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.

Buy each codex when it comes out. Eventually you'll have them all, and plenty of time to learn them all.

Of course, GW paid me highly to make this post.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Given the contents of your posts so far I feel that it would be a waste of all of our time.

Ba-Zing!


Here's the quick rundown on why IP is a moral issue. If your time is a precious commodity, I encourage you to skip this post. IP is a result of creativity and work. When you buy a book or a CD or attend a movie you are not solely paying for the physical costs of printing, producing, or showing the product, but to compensate the person that created the work for their efforts. This is two fold: one is to protect a person's work, allowing them to profit off of their thought by controlling who can sell it. The other is based on the idea that all creative work includes an almost mystical transferrance of part of that person's mind/soul into their work. Because of this, only the author (or his agents) can sell the work. To enjoy his labor, while not paying him for the privilege is to steal his work and effort. Essentially, to download the codex is to enjoy the benefit of GW's brilliance without in any way recognizing them (notably through money). To assume that IP law is simply financial ignores the fact that much of morality is purely financial. Is it immoral to steal a rich person's iPod because you want one? Of course. Nor can something only be immoral if there is a tangible hurt. Is it immoral to break into a rich person's house to watch their TV because you don't have HBO? Of course.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's a good economic model, but the laws holding it up are based around the drive to profit, not the drive to provide or maintain for society. Which are what morally definable laws serve to do.

I actually can't (and won't) argue against that. Well stated. I conceed.

BYE

Here's the quick rundown on why IP is a moral issue...

By that argument purchasing a codex second hand from a friend or being given one as a hand me down is just as immoral. The creator benefits not at all by it. Even if the original owner purchased it normally, his legal ownership of the material and ideas contained therein do not transfer second hand.

This is why its not a moral issue. Copyrights exist to protect the concept of ownership of ideas. This in and of itself is of questionable morals, as how can someone own an idea? Isn't the free exchange of information and ideas a basic precept of civilized society? It's a set of laws predicated on the functionality of a capitalistic economic system. It's not a moral issue, and if anything it can very well be an immoral set of laws as it essentially removes the process of the spread of information from the realm of legality and mires real moral ideals in a sea of profit driven supralegality.

IP law isn't a moral matter, it is a civil LEGAL matter. [Morality is a personal system of behaviour - Legality is a system of behaviour imposed by the state.]. There is a huge semantic and legal difference between them. That's neither here nor there, and doesn't belong in this thread anyway.

Choose better opponents who don't cheat. If your opponent is getting iffy about something, ask to see his codex, and while you're reading the relevant bit, ask him how it works (interpretation differs substantially).

A lot of the "cheats" I see are people who played older versions and still play things that way - even when th rules and wording have changed an no longer means the same thing.

@Shuma

Heaven forbid we manage to have a conversation wihtout someone resorting to insults.

On Topic @Everyone

I think it's stealing to download the books. End of story. Morally wrong as well as against the law. If you want to have access to the rules then pay for them. If you feel uncomfortable simply asking to see an opponents codex to determine if he's cheating then pay for the codex to avoid the "social awkwardness(sp?)" you seem to feel.

I do say this as someone who owns every current codex and though I might not buy it the weekend it comes out I do generally buy them in the first few months. If I was broke and couldn't afford them then I'd just read it in the store or ask my opponent when they did something crazy. But I don't download lists (unless i've bought the book already and am in a different state since i've then paid for the rules) as it is stealing.

My view on it. Oh and you don't have to own them all if you don't mind asking people to prove the ridiculousness

ShumaGorath wrote:

By that argument purchasing a codex second hand from a friend or being given one as a hand me down is just as immoral.

What kills me is that the now outdated Warger book was trying to put all item special rules all in one book. Too bad with the very next codex the book was obsolete. If something like the Wargear book was available as a living online document that anyone could print off, the OPs troubles would be a bit more alleviated.

Hell, just the quick reference sheets from every codex in a small duotang would work. Would have each army special rule, the stats for each unit, and the stats for each weapon. I would pay 25 bucks for that, to sit in my figure case for when a dicey situation comes up and I can fact-check

This is a great argument, by the way guys. I've seen in on just about every forum I've ever visited over the past 10 some odd years. On any given topic, music, movies, shows, games, applications, porn, codex's etc.

Quick breakdown - Theft is obtaining something that you don't own by illegal means.

Downloading a copy of GW's product, a codex, is theft. Don't delude yourself shuma. I've heard your arguments countless times from different people.

"I wouldn't buy it anyways." - Theft

"It helps keep me interested, in the hobby." - Immoral

"how can someone own an idea?" - You're a thief, deal with it

And for the record, I most certainly download every codex I don't own, which is quite a few and I don't for one second tell myself I'm not a thief and try to justify it with very specious logic. I use specious in the same manner as I would against someone who is an amateur philosophy student, as I would expect this sort of new-age/disconnected logic from. I think the orange falling up example was a big tip off of where you're at.

@Shuma

Heaven forbid we manage to have a conversation wihtout someone resorting to insults.

I didn't really throw the first salvo this time.

It's not the simplest issue, of course. The creator benefits as above, by controlling how the ideas spread. Copyright doesn't really protect ideas, as you state below that's pretty much impossible. What copyright does protect is the expression of an idea. You can create a book filled with pictures of painted super soldiers in full power armor and not violate anybody's IP, but images of the Eavy Metal painted GW minis can and are copyrighted, because they are a concrete expression of an idea. So, the creator creates an expression of an idea, and then selects a venue for it's distribution. He gets to choose how to distribute that expression. That is what is protected, and I think that's a fine thing to protect. Second hand sales are allowed because there is still only one copy of that expression, and because it was written down and made permament, there was an understanding that after the original own no longer had use of it, he might sell it. This is, of course, why GW updates codices.

I think we are going to end up having fundamental differences in belief of what copyright serves to protect. Games workshop is not an individual. It is a public corporation, in theory its assets are in part owned by every stockholder and every worker employed within the organization. Indeed, further obfuscating the issue of creation is the fact that many of the representative artists used for modeling and artwork aren't even in games workshops employ. They are hired to produce work that is in essence sold to games workshop so that it may redistribute it under IP through product launches. As an ethereal organization which does not physically exist, games workshop is the sole proprietor of its IP. How can something that does not in essence exist (as all companies are simply organizations of individuals) own ideas?

Further obfuscating the practice is the acceptance of communal use of a product, yet the illegality of copying. Two people can easily share one codex or rulebook. It is fully legal, and is in no way frowned upon. Yet when one person photocopies the book for convenience it becomes illegal. This does not effect games workshops profit margin as they were clearly willing to share before, and as a profit driven company maintaining and profiting from said IP is games workshops only motivation. Where is the difference?

Again, not completely true, but I think I get what you're trying to say.

You do realize that morals are personal interpretations of an ethical code of behavior right? Repeatedly saying that mine are not completely true implies that you somehow have the only right set. Unless you start providing fish and bread to everyone from nothing you may want to try and admit as much.

First off, I know it's not polite but everytime somebody online writes the phrase "free exchange of information and ideas" all I hear is "I don't want to pay retail." The anti-copyright movement has some really bothersome champions that make it very difficult for it to gain traction.

Sorry if I value the ideals of good society over your sense of corporate loyalty. The free exchange of of information and ideas is a take on the idea that goods, information, and ideas, in a truly civilized society should be given and taken freely as need requires. Humans form societies to alleviate needs, the concept is the same no matter how complex or distorted the society actually becomes.

Well, the basic precept of civilized society depends on how you define civilization. Division of labor is one of the basic precepts, followed immediately by property rights. The right to own property is far more basic than any rights to exchange information. You can tell because people have always owned things, but could only speak completely freely in the last 75 years or so.

There have been a number of societies over time that have had very different opinions concerning property, several early native american cultures for example. I define civilized society by its goals, those being the alleviation of need and the providence of comfort that alleviation provides. If you define a civilized society by what it does you are making the mistake of taking the method as the intent.

Even if the exchange of ideas and information was the precept of society, and again I think I know you mean "it's a central tenent", free exchange does not mean "this does not cost money."

Actually free exchange equates directly to "give and take freely", otherwise it's not free. There are many examples of free exchange in modern society, youtube being a popular example. Oddly enough free exchange is really only possible in a utopian or digital society, as both provide means without labor.

The free exchange allows us to review GW's codices, discuss them, compare them, even discuss lists created out of them, all arguably protected. What you are advocating is not an exchange of ideas. You want to take something that GW is trying to sell without paying for it.

Which is the same thing gained by discussion, comparison, and review. I can read through my friends codex. Pour over every entry, picture, and story, and not pay a dime. I may not have a stack of paper but I will be in possession of the "Ideas" that are supposedly being protected. The only way to protect the intellectual property in the way you describe would be for me to immediately forget everything I've read upon closing the book. And even then by that point I've had time spent pleasurably pouring over the sweat of the artists and writers brow. This is no different from gaining a digital copy of the product. Ideas aren't simply "protected" because I'm not reading them off of a screen.

Copyrights would exist in a system without capitalism. Somebody would own the stuff in any market theory.

This is certainly not true, and there have been numerous civilizations throughout history which had no conception of copyright, the Aztecs for example.

Either the government would control the flow of expression, or the nobles would, or the church would. Capitalism realized that you can make a buck off of it, but that's the job of capitalism.

Sorry, but your placing western capitalistic ideals over the whole of human civilization and history. And it's simply not the case. It is of course by far part of the most successful and prevalent methodology of constructing an economic society that has ever existed. But the success of the system within which it exists has nothing to do with some strange universal requirement for it.

The argument that copyright is inherently immoral due to preventing the spread of information is a very sketchy one. That last sentence is very difficult to understand, so I'm not sure what you're saying other than that you're trying to argue that "ideas should be free" and that copyright only stands in the way of progress. That would be fine, except we have every possible piece of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Which you have yet to provide. Copyright is no more immoral then it is moral. My entire argument is that this is not a moral matter any more than having a red or blue car is a moral matter. It's simply a function of the current system of capitalist economics.

I'm afraid that your argument seems to be based on the idea that you simply don't like copyrights and feel they are wrong. That's fine, and it doesn't make you immoral. But just because something is part of a "sea of profit driven superlegality" doesn't make it more or less moral.

Actually my argument is based on the ideals of human society and a very distinct differentiation between what is a moral matter and what is a legal matter. You sir, seem to have no such distinction.

This is somehting that Chromedog seems to have missed as well. Just because something is a civil legal matter doesn't make it less moral, it simply means that there is a tangible damage that a court can hold the offending party liable for. There are civl matters that might not be moral (fines for procedural matters, some breaches of contract), but any tort action is generally against a party that is considered to have "wronged" the other.

And here is the biggest divide of them all. Legality and morality are not equal. They have never been and never will be. One is ethereal and personal, the other (arguably)concrete and public. One serves to maintain a society as it stands and the other serves to provide the foundation on which that society is built. Copyrights are a legal matter, they maintain society as is within the currently built system. They have no moral foundation and are far from universal.

ShadowDeth wrote:This is a great argument, by the way guys. I've seen in on just about every forum I've ever visited over the past 10 some odd years. On any given topic, music, movies, shows, games, applications, porn, codex's etc.

Quick breakdown - Theft is obtaining something that you don't own by illegal means.

Downloading a copy of GW's product, a codex, is theft. Don't delude yourself shuma. I've heard your arguments countless times from different people.

"I wouldn't buy it anyways." - Theft

"It helps keep me interested, in the hobby." - Immoral

"how can someone own an idea?" - You're a thief, deal with it

And for the record, I most certainly download every codex I don't own, which is quite a few and I don't for one second tell myself I'm not a thief and try to justify it with very specious logic. I use specious in the same manner as I would against someone who is an amateur philosophy student, as I would expect this sort of new-age/disconnected logic from. I think the orange falling up example was a big tip off of where you're at.

I disagree strongly, but hey. Thanks for misrepresenting everything I've been saying and calling me a cheap shill. I appreciate the fact that its taken you ten years of forum surfing to boil down your opinions on the matter into pure, unaltered, trolling. I value your input.

Oh and for the record I'm a graphic design major who took one phi class a few years ago and thought it was preppy and annoying. Sorry if my opinions on the matter have actually been explored and thought out. It must be hard for you to not have my moral outlook summed up in one sentence. I'm sure all the reading with all the words must strain you quite a bit. But hey, I should stop writing this so you can get back to putting lids on mustard jars so the rest of us may enjoy fresh vacuum sealed mustard.

OK, so you feel that companies cannot be recognised as real entities, and that an absolute concept of morality is not possible. You think you should be able to ignore laws that don't agree with your personal moral code, and no one else can tell you what that moral code should be.

These are interesting philospohical arguments.

...

Harsh.

Meh. I am going to break international copyright law. At some point where I hear a decent argument against it, I will adopt it as my stance. Until then, I am happy to call it blatant theft.

OK, so you feel that companies cannot be recognised as real entities, and that an absolute concept of morality is not possible. You think you should be able to ignore laws that don't agree with your personal moral code, and no one else can tell you what that moral code should be.

These are interesting philospohical arguments

Yeah, I kind of lucked out in that my moral stand doesn't result in dogs and firehoses being pointed at me. I'm a firm believer in that laws exist to protect people in one way or another, and the moment they cease to do so they become superfluous and need to be removed or changed.

But its better than believing its wrong and just going along with it.

Well, I'm done with this discussion. I've said my peace, and if anybody wants clarification, I'll gladly provide it, but any further posting would be counter productive.

- like, whatever.

Legality and Morality may be interconnected, but they ARE NOT the same thing. Lawyers make a cropload more money than priests to prove this.

I didn't say downloading wasn't illegal. It just is not a moral issue, for me - and I doubt it's one of the ten commandments, either. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it, though.

I'm also not going to condemn anyone else for doing so, either - as hypocrisy doesn't suit me. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and all that.

chromedog wrote:
I didn't say downloading wasn't illegal. It just is not a moral issue, for me - and I doubt it's one of the ten commandments, either. That doesn't mean I'm going to go out and do it, though.

"You shall not steal"

"Stealing" implies that you take something so that nobody else can take it.

As in, he *stole* my car, depriving me of its use.

Unauthorized copying is NOT stealing.

If I make an unauthorized copy of your car, you are not deprived of its use in any way, shape or form. You still have full title and use of that car. The only difference is that I *also* have full use of an identical car.

But let's be very, very clear: copying is NOT stealing.

Ninja'd by JH. Damn.

As to the commandments, I'm not big into fantasy, so there are a few books I've not read, yon christian bible being one of them.

- whatever.

Well, even Black's law dictionary allows that stealing in popular usage is often used to describe the unlawful taking of things that can't technically be the subject of larceny.

So, we can call it "unlawful taking" if you'd prefer. You can call it unjust enrichment, illegal windfall, or even trespass on intellectual property.

I guess I don't understand the insistence that morality and legality aren't the same thing. Of course they're different: nobody would call underage drinking immoral, while envy certainly isn't against the law.

I guess it boils down to this for me:

GW write a codex. They say you can buy it for full price, but don't want anybody to make copies. People make copies, and other people take the copies. People gain benefit from the labor of GW, use their IP in away that GW disallows, and never pay for it. How is that not at least a little wrong?

To analogize: If I were to work on knocking down an abandoned house and turn it into a garden, I could allow people to use it by my rules. Let's say I charge people $20 to use the garden however they wish. If you sneak in at night and use the garden, you haven't deprived me of anything, but I think most people would say your actions are wrong.

I'm not going to say there aren't times when it's justifiable. I mean, if you live far from other players, and just want to read up on all the rules, I don't think it's a huge deal.

I also understand that this thought isn't natural. GW is a corporation, not a local artist. Copying the book doesn't cost GW anything tangible immediately. To most observers, there is no damage, so there cannot be any harm. Clearly, we won't all agree on everything, I guess I find a moral argument that is inherently self serving to be at least a bit suspect. It's hard not to notice that holding that copying is totally moral makes it easier to justify doing it. I do it, but I just don't worry too much about it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:"Stealing" implies that you take something so that nobody else can take it.

As in, he *stole* my car, depriving me of its use.

Unauthorized copying is NOT stealing.

If I make an unauthorized copy of your car, you are not deprived of its use in any way, shape or form. You still have full title and use of that car. The only difference is that I *also* have full use of an identical car.

But let's be very, very clear: copying is NOT stealing.

This post is chock full of dumb.

enough of that....

..............................................................


Anyway, whenever you pirate movies, download free music OR access books all for free on the internet without laying down some hard earned cash, what are you doing? I'll tell you.

You're robbing the creators (regardless of the percentage received by those creators thanx to the distributers and other 'middle-men') of the money that THEY DESERVE AND EARNED BY CREATING THIS PRODUCT DESIGNED FOR YOUR ENJOYMENT.

It's wrong, plain and simple.

What else do you do? Once again, I'll tell you.

You cause the price of such product to go up for those people that decide to buy product as it was meant to be obtained. Whether that price went up due to copy protections or other technologies, those prices go up. Even if by only the smallest amount, they do go up.

Copying IS stealing.
Downloading codexes without purchasing the product IS stealing.
Downloading movies without purchasing offline IS stealing.


I've downloaded codecies in the past....
and my 'working' rulebook for 5e is a photocopied version off of the internet....

...eventually, I purchase the codex.
...and when it was released, I purchased the Collectors Rulebook and a Black Reach box set.
...I buy EVERY DVD I have in my collection...well into 4 digits of movies/tv shows.

Pirating is illegal, immoral, and wrong. In all of its forms.

Noone is forcing you to support "big business", that doesnt mean that you can go off and take advantage of them in turn just because you want to play a game with toy soldiers (or watch tv). Stop deluding yourselves.

This is by far one of the stupidest debates I've ever seen here. Pirating is wrong...books/games/dvd's...it doesnt matter. If you enjoy a product that someone put effort into making for your enjoyment, and dont compensate them AT ALL when doing it for compensation was their original plan (regardless of how much of that compensation is taken by the 'middle men'), one word can be used to describe you....

THIEF.

You guys that disagree are quite plainly wrong. Dispute it all you like, you're wrong. This thread is amazing.

@ Deadshane: I think John is right in that it's not really stealing. It's really more trespass: using the property of another without their permission. Those that download are trespassers.

Polonius wrote:@ Deadshane: I think John is right in that it's not really stealing. It's really more trespass: using the property of another without their permission. Those that download are trespassers.

...a rose by any other name....

whatever, its wrong.

Polonius wrote:stealing in popular usage is often used to describe the unlawful taking of things

How is that not at least a little wrong?

To analogize: If I were to work on knocking down an abandoned house and turn it into a garden, I could allow people to use it by my rules. Let's say I charge people $20 to use the garden however they wish. If you sneak in at night and use the garden, you haven't deprived me of anything, but I think most people would say your actions are wrong.

Again, "stealing" implies *taking* a *thing*. The word "stealing" simply does not apply when you're talking about information or concepts / ideas.

What you are trying to do is say that unauthorized copying is the same as stealing.

It is NOT.

That is is a fallacy perpetuated by a host of anti-consumer, anti-public groups such as the RIAA. The very fact that you choose to say these sorts of things this way is testament to their success at framing the discussion.

In theory, copyright exists to provide some sort of balance between the rights of the creator and the rights of the public at large. Over the past few decades, corporations have perverted the balance such that the public no longer has any interest or voice in things. However, there is an equally compelling argument that facts, data, numbers and statistics cannot be copyrighted, and that any copyright only exists at the whim of the public choosing to grant it. That is, copyright is a right granted by others, rather than some sort of absolute.

Now I'm not arguing that people should copy things willy-nilly. Nor would I argue that creators lack any rights.

But I don't believe that they deserve carte blanche or absolute rights as far as many publishers seem to think they have. Particularly as many of these publishers seem to think they can trample over consumer protection and consumer rights willy-nilly. So from a moral standpoint, the more extreme the publisher, the less I am willing to honor their copyright.

Except your analogy fails because we have the concept of criminal trespass...

Here's a counter-example for you to think about:

You see an interesting building, and have your friend take a stand on the roadside and you snap a picture. If you both are on public property, using your personal camera, and storing the image on your own server, does the building owner have the right to say you can't take the picture, print it, or put it on your website?

The RIAA would say no to all of the above, unless you requsted permission and paid a picture-taking fee, and then paid royalties for each time you opened your photo album, or had someone view your web page.

Common sense would say yes, it's your picture and you can do as you please with it...


____

Deadshane1 wrote:This post is chock full of dumb.

I completely agree. Your post is chock full of dumb.

Deadshane1 wrote:Anyway, whenever you pirate movies, download free music OR access books all for free on the internet without laying down some hard earned cash, what are you doing?

In my case, I'm obtaining additional / duplicative / redundant digital copies of things that I've already paid for.

Deadshane1 wrote:Copying IS stealing.

No, it isn't. It's unauthorized *copying*.

There *is* a difference, and if you're not able to understand the fundamental difference between a physical good that can only be in the possession of a single individual, vs information that can be present anywhere, that's your problem.

Polonius wrote:When you buy a book or a CD or attend a movie you are not solely paying for the physical costs of printing, producing, or showing the product, but to compensate the person that created the work for their efforts.

That is a good point.

Except, in nearly every case, everybody involved in creating the work was paid scale for their efforts in creation.

That is, the overwhelming majority of people related to the creation of things gain absolutely no residuals whether one, many, or NO copies are sold.

And what's even more amusing is when you track the money trail of the RIAA, MPAA, or other anti-consumer organizations.

NONE of the money that is supposedly collected on behalf of the artists / creators is ever disbursed to any of the artists / collectors.

So you'll have to excuse me when I don't feel a particular moral obligation towards any of the "creators".
____

Oh, yeah, in the interest of disclosure, my MP3s are ripped from my CDs, per the RIAA's stated permission to do so (they've since taken that off their website); I don't RS / BT; and I don't copy movies or software. I do, however, unprotect any software I buy, just as I rip any CD I buy. I pay once, and once only.

Also, I basically don't consume media anymore. I've stopped buying CDs, DVDs, books, etc. until a saner, more consumer-oriented balance of rights is agreed upon. I'm just one voice, and one non-consumer. Perhaps if more people took a similar stand, the balance would shift back.

personally i have bought 4 codexes and wish to buy them all, they are great for a read, plus you leanr how to "kill da otha gits" lol

"If you know the enemy and know your self you need not fear the results of a thousand battles
If you know your self and not the enemy for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat
If you know neither the enemy or your self you will succumb in every battle"
Sun Tzu


//Edge

To actually say something on-topic, I'm not really interested it what my opponent's armylist says. I'm not going to nitpick it, nor am I concerned with whether or not his math is correct. That's my courtesy to them, that I trust them enough not to be giant twerps. Occasionally it backfires. Some twit hoodwinked me with T6 Raveners last week, and so on.

To that end, I only ever need one book to field my army (well, three, since I use Witch hunter ISTs and Daemonhosts every now and then, but anyway).

Strategy-wise, I really don't need to know exactly what the rules for a given enemy unit are, only their generic battlefield role. Of course, I'm not playing to win (because making a competitive IG list would involve me sacrificing everything I like about the army in the first place).

Double post.

Matt Varnish wrote:What kills me is that the now outdated Warger book was trying to put all item special rules all in one book. Too bad with the very next codex the book was obsolete.

People who bought that book go alongside the same people who bought the two (LOL!) GW interactive army list programs thinking that they'd actually keep them updated. In the modern parlance, these people are known as 'rubes'.

BYE