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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

Stealing isn't voting with your wallet.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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

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?

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?

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.

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.

It should be illegal for threads this stupid to exist.

Someone please take us all to jail

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

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.

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.)

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'.

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?

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

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".

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.