intellectual property. By examining codices, I've stolen intellectual property. By borrowing a novel from them, I've stolen intellectual property. By listening to a piece of music at their house, I've stolen intellectual property.
The law recognises that simply classing acquiring intellectual property as stealing would be impractical, and silly. As such, a new definition was devised, and the crime is called pirating, or piracy. If I download stuff illegally, I can be charged. But it would be with piracy, and the procedures, sentencing, and nature of the crime differ substantially than one of simple theft, as the crime itself is different to shoplifting or the like. Otherwise, people who download a song would have to be treated equally with someone who stole a CD of that song from a shop. This is the joy of the subtle nuances of linguistics. Things may be similar, but are in fact, different.
I have repeatedly said i dont want to get into a philosophical debate which is completely pointless without any (current) cultural reletevism or at the very least a rule-ethical-egoism philosophy. If you want to discuss the intricate details of philosophy and ethics when it comes to software piracy (even a virtual copy is still considered under copyright so would fall under this), please understand, this has been done to death on hundreds of philosophy forums elseware.
And as I have repeatedly said, this isn't a philosophical debate. I've never mentioned any philosophy. I've been approaching the matter from a strictly linguistic angle. I have never said whether I am pro or against downloading codices. I have been simply defining the difference between acquiring intellectual property illegally, and the definition of the word 'stealing'. I have no idea why you keep trying to drag philosophy and court cases into this. Please stop.
14519
Post by: Kouzuki
Gibbsey wrote:
In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen
GW Japan gave out free codices and are up for download in pdf form, albeit in Japanese. They are unfortunately stopping this in the very near future as it seems GW in general wants to homogenize all GW stores around the world.
22547
Post by: ChrisCP
Kouzuki wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen
GW Japan gave out free codices and are up for download in pdf form, albeit in Japanese. They are unfortunately stopping this in the very near future as it seems GW in general wants to homogenize all GW stores around the world.
Hmmm, maybe we should pasturise them instead~!
I am enjoying the idea of using one's Brain to be illegal however
35808
Post by: Mukkin'About
I'm literally surprised that this is still going on, as you're all just making the same points over and over
Stealing is wrong. we get it
/thread
14519
Post by: Kouzuki
Mukkin'About wrote:I'm literally surprised that this is still going on, as you're all just making the same points over and over
Stealing is wrong. we get it
/thread
duplicating a computer file does nothing to devalue the file itself, and as such, is not stealing.
One can say duplicating the file = more files on the market, and hence, with static demand, price will go down...
but... hmm.
35808
Post by: Mukkin'About
Samepost is the same.
You just proved my point.
Lock 'er up! i'll see you in a couple weeks for the next "pirating codexes" debate!
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
The Oracle case was mainly a breach of contract and not copyright infringement case.
Copyright infringement /= Theft, as no goods have been taken. If you disagree please have another look at what the word "taken" requires you to have done. If you have not been deprived of something thsi has not been taken.
Something being illegal does not, by necessity, make the act wrong. A does not imply B, in this case. If you disagree with this then you are for the reintroduction of slavery to the US and the abolition of the right of anyone not of noble birth or who doesnt own more than 1 3/4 acres of land, is male and of good standing in the community to vote [UK, Pitt the Younger era]
WHich was the point all along: originally copyright was for 14 years in the US. That was considered a reasonable time that someone should have the exclusive licence to control reproduction of an otherwise Public Domain idea. Now? life + 50 years. How is that "reasonable" by any sense of the word?
Remember: copyright is NOT a right, but a privilege. One that should be heavily reduced. I personally think 20 years is enough, 10 for software. If you have not been able to extract sufficient value from the works in this time - tough.
23617
Post by: Lexx
Xca|iber wrote:Gibbsey wrote:Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.
We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.
Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.
Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.
For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).
My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant
But the current culture is changing rapidly. Two decades ago (within my lifetime), these issues were very different. The massive proliferation of information technology in the past few years has irreversibly changed the way people learn and disseminate knowledge. I think it's very relevant to discuss the validity of intellectual property as a concept, now that someone can take any piece of information and spread it across the globe in seconds.
We live in a world where instant gratification is not only possible, it is becoming the norm. A person who wants to play chess with their friend no longer has to establish a meeting place and time; instead they can simply call their friend and play over the internet instantly. Someone who wants to learn about physics need only open up the internet and demonstrate good search habits in order to become introduced to some basic relevant topics. What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability for a person to access any information they want, instantly, for free, (regardless of the source - it only takes one person), has made the exchange of money for a physical medium of sharing information essentially obsolete.
I mean, piracy is no doubt illegal under existing law, but do we need such a law? And if we do need such a law, how will it cover the human ability to remember? Surely memorization is copying, and it is just as intangible as converting a physical item to computer data. If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?
I guess I'm just trying to say that it is very relevant to discuss the philosophy behind the issues, since the "norm" may very well change in the next couple of decades, and there are people living right now that are trying to do just that.
EDIT: @ your second post:
Point 2: Why is what the brain stores not covered under IP law? If I have a document memorized completely, or part of a document memorized, how is that any different from having a copy of said document sitting in front of me? I can reproduce it at any time, and I can distribute it at any time. If the act of distribution and reproduction is what makes it illegal, then the mental reproduction that must occur for a person to remember it must make memorization illegal.
A very well written post. The current laws governing copyright, intellectual property and the like are archaic at best. Which is why my earlier post I said about that. Piracy isn't the problem. Its a symptom in my opinion. A symptom that what we have does not work in an increasingly digital age. I don't admit to having a better way to change to but what laws we have covering this do need to be rethought.
31306
Post by: Brother Gyoken
Kouzuki wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen
GW Japan gave out free codices and are up for download in pdf form, albeit in Japanese. They are unfortunately stopping this in the very near future as it seems GW in general wants to homogenize all GW stores around the world.
The funny part is that free codices offered online would probably help their sales of other products. I know I was very hesitant to get into such an expensive hobby until a friend showed me a codex and I got to read some of the fluff. The codex he showed me was in electronic form, btw.
The comedy in this entire situation is that I feel out of the entire GW line, an army codex is the only product that I feel I get my money's worth on. Under 30 bucks for a glossy book with your army lists, tons of fluff, ability to flip through when building an army (this is HUGE against electronic files, scrolling pages is so much more cumbersome than physically flipping through a book), photos, painting ideas, etc. When you stack that against the 50 bucks they will repeatadely charge for 1 dollar worth of plastic, it's a good value.
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
nosferatu1001 wrote:
Something being illegal does not, by necessity, make the act wrong. A does not imply B, in this case. If you disagree with this then you are for the reintroduction of slavery to the US and the abolition of the right of anyone not of noble birth or who doesnt own more than 1 3/4 acres of land, is male and of good standing in the community to vote [UK, Pitt the Younger era]
Don't be absurd.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Steelmage - you are being absurd. Not only do you blindly ignore the difference in depriving someone of their property (aka theft) and copyright infringement, but you seem to automatically equate "illegal" to "wrong" - which is so laughably naive it suggests you have absolutely no idea of history or comparative morality.
Bearing in mind that in some countries of the world my sexualtiy is illegal, yet I, oddly enough do not consider it "wrong" of me to still be gay when visiting said countries...
35973
Post by: Gibbsey
Ketara wrote:Gibbsey wrote:
Ketara, I'd like you to meet reality and culturam relativism What's this? You've never met? Seriously? not once?
Cultural relativism? What has that got to do with the price of cheese? I'm talking about the linguistic definition of the word 'stealing'. Stop dragging things of irrelevance into the discussion.
"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."
Now that we have that out of the way:
Sure. That's a definition of intellectual property. Something which I have never disputed.
Ketara wrote:1. "I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication."
Of intellectual property, which just happens to be under copyright. Would you not agree as most judges and lawyers that duplication is a form of taking even if it is a copy? (we are talking about intellectual property duplication is irrelevant) if not then this does not match legal reality.
'As most judges and lawyers'? Again, irrelevance. But you know what? I don't mind. I'll agree with you. Let's run with this logic, all the way to the end and see how it turns out.
Ketara wrote:2."If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet)."
What the brain hears and sees is of no importance when it comes to Intellectual Property, as long as you do not copy from memory and attempt to sell / store this is completely fine. Reading a freinds copy is equally okay, the copy belongs to your freind, not you.
No. By reading my friends copy I have stolen the intellectual property. I have made a copy of the data involved, and stored it in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. It can be copied down by pen and paper, it can be on a hard-drive, or it can be in my mind. Using the logic you have given me, taking my friends codex to one side for an hour and memorising is me stealing intellectual property.
Ketara wrote:3."If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either."
To claim that by having a copy on your computer there is no physical property equally has no basis in reality otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright would like to have a word with you, also computers store information, digitaly or physically you have a copy. (incidently the arrangement of charged parts on a disk that is interpreted as 1's and 0's is information)
To have a copy or duplicate of the original is to have stolen Intellectual Property, although you can argue that Intellectual property is not physical that argument is completely null and void, in the real world Intellectual property is commonly regarded as physical items in the case of theft.
I've said I'll agree with your logic, and this statement supports that logic. In the same way GW can sue me for having a chip/floppy disc/CD/memory stick with the intellectual property on, they should theoretically be able to sue me for having the information in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. I have acquired the intellectual property, without permission or payment. This is a fact. Even worse, what if I have a photographic memory? I've got the whole codex word perfect then, simply by examining my friends copy.
The problem with this logic, of assuming that acquisition of intellectual property automatically equals theft, is how ridiculous it gets. By this logic, by watching a film at a friends, I've stolen intellectual property. By examining codices, I've stolen intellectual property. By borrowing a novel from them, I've stolen intellectual property. By listening to a piece of music at their house, I've stolen intellectual property.
The law recognises that simply classing acquiring intellectual property as stealing would be impractical, and silly. As such, a new definition was devised, and the crime is called pirating, or piracy. If I download stuff illegally, I can be charged. But it would be with piracy, and the procedures, sentencing, and nature of the crime differ substantially than one of simple theft, as the crime itself is different to shoplifting or the like. Otherwise, people who download a song would have to be treated equally with someone who stole a CD of that song from a shop. This is the joy of the subtle nuances of linguistics. Things may be similar, but are in fact, different.
I have repeatedly said i dont want to get into a philosophical debate which is completely pointless without any (current) cultural reletevism or at the very least a rule-ethical-egoism philosophy. If you want to discuss the intricate details of philosophy and ethics when it comes to software piracy (even a virtual copy is still considered under copyright so would fall under this), please understand, this has been done to death on hundreds of philosophy forums elseware.
And as I have repeatedly said, this isn't a philosophical debate. I've never mentioned any philosophy. I've been approaching the matter from a strictly linguistic angle. I have never said whether I am pro or against downloading codices. I have been simply defining the difference between acquiring intellectual property illegally, and the definition of the word 'stealing'. I have no idea why you keep trying to drag philosophy and court cases into this. Please stop.
Ah okay i missread what you said, so your saying you want to argue... semantics?
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.
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.
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.
Im starting to get the feeling your just playing devils advocate.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
Explain how you have deprived someone of their property by copying it.
They still have the property, after all - that is what "copying" means. BTW linking to a site that then links to search results, most of which are from suspect organisations who have a vested interest in equating theft with copyright infringment (and have done so for so long that apparently people now believe it to be true), isnt exactly persuasive.
BTW comparing copyright and patent is terrible - patents, in theory, are sensible as they have strict, defined limits which are reasonable in duration. Copyright, which is now grotesquely out of proportion to any notion of "sense", doesnt.
13741
Post by: Lord Chiasson
I have to say its wrong, I can say that there are a few things I "mite"  have downloaded, I dont let anyone else look, copy,etc. them and some of the martial that I have gotten cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. Me downloading these items is of course for personal use only and Ive bought a couple to play my armies at my local game store I didnt want to leave GW empty handed completely . I guess you could make the assumption that I have denied them a profit from the downloaded material minus the ones i bought but other then seeing what my armies are up against and as reference and for vassal which also was deemed illegal, why not just charge to have online warhammer 40k? Im also one of those peps who believes there is only black and white, saying there shades of grey is just an excuse to get away with things, so yeah Im going to hell  just wish we where all rich
2304
Post by: Steelmage99
nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - you are being absurd. Not only do you blindly ignore the difference in depriving someone of their property (aka theft) and copyright infringement, I find that funny as I most certainly have acknowledged the difference between the two. but you seem to automatically equate "illegal" to "wrong" - which is so laughably naive it suggests you have absolutely no idea of history or comparative morality. 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. Bearing in mind that in some countries of the world my sexualtiy is illegal, yet I, oddly enough do not consider it "wrong" of me to still be gay when visiting said countries... I am sure you don't. I wouldn't either. But that doesn't change that fact that in that country under that law, it is wrong in the eyes of the lawmakers. You might not agree with that law, but while in that country you are bound by it. Very few people get away with disobeying the law. 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. Hypothetically I too might use the internet to download movies, MP3s and other things, but I certainly don't delude myself into thinking that I am some sort of internet-freedom fighter trying to liberate the masses in the name of all that is good. Hypothetically I would be breaking the law and I would know and accept that. Why don't you?
11029
Post by: Ketara
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.
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.
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.
|
|