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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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'.

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.

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

Wow. The bs in this thread is overwhelming.

Buy the fething books if you want to play, dickheads. Rationalize that.

Please be mindful of Rule Number One, which can be reviewed via the link in my signature.

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!

Element206 wrote:
--love your Avatar though!

Thanks! Back at ya!

Social maturity first, espousing what you believe to be law second, please.

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. "

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.

agnosto wrote:Social maturity first, espousing what you believe to be law second, please.

When did I bring the law into this discussion?

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

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)

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?

I downloaded my codex until I have the money to pay for a proper book.

Oops.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

One was purchased and one wasn't.

Pretty big difference to me.

So "potential revenue" == "actual revenue"

Nope, not at all. Entirely, 100% wrong in fact.

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?