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:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:if you think its morally wrong you should work to change the law.... or support people who do. we have a process for that in this country

Slow clap. I know this. I do work to change the law - the trouble is that it's easy to ignore people who dont have as much bribe money^H^^H^H^H campaign donations as another. I also support others who work to change the law

well ok here's another slow clap phrase. we have rule of law in this country. what you think is right or wrong doesnt really matter unless you can convince a bunch of other people that you're right. that's a precondition to civil society. if everyone got to make up their own mind all the time, the result would be chaos and an invitation to authoritarianism. so by obeying laws that you dont agree with you're actually preserving the freedoms you already have. weird huh? in the same vein, by ignoring a copyright law you don't like, you're insentivizing the state to take away a freedom you have now (access to a relatively unregulated internet.) The exercise (abuse) of your freedom is going to lead to the state taking it away. Cool huh?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:..... until then.... if you break the law.... you're committing a crime.

Another slow clap. Yes, I am aware that commiting an illegal act does, in fact, mean you're commiting an illegal act. Well done. The legality is not in question - jus the morality and the fallacy that declares illegal = morally wrong.

well then why do you bring it up like you don't already know?

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It's definitely wrong to take something from another person that they have worked to create without compensating them for it. that's theft.

Bzzt. Wrong on 4 accounts.

1. It is not "definitely wrong" - I have already shown this. YOu are equating legality to "correctness", when I am talking morals. It can be perfectly morally correct to break the law.
2. I (generic "I") have not taken anything. A copy is not "taking" something, as the person still *has* the something. Failure of understanding of basic English terms there.
3. After a reasonable term it is perfectly fine, as all works belong to the Public Domain *by default*. The artifical creation of "copyright" has gone far, far FAR beyond what is "reasonable" however.
4. No, assuming it falls under copyright terms it is Copyright Infringement. Technically, Legally and Lnguistically Copyright Infringement /- Theft. You have been entirely brainwashed if you believe otherwise.

1. I have an apple. you take the apple. I get nothing. you're a thief. you did something morally wrong. It doesnt have anything to do with legality.
2. I have control of the distribution of an idea. You take control of the distribution ofthe idea. I get nothing. You're a thief. You did something morally wrong.
3. Maybe so. Write your senator.
4. See #3

I swear to god if we have to go back to the "piracy does not equal theft" discussion again, I'm gonna download a film, burn it to a DVD, and sell it to kids at the park, just to spite you.

@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Abaddon - apparently you dont understand the basic difference between physical property ( an apple) and imaginary property (an idea) - I'll give you a hint: we're talking about the latter here, and how the law works as regards to both.

When you do understand the difference please revisit this thread. It might show you how...terrible your "analogy" of the apple is. And how incorrect your posts are, both factually and legally.

Btw under 2 - how have I taken "control" of the distribution of something by making a copy? Have I *stopped* you distributing your goods? No? Guess that makes you, yet again, incorrect. Surprise.

Finaly - seriously, deos the little Union Jack by my name not give you ANY clue as to origins? Hint: the UK does not have senators, we have MPs. And I've already done this. BTW your answer to 4 makes no sense, as the two items (theft and copyright infringement) are different. The fact you dont understand this is mind boggling as it shows such a base lack of knowledge of the real world

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Oh so your point is that stealing is okay if the other person is rich enough

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.
L. Wrex

No doubt. I'm just pointing out that piracy creates problems for other people... and those people are even now trying to figure out how to turn *their* problems into *your* problems. no doubt they will succeed. when the state starts regulating the internet and you actually have to pay for content again, don't be surprised. don't ask whose responsible. you are.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abaddon - apparently you dont understand the basic difference between physical property ( an apple) and imaginary property (an idea)

lol. the courts dont understand the difference either. maybe it's a contrivance but so what? for the purpose of regulation, property is what the law defines it to be.

Btw under 2 - how have I taken "control" of the distribution of something by making a copy? Have I *stopped* you distributing your goods? No? Guess that makes you, yet again, incorrect. Surprise.

the right to distribute a thing is in itself property. the courts recognize it as such. that's what copyright is. the exclusive right to distribute content.

Finaly - seriously, deos the little Union Jack by my name not give you ANY clue as to origins? Hint: the UK does not have senators, we have MPs.

And I've already done this. BTW your answer to 4 makes no sense, as the two items (theft and copyright infringement) are different. The fact you dont understand this is mind boggling as it shows such a base lack of knowledge of the real world

I enjoy the fact that almost every person that is anti-piracy from the beginning to the end of this thread is using an Avatar that is not of their own creation. Stop pirating Avatars.


I use Scribd in the same way I'd use a public library. I read the codex, if I still give a crap after reading it, I buy it. I currently own 5 different ones. (High Elves, Dwarves, Space Wolves, Dark Elder 2.0 and DE 5.0) I fail to see borrowing from the interwebs and checking it out from a library as different.

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Oh so your point is that stealing is okay if the other person is rich enough

Don't take it out of context please. I said stealing from the rich is justified if it is to help the poor. The community as a whole benefits a lot from people copying codices and putting them online; it gets more people into the hobby, gives more people access to fluff and background, and makes the entrance price to the hobby not as steep as it would have been. It benefits the community far more than it benefits GW to accrue another £15. So yes, if the person is so rich that they wouldn't notice/care about the loss and that, in turn, brings them MORE revenue (access to fluff/background/army lists will get people motivated to buy the models/paints needed to play the game) I am all for it.

It annoys me how people on the internet all become such evangelical, hurculean enforcers of the law whenever confronted by these issues. On the one hand people berate and attack GW for the price increases and the direction the business is headed, and yet on the other berate and attack the people 'rip off' GW in an attempt to help the community grow and prosper. Where's the consistency people?

L. Wrex

So you're saying the courts charge you with theft if you commit copyright infringement?

Really? That's your argument?

Care to cite any sources for this extraordinary claim? Or will we get the oh so entertaining "zzz" emoticon that simply proves you are incapable of answering?

I believe they charge you with copyright infringement if you commit copyright infringement..... couldn't swear to it though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.
L. Wrex

No doubt. I'm just pointing out that piracy creates problems for other people... and those people are even now trying to figure out how to turn *their* problems into *your* problems. no doubt they will succeed. when the state starts regulating the internet and you actually have to pay for content again, don't be surprised. don't ask whose responsible. you are.

I can't see this happening in my lifetime. So why should I care again? The internet is vast and, to a certain extent, lawless. Trying to regulate it would be a fools errand and I salute the people wasting their time trying.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:@ AbaddonFidelis re: 'Really it's just a matter of regulation. They can should and will do it. '

Why? So everyone has to pay for everything all the time? So the 'man' on the top of his ivory tower can be content that he's getting 100% profits rather than 97%? Let's be honest here, we're not talking about an independant musician who is starting out for the first time (and even in that case they often give out *their own* CDs for free to get some publicity going) we're talking about a massive, multi-national, million-dollar oganisation. If you feel such a strong sense of immorality when 'stealing' from the rich to help the poor, then I think you need to re-organise your priorities.

GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.

L. Wrex

Oh so your point is that stealing is okay if the other person is rich enough

Don't take it out of context please. I said stealing from the rich is justified if it is to help the poor. The community as a whole benefits a lot from people copying codices and putting them online; it gets more people into the hobby, gives more people access to fluff and background, and makes the entrance price to the hobby not as steep as it would have been. It benefits the community far more than it benefits GW to accrue another £15. So yes, if the person is so rich that they wouldn't notice/care about the loss and that, in turn, brings them MORE revenue (access to fluff/background/army lists will get people motivated to buy the models/paints needed to play the game) I am all for it.

It annoys me how people on the internet all become such evangelical, hurculean enforcers of the law whenever confronted by these issues. On the one hand people berate and attack GW for the price increases and the direction the business is headed, and yet on the other berate and attack the people 'rip off' GW in an attempt to help the community grow and prosper. Where's the consistency people?

L. Wrex

if you have enough discretionary income to play this game, you're not poor.

Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
GW is a big boy, and it doesn't care whether you defend it or not, its got a more than healthy repertoire of IP enforcers to do its job for them.
L. Wrex

No doubt. I'm just pointing out that piracy creates problems for other people... and those people are even now trying to figure out how to turn *their* problems into *your* problems. no doubt they will succeed. when the state starts regulating the internet and you actually have to pay for content again, don't be surprised. don't ask whose responsible. you are.

I can't see this happening in my lifetime. So why should I care again? The internet is vast and, to a certain extent, lawless. Trying to regulate it would be a fools errand and I salute the people wasting their time trying.

L. Wrex

It will happen in your lifetime. regulating the internet wouldnt be as hard as you might think. you don't have to control every computer. you just have to control a few key computers. The hub of the internet - key servers and core software - is created and managed by corporations, not lonewolf untraceable hacker types. regulating them is easy. you just write a law.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

I beleive this is the point everyone is missing, I think we can all agree there are no univeral right's and wrong's (morally, if i get anyone saying 1+1=2 i'll slap you )

And no i dont really agree with the Robin Hood analogy

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

well the whole robinhood analogy invites..... errrr.... skepticism


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

I beleive this is the point everyone is missing, I think we can all agree there are no univeral right's and wrong's (morally, if i get anyone saying 1+1=2 i'll slap you )

will not..... take..... bait........... must.... not.... take.......

The Dreadnote wrote:Jesus Christ. I had hoped that this thread would disappear on it's own last night. It's not even fun to read any more.

+1
I'd say it's outlived any usefulness it may have, at one point, had.
It's like a wheel. It just keeps spinning in circles, showing us what we've already seen.

Eric

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

Gibbsey wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Relatively speaking dude, relatively speaking.

L. Wrex

I beleive this is the point everyone is missing, I think we can all agree there are no univeral right's and wrong's (morally, if i get anyone saying 1+1=2 i'll slap you )

will not..... take..... bait........... must.... not.... take.......

Lol, i was expecting something along the lines of "but it does!". My point is when you have a discussion about morals and right and wrong it needs to be relative to something, like the current society most of us live in.

The point is if piracy suddenly became legal alot of companies would suffer and there would be little incentive to develop something if anyone could jsut take it with no compensation, so it must remain illegal at least so that content is still produced. (Open Source is different because its a comunits of people coming together to develop something, even people who add no direct content increase the size of the community/ spread the word so benefit is gained by all (a little off topic but im guessing someone will bring this up))


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also i could bring up a point about if NAMBLA is right or wrong

I dont think anyone here would say they were right, but like i said you need a discussion relative to something

Abaddon - so when you said they DONT recognise the difference between physical property and imaginary property you were lying?

After all if they considered them to be the same thing you would be charged with theft, not copyright infringement.

Or is this yet another way to count how incorrect your argument is?

Gibb

well we should all be able to agree that theft is wrong.......
Its instructive though, really.... all this rationalization... look how flexible peoples ideas of right and wrong get.... when there's $20 dollars at stake. This is why I'm a conservative. Without punishment there is no morality. You can see it right here on this thread. The ideas are just talk. They dont really matter that much. No one's going to hurt you if you go to scribd, so off you go. simple as that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abaddon - so when you said they DONT recognise the difference between physical property and imaginary property you were lying?

After all if they considered them to be the same thing you would be charged with theft, not copyright infringement.

Or is this yet another way to count how incorrect your argument is?

The point i made earlier is that the law does view Intellectual property (program design etc) as physical property for the sake of copy right, also theft does not necissarily have to be a physical item.

so points are:

1. Intellectual property is already treated as physical property for the sake of copyright (why it is possible to steal a design/idea/etc)

2. Theft does not need to be physical property

nosferatu1001 wrote:Abaddon - so when you said they DONT recognise the difference between physical property and imaginary property you were lying?

After all if they considered them to be the same thing you would be charged with theft, not copyright infringement.

Or is this yet another way to count how incorrect your argument is?

Im not a lawyer I dont know what they charge you with. It's illegal. You already know that. Try not to think of it as another instance of how incorrect my argument is. Try instead to think of it as another instance of my incredible, indescribable, overwhelming benevolence, that I continue to explain myself

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Thus proving Steelmages interpretation of "wrong" to be the naive and artificial wrong = illegal = wrong. Steelmages position is also so....poorly constructed it logically results in a stagnant society unable to enact / repeal any laws - as the laws are always "right".

Sure, kid. Whatever.

+1

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It will happen in your lifetime. regulating the internet wouldnt be as hard as you might think. you don't have to control every computer. you just have to control a few key computers. The hub of the internet - key servers and core software - is created and managed by corporations, not lonewolf untraceable hacker types. regulating them is easy. you just write a law.

A law that has to correspond, and be recognised, on a global scale in every country across the entire world, and be enforceble every minute of every hour of ever day. Continents like the US and Europe have trouble enforcing their own out-dated laws, laws which, if you live the US can be vastly different dependant upon what state your in, and they're just going to magically invent an all-encompassing directive that every government in the world is going to be OK with? A law that has to be able to adapt and change on an almost monthly basis to remain relevant and avoid falling into obscurity, when we still hark back to examples of law laid down in the 1900s and proclaim them as relevant today? Yeah. I see that happening. /sarcasm.

L. Wrex

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you're saying the courts charge you with theft if you commit copyright infringement?

They charge you with something.



I feel like I've made this point before. It's almost as though someone isn't reading the thread.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:It will happen in your lifetime. regulating the internet wouldnt be as hard as you might think. you don't have to control every computer. you just have to control a few key computers. The hub of the internet - key servers and core software - is created and managed by corporations, not lonewolf untraceable hacker types. regulating them is easy. you just write a law.

A law that has to correspond, and be recognised, on a global scale in every country across the entire world, and be enforceble every minute of every hour of ever day. Continents like the US and Europe have trouble enforcing their own out-dated laws, laws which, if you live the US can be vastly different dependant upon what state your in, and they're just going to magically invent an all-encompassing directive that every government in the world is going to be OK with? A law that has to be able to adapt and change on an almost monthly basis to remain relevant and avoid falling into obscurity, when we still hark back to examples of law laid down in the 1900s and proclaim them as relevant today? Yeah. I see that happening. /sarcasm.

L. Wrex

Look this already happened. Remember when China told Google and Yahoo to stop allowing searches for topics it doesnt like? They backed down in order to remain competitive. And that was just a request by the Chinese government. They didnt actually try to regulate the software the way the production of car engines and paint thinner is regulated. They didn't have to. But can you imagine how much more effective that control would be if they were sending inspectors into software firms and checking their code to make sure its compliant with government regulations? Anyway you don't have to control the global infrastructure of the internet to dictate terms to software companies. You just have to control a big enough chunk of it that no one can do business globally without doing business with you. How this myth of internet invulnerability to regulation survived that incident with China I have no idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:So you're saying the courts charge you with theft if you commit copyright infringement?

They charge you with something.



I feel like I've made this point before. It's almost as though someone isn't reading the thread.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Dreadnote wrote:Jesus Christ. I had hoped that this thread would disappear on it's own last night. It's not even fun to read any more.

And yet after this post you still write in it, in a way which definitely isn't going to help stop "the flaming". Keep it up!

Mahtamori wrote:Also, is it even illegal making use of products or reproductions which have not been physically stolen? As far as I am aware, only the reproduction or reciprocation of copyrighted material is illegal (i.e. sharing is illegal, but using material without sharing it to others, by whichever means you acquired it, is not illegal as long as the actual product does not belong to someone else - something immaterial property does not do.).

In other words, using scribd isn't illegal, merely morally questionable.

Don't know how laws are in Sweden (got that right?), but most of the world it's definitely illegal.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:And it anyone here is going to turn around and tell me they have *never* borrowed and burned/copied a music CD I'm going to call shennanigans.

I did this. I probably am going to do that in the future. That doesn't change the fact that I did and probaby will do something wrong.
You may wonder, why I am sitting on the side waving the "piracy is wrong" flag and admit to this without shame. But, that is the thing. This is actually making me 'shameful'. I don't 'feel good' when I do this. Most of the time I have done this like someone (da001, I think) mentioned. To try out the product before buying it. If I don't like it - I delete it faster than one day and forget about it.
The thing is that here in Poland at least, it is really sometimes looked down upon people who actually buy something you can ripp off with ease. It's something like:
Some picture

It may be like with, I dont know - let's make some stupid, not equate example: small vandalism while being drunk or speeding or whatever. I don't want to hang or severely punish or mark any of you. But I hate (heavily dislike) it when people say that it's perfectly A-OK, and that actually I am the stupid one when I try to do the "good thing" (imho). Oh, I know! Littering! On small scale - irrelevant, someone else is going to clean this up anyway. My one paper won't change a thing. But if it's perfectly OK - and everybody starts doing this - BAM! whole world in garbage.
There are two ways in which piracy can be minimized. Either by executing and strengthening the laws, or by changing the way people think about it. Poorly executed first one will make internet a grimdark place (pun intended) and I don't really want that.

nosferatu1001 wrote:2. I (generic "I") have not taken anything. A copy is not "taking" something, as the person still *has* the something.

I quote you, but for the greater audience. Not the language thing that interests me here.
OK, person still has the thing, but as I previously stated, and for the time being no one even tried to prove me wrong the person (company) already spent some resources - time, money etc.. to make the product just to earn from selling it. He already "lost" the money (time=money) so that he can get the cash from you later. By getting his product but not giving enything back you are hurting him.

Time for another stupid example. You try to earn some money for your art school - you paint people or some landmark or any other thing at the carnival. Someone approaches your stand and looks at your painting. Maybe you just painted that exact person, or a family, or a bunch of friends. You ask him - "Do you want to buy it?". He replies - no, takes his HD camera, takes the picture your painting and smiles happily. He didn't steal anything from you - he just made a copy. He can go home and print it on your computer. Are you telling me that this is 100% OK?
Maybe this example would be better after replacing the paint part with 'take pictures with your super incredible camera for god knows how money with all the special effects and stuff TM'. Whatever.

I already wrote like the longest piece of crap I have ever made on the internet. I don't know thy I bother so much. But for some reason I do.

The best part of all this is how people are avoiding the most important part of this "piracy = theft" concept.

Using the apple analogy, I'll show why this is wrong.

I buy an apple from you. Inside that apple is a seed. I plant that seed and make copies of apples. Then I give copied apples away.

I buy an apple from you, and give it to a friend to eat.

I buy a book from you. I use my own scanning equipment to scan the pages and make copies of it. I then give the copied books away.

I buy a book from you, and give it to a friend to read.

See how piracy can't possibly be stealing? Without contractual obligation agreed to at time of purchase, the original owner has no authority, legal or moral, on what I do with the piece of property I just purchased. Get that? I bought it, now I can do whatever I want with it.

Its why Microsoft can't sue you for modding your Xbox.

This is why making copies of a book and giving them away are not stealing.

In comes copyright laws. In order to allow intellectual creations to earn more money and thus be encouraged, protection was given by many lawmakers against copying books other than for personal use. Yes that's right, you can make copies of copyright material you own for your own personal use. The only reason copyright exists is to encourage intellectual creations. Its an artificial incentive not inherent in the free market.

You can't possibly claim that copying a purchased book and giving the copies away is stealing, because you are copying your own property. The physical book you bought is yours. It's only the ideas contained within that copyright addresses.

Dracos wrote:The best part of all this is how people are avoiding the most important part of this "piracy = theft" concept.

Using the apple analogy, I'll show why this is wrong.

I buy an apple from you. Inside that apple is a seed. I plant that seed and make copies of apples. Then I give copied apples away.

I buy an apple from you, and give it to a friend to eat.

I buy a book from you. I use my own scanning equipment to scan the pages and make copies of it. I then give the copied books away.

I buy a book from you, and give it to a friend to read.

See how piracy can't possibly be stealing? Without contractual obligation agreed to at time of purchase, the original owner has no authority, legal or moral, on what I do with the piece of property I just purchased. Get that? I bought it, now I can do whatever I want with it.

Its why Microsoft can't sue you for modding your Xbox.

This is why making copies of a book and giving them away are not stealing.

In comes copyright laws. In order to allow intellectual creations to earn more money and thus be encouraged, protection was given by many lawmakers against copying books other than for personal use. Yes that's right, you can make copies of copyright material you own for your own personal use. The only reason copyright exists is to encourage intellectual creations. Its an artificial incentive not inherent in the free market.

You can't possibly claim that copying a purchased book and giving the copies away is stealing, because you are copying your own property. The physical book you bought is yours. It's only the ideas contained within that copyright addresses.

1.Apart from the apple in this case would not be the subject of the copyright.

2.True you can copy for you own use or modify

3. The entire point is Intellectual property is what is being discussed not the book itself