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.

@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.

We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.

Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.

Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.

For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).

To beleive that there is a theft you need to beleive in intellectual property, the legal system at least in the US/UK does beleive in intellectual property. To argue that there is not intellectual property has no basis in reality, by all means argue with a judge about it.

Gibbsey, I'd like you to meet Mr Strawman. What's this? You're already well acquainted? Well, you could have fooled me!

I believe in theft.

I believe in intellectual property.

Theoretically, I even believe that you could steal intellectual property, as long as it was in a manifest physical form, such as a written patent, or you blackmailed someone to have their intellectual property made out in your name.

I do not believe downloading a codex is theft.

Why?

Because, as already said, and repeatedly ignored:-

Your link defines stealing as 'to take the property of another wrongfully'.

I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication. If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet). If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either.

Please point out at which stage in this argument I am attempting to 'argue that intellectual property has no basis in reality'. Perhaps Mr Strawman can help you?

When it comes to pointing out realities, I'd prefer you bothered with one in which you actually read people's posts.

My key point, as it has been, the whole time, is that downloading a codex is not stealing by the factual definition of the word. I haven't even made any attempt at discussing philosophy or the ethics of the situation, because if you cannot comprehend this one simple fact, even when it is broken down in a logical manner for you, you clearly lack the capacities required for an actual philosophical debate.

da001 wrote:[Snipped some of the post - Macok]
Two years ago I discovered Warhammer thanks to the Dawn of War videogames (again, I was a Rogue Trader player back in 1993). I downloaded everything I could and found that it was good. So I started playing, and buying things. I spent $300 last month in GW stuff, so I do not believe I am cheating them at all. And I did this because I knew it was good enough. I would never have spent a penny otherwise.

So it was actually good for GW. And they know it, and sometimes they allow people to download stuff for free. Remember the Blood Angels.

You call downloading “stealing”. I call it “sharing”. It is exactly what you do in a library. Only bigger. It is a good thing. If there were NO illegal copies the companies income would be definitely lower. The “try before buy” thing actually works.

I can call murdering "hugging fluffy kittens", but that's not the point.
Ok. GW earned some buck. How abut companies that produced the videogames? Did you buy anything from them? My example was not accidentally about computer software, where it's very easy to see the extent of "sharing".
And no. It's not like in a library. Do you know why? Because library ALLOWS you to do it.

I'm not saying that they should not make their work available for free. I think that would be a great idea, for both parties. But they didn't, and that doesn't give me a permission to use their work.

I'm also not trying to say that breaking the law is okay. I'm saying that the current law is bad, and I do not support it. Breaking it is a whole other matter. However, on that point, I'd like to bring up that not everyone who breaks the law did something "wrong" nor are they all evil. During the era of the Underground Railroad, plenty of people broke the law to help escaped slaves. Were these people in the wrong? Were they evil criminals? I think not. We look back on that time period and wonder why the law allowed a person to own another person. In a hundred years, I hope we look back on this time and wonder how we thought a person could own an idea.

I agree to some extent. Not every idea should be owned. Law isn't perfect, and it isn't even great. About your example: breaking the law to help human beings is not an excuse to break the law to gain benefits to yourself, and yourself only.

This really doesn't make sense at all, as piracy isn't stealing

It is. You just don't understand the difference between taking somebody's physical item and taking intellectual property. They are not the same, but they are both stealing.
Even if you define stealing as taking somebody's material thing. Even if piracy isn't exactly stealing. This doesn't make it right. Murdering isn't stealing either. Am I allowed to murder..?

Murder is stealing because you are physically taking someones life.

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

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

Macok wrote:
And no. It's not like in a library. Do you know why? Because library ALLOWS you to do it.

There was a time when it wasn´t like this. Culture was restricted. And recently, in my country (Spain), Intellectual Property Official Fanboys called SGAE have tried to go back in time. They talked about people stealing from the authors every time they get a book in a library (yeah, seriously). Politics got their money and the law was approved in 2007, but the librarians just said NO WAY. There were lots of legal issues, most of them still unresolved. If you want to learn more about this epic battle between Good and Evil,... google it (sorry, I got many links in Spanish, like this: http://noalprestamodepago.org/ , but it is not important enough out of here I guess).

Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.

We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.

Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.

Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.

For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).

My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant

If I download the rules for monopoly is that illegal? No. They're simply rules and really if somebody wants to look something up online that's also in a book in order to play a game then why cry about it? About this intellectual property bull of course there is intelectual property – according to the laws of today which is all that matters, but these are rules. If somebody buys something they should at least know how it works.

Ketara wrote:

To beleive that there is a theft you need to beleive in intellectual property, the legal system at least in the US/UK does beleive in intellectual property. To argue that there is not intellectual property has no basis in reality, by all means argue with a judge about it.

Gibbsey, I'd like you to meet Mr Strawman. What's this? You're already well acquainted? Well, you could have fooled me!

I believe in theft.

I believe in intellectual property.

Theoretically, I even believe that you could steal intellectual property, as long as it was in a manifest physical form, such as a written patent, or you blackmailed someone to have their intellectual property made out in your name.

I do not believe downloading a codex is theft.

Why?

Because, as already said, and repeatedly ignored:-

Your link defines stealing as 'to take the property of another wrongfully'.

I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication. If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet). If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either.

Please point out at which stage in this argument I am attempting to 'argue that intellectual property has no basis in reality'. Perhaps Mr Strawman can help you?

When it comes to pointing out realities, I'd prefer you bothered with one in which you actually read people's posts.

My key point, as it has been, the whole time, is that downloading a codex is not stealing by the factual definition of the word. I haven't even made any attempt at discussing philosophy or the ethics of the situation, because if you cannot comprehend this one simple fact, even when it is broken down in a logical manner for you, you clearly lack the capacities required for an actual philosophical debate.

Ketara, I'd like you to meet reality and culturam relativism What's this? You've never met? Seriously? not once?

"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."

Now that we have that out of the way:

1. "I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication."
Of intellectual property, which just happens to be under copyright. Would you not agree as most judges and lawyers that duplication is a form of taking even if it is a copy? (we are talking about intellectual property duplication is irrelevant) if not then this does not match legal reality.

2."If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet)."
What the brain hears and sees is of no importance when it comes to Intellectual Property, as long as you do not copy from memory and attempt to sell / store this is completely fine. Reading a freinds copy is equally okay, the copy belongs to your freind, not you.

3."If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either." To claim that by having a copy on your computer there is no physical property equally has no basis in reality otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright would like to have a word with you, also computers store information, digitaly or physically you have a copy. (incidently the arrangement of charged parts on a disk that is interpreted as 1's and 0's is information)

To have a copy or duplicate of the original is to have stolen Intellectual Property, although you can argue that Intellectual property is not physical that argument is completely null and void, in the real world Intellectual property is commonly regarded as physical items in the case of theft.

I have repeatedly said i dont want to get into a philosophical debate which is completely pointless without any (current) cultural reletevism or at the very least a rule-ethical-egoism philosophy. If you want to discuss the intricate details of philosophy and ethics when it comes to software piracy (even a virtual copy is still considered under copyright so would fall under this), please understand, this has been done to death on hundreds of philosophy forums elseware.

Also in my 2 minute attempt to come across a relevant board i came across this:
http://www.cs.rpi.edu/academics/courses/fall00/ethics/papers/bironj2.html

Personally i think he makes a few good points.

What if you never download the codex, and simply read it online?

Gibbsey wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.

We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.

Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.

Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.

For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).

My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant

But the current culture is changing rapidly. Two decades ago (within my lifetime), these issues were very different. The massive proliferation of information technology in the past few years has irreversibly changed the way people learn and disseminate knowledge. I think it's very relevant to discuss the validity of intellectual property as a concept, now that someone can take any piece of information and spread it across the globe in seconds.

We live in a world where instant gratification is not only possible, it is becoming the norm. A person who wants to play chess with their friend no longer has to establish a meeting place and time; instead they can simply call their friend and play over the internet instantly. Someone who wants to learn about physics need only open up the internet and demonstrate good search habits in order to become introduced to some basic relevant topics. What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability for a person to access any information they want, instantly, for free, (regardless of the source - it only takes one person), has made the exchange of money for a physical medium of sharing information essentially obsolete.

I mean, piracy is no doubt illegal under existing law, but do we need such a law? And if we do need such a law, how will it cover the human ability to remember? Surely memorization is copying, and it is just as intangible as converting a physical item to computer data. If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?

I guess I'm just trying to say that it is very relevant to discuss the philosophy behind the issues, since the "norm" may very well change in the next couple of decades, and there are people living right now that are trying to do just that.

EDIT: @ your second post:

Point 2: Why is what the brain stores not covered under IP law? If I have a document memorized completely, or part of a document memorized, how is that any different from having a copy of said document sitting in front of me? I can reproduce it at any time, and I can distribute it at any time. If the act of distribution and reproduction is what makes it illegal, then the mental reproduction that must occur for a person to remember it must make memorization illegal.

Well in about two hundred years I think stealing codexes online shouldn't be allowed, but in the present I see no problem with it.

Xca|iber wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.

We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.

Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.

Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.

For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).

My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant

But the current culture is changing rapidly. Two decades ago (within my lifetime), these issues were very different. The massive proliferation of information technology in the past few years has irreversibly changed the way people learn and disseminate knowledge. I think it's very relevant to discuss the validity of intellectual property as a concept, now that someone can take any piece of information and spread it across the globe in seconds.

We live in a world where instant gratification is not only possible, it is becoming the norm. A person who wants to play chess with their friend no longer has to establish a meeting place and time; instead they can simply call their friend and play over the internet instantly. Someone who wants to learn about physics need only open up the internet and demonstrate good search habits in order to become introduced to some basic relevant topics. What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability for a person to access any information they want, instantly, for free, (regardless of the source - it only takes one person), has made the exchange of money for a physical medium of sharing information essentially obsolete.

I mean, piracy is no doubt illegal under existing law, but do we need such a law? And if we do need such a law, how will it cover the human ability to remember? Surely memorization is copying, and it is just as intangible as converting a physical item to computer data. If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?

I guess I'm just trying to say that it is very relevant to discuss the philosophy behind the issues, since the "norm" may very well change in the next couple of decades, and there are people living right now that are trying to do just that.

Dammit i kind of agree with you...

"If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?"

This would be impossible to enforce except if the thought police came knocking, laws against memorizing is a good point, so lets break it down

1. you own the property - memorization is a form of fair use.
-although only buying a tempory license/ renting would still posses a problem

2. You view a freinds/library copy

So this as far as i can tell at the moment leaves one type, a previously viewed copy that you do not own.

To crete a law against memorizing there would have to be a system in place where you can only read owned or public information, where information that you have to buy is regulated so that you dont accidently "steal" the information by reading part of it

Gibbsey wrote:
Dammit i kind of agree with you...

"If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?"

This would be impossible to enforce except if the thought police came knocking, laws against memorizing is a good point, so lets break it down

1. you own the property - memorization is a form of fair use.
-although only buying a tempory license/ renting would still posses a problem

2. You view a freinds/library copy

So this as far as i can tell at the moment leaves one type, a previously viewed copy that you do not own.

To crete a law against memorizing there would have to be a system in place where you can only read owned or public information, where information that you have to buy is regulated so that you dont accidently "steal" the information by reading part of it

Exactly. My issue then is that such a high level of information regulation terrifies me to the core, in a way that not much else does. The potential for a government to claim inconvenient information is being withheld "to protect intellectual property" is huge, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's my personal opinion that GW (and other similar companies) should change with the times to release things like codices for free (or free with a purchase or whatever). It would improve customer relations, and support the growing freedom of information. A great example of how this is working well is Hulu, where a person can watch many great shows for free, no account needed, but sometimes the episodes are delayed. This opens up the ability for others to offer paid viewings or episode-purchases on a shorter timetable, and everyone ends up happy. I could easily see GW adopting a workable system in which codices are free with the purchase of a new unit, or some such system, and come with a digital copy for ease of viewing. This would help customers not feel quite so gouged, and I for one would probably get duped into buying more stuff I really don't need (for better or worse I suppose )

It's obviously not a total solution to the issue, but I see it as a good step towards the future.

Xca|iber wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:
Dammit i kind of agree with you...

"If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?"

This would be impossible to enforce except if the thought police came knocking, laws against memorizing is a good point, so lets break it down

1. you own the property - memorization is a form of fair use.
-although only buying a tempory license/ renting would still posses a problem

2. You view a freinds/library copy

So this as far as i can tell at the moment leaves one type, a previously viewed copy that you do not own.

To crete a law against memorizing there would have to be a system in place where you can only read owned or public information, where information that you have to buy is regulated so that you dont accidently "steal" the information by reading part of it

Exactly. My issue then is that such a high level of information regulation terrifies me to the core, in a way that not much else does. The potential for a government to claim inconvenient information is being withheld "to protect intellectual property" is huge, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

It's my personal opinion that GW (and other similar companies) should change with the times to release things like codices for free (or free with a purchase or whatever). It would improve customer relations, and support the growing freedom of information. A great example of how this is working well is Hulu, where a person can watch many great shows for free, no account needed, but sometimes the episodes are delayed. This opens up the ability for others to offer paid viewings or episode-purchases on a shorter timetable, and everyone ends up happy. I could easily see GW adopting a workable system in which codices are free with the purchase of a new unit, or some such system, and come with a digital copy for ease of viewing. This would help customers not feel quite so gouged, and I for one would probably get duped into buying more stuff I really don't need (for better or worse I suppose )

It's obviously not a total solution to the issue, but I see it as a good step towards the future.

In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen

They need to make money, even if they just charge the cost of making the book and provide free pdf's they arnt making money doing this, they would have to move to ad based revenue for codexes, maybe they could lower the cost but this is something they spend alot of time and effort into (except the rules XP) and they expect to be compensated somehow.

Digital copy's would be good, except they would probebly include some form of DRM.

Marketing wise it could be a good idea to lower the cost of codexes to get people into the game, and make most of their money on models sold.

Gibbsey wrote:
Ketara, I'd like you to meet reality and culturam relativism What's this? You've never met? Seriously? not once?

Cultural relativism? What has that got to do with the price of cheese? I'm talking about the linguistic definition of the word 'stealing'. Stop dragging things of irrelevance into the discussion.

"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."

Now that we have that out of the way:

Sure. That's a definition of intellectual property. Something which I have never disputed.

Ketara wrote:1. "I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication."

Of intellectual property, which just happens to be under copyright. Would you not agree as most judges and lawyers that duplication is a form of taking even if it is a copy? (we are talking about intellectual property duplication is irrelevant) if not then this does not match legal reality.

'As most judges and lawyers'? Again, irrelevance. But you know what? I don't mind. I'll agree with you. Let's run with this logic, all the way to the end and see how it turns out.

Ketara wrote:2."If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet)."

What the brain hears and sees is of no importance when it comes to Intellectual Property, as long as you do not copy from memory and attempt to sell / store this is completely fine. Reading a freinds copy is equally okay, the copy belongs to your freind, not you.

No. By reading my friends copy I have stolen the intellectual property. I have made a copy of the data involved, and stored it in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. It can be copied down by pen and paper, it can be on a hard-drive, or it can be in my mind. Using the logic you have given me, taking my friends codex to one side for an hour and memorising is me stealing intellectual property.

Ketara wrote:3."If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either."

To claim that by having a copy on your computer there is no physical property equally has no basis in reality otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright would like to have a word with you, also computers store information, digitaly or physically you have a copy. (incidently the arrangement of charged parts on a disk that is interpreted as 1's and 0's is information)

To have a copy or duplicate of the original is to have stolen Intellectual Property, although you can argue that Intellectual property is not physical that argument is completely null and void, in the real world Intellectual property is commonly regarded as physical items in the case of theft.

I've said I'll agree with your logic, and this statement supports that logic. In the same way GW can sue me for having a chip/floppy disc/CD/memory stick with the intellectual property on, they should theoretically be able to sue me for having the information in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. I have acquired the intellectual property, without permission or payment. This is a fact. Even worse, what if I have a photographic memory? I've got the whole codex word perfect then, simply by examining my friends copy.

The problem with this logic, of assuming that acquisition of intellectual property automatically equals theft, is how ridiculous it gets. By this logic, by watching a film at a friends, I've stolen intellectual property. By examining codices, I've stolen intellectual property. By borrowing a novel from them, I've stolen intellectual property. By listening to a piece of music at their house, I've stolen intellectual property.

The law recognises that simply classing acquiring intellectual property as stealing would be impractical, and silly. As such, a new definition was devised, and the crime is called pirating, or piracy. If I download stuff illegally, I can be charged. But it would be with piracy, and the procedures, sentencing, and nature of the crime differ substantially than one of simple theft, as the crime itself is different to shoplifting or the like. Otherwise, people who download a song would have to be treated equally with someone who stole a CD of that song from a shop. This is the joy of the subtle nuances of linguistics. Things may be similar, but are in fact, different.

I have repeatedly said i dont want to get into a philosophical debate which is completely pointless without any (current) cultural reletevism or at the very least a rule-ethical-egoism philosophy. If you want to discuss the intricate details of philosophy and ethics when it comes to software piracy (even a virtual copy is still considered under copyright so would fall under this), please understand, this has been done to death on hundreds of philosophy forums elseware.

And as I have repeatedly said, this isn't a philosophical debate. I've never mentioned any philosophy. I've been approaching the matter from a strictly linguistic angle. I have never said whether I am pro or against downloading codices. I have been simply defining the difference between acquiring intellectual property illegally, and the definition of the word 'stealing'. I have no idea why you keep trying to drag philosophy and court cases into this. Please stop.

Gibbsey wrote:

In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen

GW Japan gave out free codices and are up for download in pdf form, albeit in Japanese. They are unfortunately stopping this in the very near future as it seems GW in general wants to homogenize all GW stores around the world.

Kouzuki wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen

GW Japan gave out free codices and are up for download in pdf form, albeit in Japanese. They are unfortunately stopping this in the very near future as it seems GW in general wants to homogenize all GW stores around the world.

Hmmm, maybe we should pasturise them instead~!

I am enjoying the idea of using one's Brain to be illegal however

I'm literally surprised that this is still going on, as you're all just making the same points over and over

Stealing is wrong. we get it

/thread

Mukkin'About wrote:I'm literally surprised that this is still going on, as you're all just making the same points over and over

Stealing is wrong. we get it

/thread

duplicating a computer file does nothing to devalue the file itself, and as such, is not stealing.

One can say duplicating the file = more files on the market, and hence, with static demand, price will go down...

but... hmm.

Samepost is the same.
You just proved my point.
Lock 'er up! i'll see you in a couple weeks for the next "pirating codexes" debate!

The Oracle case was mainly a breach of contract and not copyright infringement case.

Copyright infringement /= Theft, as no goods have been taken. If you disagree please have another look at what the word "taken" requires you to have done. If you have not been deprived of something thsi has not been taken.

Something being illegal does not, by necessity, make the act wrong. A does not imply B, in this case. If you disagree with this then you are for the reintroduction of slavery to the US and the abolition of the right of anyone not of noble birth or who doesnt own more than 1 3/4 acres of land, is male and of good standing in the community to vote [UK, Pitt the Younger era]

WHich was the point all along: originally copyright was for 14 years in the US. That was considered a reasonable time that someone should have the exclusive licence to control reproduction of an otherwise Public Domain idea. Now? life + 50 years. How is that "reasonable" by any sense of the word?

Remember: copyright is NOT a right, but a privilege. One that should be heavily reduced. I personally think 20 years is enough, 10 for software. If you have not been able to extract sufficient value from the works in this time - tough.

Xca|iber wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:@Gibbsey: The problem with your argument is that our understanding of reality changes. Hundreds of years ago, when "most western nations" subscribed to the rules laid down by lords and priests and church officials, arguing that people were not the King's property had no 'basis in reality.' I think everyone has moved on from that point; specifically, people are not property. Thus what you refer to as 'reality' has shifted.

We are lucky to live in a time and (for those of us in nations that value and enforce basic freedoms) place that allow for individuals to believe in a variety of philosophies. Heck, it's why we have legislation for these things.

Over the past few months, I've seen a ton of arguments about intellectual property, piracy, etc, and besides the most basic deprivation of an instance of sales, I haven't seen a good argument for why handling information (visual, aural, or otherwise) should be illegal. The fact that the digital age has brought about an unprecedented amount of technological integration into people's lives has really made me reconsider ownership of ideas, and I've found that forcing people to pay to see and hear things that exist freely all over the world doesn't make any sense to me, unless the paid product is of higher quality.

Imagine for example that I have photographic memory (if only), and I purchase a codex, or look at a store copy. I now have copied the information into my mind, which I can reproduce at any time at any place simply by remembering. Since that is criminal, I should be arrested the moment I read any printed material. Now, if we take most people, they will remember parts of things. Since copying parts of works is still just as bad (reproducing a page of a codex is still illegal), everyone should be in jail, right? I sure hope not.

For these reasons, I do not entirely support the notion of intellectual property, despite the fact that it is an accepted part of our current culture. (Although on some level I am still open to the idea that people should be rewarded for good ideas).

My argument is that we should focus on the curent culture, other wise honestly whats the point? we can argue for every culture imaginable it doesent make it any more relevant

But the current culture is changing rapidly. Two decades ago (within my lifetime), these issues were very different. The massive proliferation of information technology in the past few years has irreversibly changed the way people learn and disseminate knowledge. I think it's very relevant to discuss the validity of intellectual property as a concept, now that someone can take any piece of information and spread it across the globe in seconds.

We live in a world where instant gratification is not only possible, it is becoming the norm. A person who wants to play chess with their friend no longer has to establish a meeting place and time; instead they can simply call their friend and play over the internet instantly. Someone who wants to learn about physics need only open up the internet and demonstrate good search habits in order to become introduced to some basic relevant topics. What I'm trying to say here, is that the ability for a person to access any information they want, instantly, for free, (regardless of the source - it only takes one person), has made the exchange of money for a physical medium of sharing information essentially obsolete.

I mean, piracy is no doubt illegal under existing law, but do we need such a law? And if we do need such a law, how will it cover the human ability to remember? Surely memorization is copying, and it is just as intangible as converting a physical item to computer data. If we need laws against piracy, do we need laws against memorizing? How would one even begin to enforce such a law?

I guess I'm just trying to say that it is very relevant to discuss the philosophy behind the issues, since the "norm" may very well change in the next couple of decades, and there are people living right now that are trying to do just that.

EDIT: @ your second post:

Point 2: Why is what the brain stores not covered under IP law? If I have a document memorized completely, or part of a document memorized, how is that any different from having a copy of said document sitting in front of me? I can reproduce it at any time, and I can distribute it at any time. If the act of distribution and reproduction is what makes it illegal, then the mental reproduction that must occur for a person to remember it must make memorization illegal.

A very well written post. The current laws governing copyright, intellectual property and the like are archaic at best. Which is why my earlier post I said about that. Piracy isn't the problem. Its a symptom in my opinion. A symptom that what we have does not work in an increasingly digital age. I don't admit to having a better way to change to but what laws we have covering this do need to be rethought.

Kouzuki wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

In regards to GW giving out free codexes i cant really see that happen

GW Japan gave out free codices and are up for download in pdf form, albeit in Japanese. They are unfortunately stopping this in the very near future as it seems GW in general wants to homogenize all GW stores around the world.

The funny part is that free codices offered online would probably help their sales of other products. I know I was very hesitant to get into such an expensive hobby until a friend showed me a codex and I got to read some of the fluff. The codex he showed me was in electronic form, btw.

The comedy in this entire situation is that I feel out of the entire GW line, an army codex is the only product that I feel I get my money's worth on. Under 30 bucks for a glossy book with your army lists, tons of fluff, ability to flip through when building an army (this is HUGE against electronic files, scrolling pages is so much more cumbersome than physically flipping through a book), photos, painting ideas, etc. When you stack that against the 50 bucks they will repeatadely charge for 1 dollar worth of plastic, it's a good value.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Something being illegal does not, by necessity, make the act wrong. A does not imply B, in this case. If you disagree with this then you are for the reintroduction of slavery to the US and the abolition of the right of anyone not of noble birth or who doesnt own more than 1 3/4 acres of land, is male and of good standing in the community to vote [UK, Pitt the Younger era]

Don't be absurd.

Steelmage - you are being absurd. Not only do you blindly ignore the difference in depriving someone of their property (aka theft) and copyright infringement, but you seem to automatically equate "illegal" to "wrong" - which is so laughably naive it suggests you have absolutely no idea of history or comparative morality.

Bearing in mind that in some countries of the world my sexualtiy is illegal, yet I, oddly enough do not consider it "wrong" of me to still be gay when visiting said countries...

Ketara wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:
Ketara, I'd like you to meet reality and culturam relativism What's this? You've never met? Seriously? not once?

Cultural relativism? What has that got to do with the price of cheese? I'm talking about the linguistic definition of the word 'stealing'. Stop dragging things of irrelevance into the discussion.

"Under intellectual property law, owners are granted certain exclusive rights to a variety of intangible assets, such as musical, literary, and artistic works; discoveries and inventions; and words, phrases, symbols, and designs. Common types of intellectual property include copyrights, trademarks, patents, industrial design rights and trade secrets in some jurisdictions."

Now that we have that out of the way:

Sure. That's a definition of intellectual property. Something which I have never disputed.

Ketara wrote:1. "I would argue that the notion of physical acquisition is implicit in the word 'take'. Downloading a codex is mere duplication."

Of intellectual property, which just happens to be under copyright. Would you not agree as most judges and lawyers that duplication is a form of taking even if it is a copy? (we are talking about intellectual property duplication is irrelevant) if not then this does not match legal reality.

'As most judges and lawyers'? Again, irrelevance. But you know what? I don't mind. I'll agree with you. Let's run with this logic, all the way to the end and see how it turns out.

Ketara wrote:2."If you decide to argue the angle that duplicating or acquiring intellectual property is stealing, then by that definition I am logically stealing by simply reading a friends copy, as I am 'downloading' the intellectual property to my brain via my eyes (as you would download a codex to your computer through the internet)."

What the brain hears and sees is of no importance when it comes to Intellectual Property, as long as you do not copy from memory and attempt to sell / store this is completely fine. Reading a freinds copy is equally okay, the copy belongs to your freind, not you.

No. By reading my friends copy I have stolen the intellectual property. I have made a copy of the data involved, and stored it in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. It can be copied down by pen and paper, it can be on a hard-drive, or it can be in my mind. Using the logic you have given me, taking my friends codex to one side for an hour and memorising is me stealing intellectual property.

Ketara wrote:3."If you claim that this does not count, because I do not possess a physical copy of the codex, then neither does downloading it from the internet, as there is no physical copy there either."

To claim that by having a copy on your computer there is no physical property equally has no basis in reality otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_copyright would like to have a word with you, also computers store information, digitaly or physically you have a copy. (incidently the arrangement of charged parts on a disk that is interpreted as 1's and 0's is information)

To have a copy or duplicate of the original is to have stolen Intellectual Property, although you can argue that Intellectual property is not physical that argument is completely null and void, in the real world Intellectual property is commonly regarded as physical items in the case of theft.

I've said I'll agree with your logic, and this statement supports that logic. In the same way GW can sue me for having a chip/floppy disc/CD/memory stick with the intellectual property on, they should theoretically be able to sue me for having the information in my brain. The matter of storage is irrelevant. I have acquired the intellectual property, without permission or payment. This is a fact. Even worse, what if I have a photographic memory? I've got the whole codex word perfect then, simply by examining my friends copy.

The problem with this logic, of assuming that acquisition of intellectual property automatically equals theft, is how ridiculous it gets. By this logic, by watching a film at a friends, I've stolen intellectual property. By examining codices, I've stolen intellectual property. By borrowing a novel from them, I've stolen intellectual property. By listening to a piece of music at their house, I've stolen intellectual property.

The law recognises that simply classing acquiring intellectual property as stealing would be impractical, and silly. As such, a new definition was devised, and the crime is called pirating, or piracy. If I download stuff illegally, I can be charged. But it would be with piracy, and the procedures, sentencing, and nature of the crime differ substantially than one of simple theft, as the crime itself is different to shoplifting or the like. Otherwise, people who download a song would have to be treated equally with someone who stole a CD of that song from a shop. This is the joy of the subtle nuances of linguistics. Things may be similar, but are in fact, different.

I have repeatedly said i dont want to get into a philosophical debate which is completely pointless without any (current) cultural reletevism or at the very least a rule-ethical-egoism philosophy. If you want to discuss the intricate details of philosophy and ethics when it comes to software piracy (even a virtual copy is still considered under copyright so would fall under this), please understand, this has been done to death on hundreds of philosophy forums elseware.

And as I have repeatedly said, this isn't a philosophical debate. I've never mentioned any philosophy. I've been approaching the matter from a strictly linguistic angle. I have never said whether I am pro or against downloading codices. I have been simply defining the difference between acquiring intellectual property illegally, and the definition of the word 'stealing'. I have no idea why you keep trying to drag philosophy and court cases into this. Please stop.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Explain how you have deprived someone of their property by copying it.

They still have the property, after all - that is what "copying" means. BTW linking to a site that then links to search results, most of which are from suspect organisations who have a vested interest in equating theft with copyright infringment (and have done so for so long that apparently people now believe it to be true), isnt exactly persuasive.

BTW comparing copyright and patent is terrible - patents, in theory, are sensible as they have strict, defined limits which are reasonable in duration. Copyright, which is now grotesquely out of proportion to any notion of "sense", doesnt.

I have to say its wrong, I can say that there are a few things I "mite" have downloaded, I dont let anyone else look, copy,etc. them and some of the martial that I have gotten cannot be found anywhere else on the internet. Me downloading these items is of course for personal use only and Ive bought a couple to play my armies at my local game store I didnt want to leave GW empty handed completely . I guess you could make the assumption that I have denied them a profit from the downloaded material minus the ones i bought but other then seeing what my armies are up against and as reference and for vassal which also was deemed illegal, why not just charge to have online warhammer 40k? Im also one of those peps who believes there is only black and white, saying there shades of grey is just an excuse to get away with things, so yeah Im going to hell just wish we where all rich

nosferatu1001 wrote:Steelmage - you are being absurd. Not only do you blindly ignore the difference in depriving someone of their property (aka theft) and copyright infringement,

I find that funny as I most certainly have acknowledged the difference between the two.

but you seem to automatically equate "illegal" to "wrong" - which is so laughably naive it suggests you have absolutely no idea of history or comparative morality.

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

Bearing in mind that in some countries of the world my sexualtiy is illegal, yet I, oddly enough do not consider it "wrong" of me to still be gay when visiting said countries...

I am sure you don't. I wouldn't either. But that doesn't change that fact that in that country under that law, it is wrong in the eyes of the lawmakers.

You might not agree with that law, but while in that country you are bound by it.

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

Hypothetically I too might use the internet to download movies, MP3s and other things, but I certainly don't delude myself into thinking that I am some sort of internet-freedom fighter trying to liberate the masses in the name of all that is good.
Hypothetically I would be breaking the law and I would know and accept that.

Why don't you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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