Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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'.

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?

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...

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.

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?

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?

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.