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.

 Talys wrote:
@Aki - yes, you're right, for most scientists. But most football players don't make it big either. I guess I'm just saying that star innovators have and should have opportunities no less than star athletes, and for that to happen, IP laws are necessary.

It is not most, it is all scientists. The people who are pushing your medicine and tech to the next levels and bringing you truly new innovations do not get paid for it, because companies/colleges do not allow them to own their own research. There is no bargaining, because you have no leverage.
I have a grant right now that brings in 22 million a year. My college gets 40% of that (this is actually quite low). The rest goes to the research and publishing various articles. If I fail to spend any of it, the college takes it. I don't get to keep it.

1.2% of all college football players make it to professional. I'd be curious to see how many science majors become scientists, considering I have nearly 2000 students every year and we have less then 30 doctoral students on campus....I'm sure the number isn't much better. Being a scientist isn't what I would call easy.
If you become a scientist, you have years of chasing grants and not finding steady employment anywhere until you have a vast amount of research behind you, no matter your connections (so at least its fair...I guess). After that, you still don't make a lot considering the work invested.
If you become a football player, you get a signing bonus that staggers the mind and a yearly check that seems high for someone playing a game. Maybe that's me.

 Talys wrote:

By the way, I was talking in generalities about estate tax, not the USA specifically. All I'm saying is that the really rich have access to means of legally avoiding paying estate taxes, and generally pay a very low marginal tax rate anyhow (though they contribute a proportionately really high amount of tax revenue for the country).

Considering us and the aussies are the only people with estate taxes...
Unless you mean an inheritance tax? That's quite different, and can be gotten around by anyone unless they die suddenly (it targets trusts too).

I can't comment on your later statement unless I know specifically what country you are talking about.


For the record, I fundamentally have an issue with anyone getting a leg up on life over someone else because they were born to the right family. It isn't something you earned, and I deal with their kids who want to be doctors constantly. I just had a student bring his parents in because he is failing my class, and they threatened to sue over it. The students with lower incomes tend to do a bit better, but it's the middle class kids who really shine.


Back to the original topic...
Still fine with recasts!

@aki - yes, sorry, inheritance taxes.

I don't have a problem with people who feel offspring shouldn't get a leg up on life, as long as they don't feel a need to legislate it. This is a personal choice -- who, where, and when I want to give my money to should be entirely my business.

About them recasts -- I stated my opinion like 10 pages ago that I could care less if someone uses recasts in games with me, and I don't care of someone buys recasts pr downloads music.

But both are illegal (the original topic) and certainly don't benefit the original artist in any way, so in that sense are immoral. I have also said that I, personally, am NOT a particularly moral person, but I wont break any laws. In D&D parlance, Lawful Neutral, rather tha. Chaotic Good . Maybe a little bit Good, but don't tell too many people.

I make no judgment on other peoples sense of right or wrong but will call it out if someone is trying to justify or rationalize an unlawful activity. Even if a recaster site is beneficial to you and even if you believe it should be allowed, the recaster is breaking the law. Just have a pair and own it, rather tha rationalize it.

 Talys wrote:
@aki - yes, sorry, inheritance taxes.

I don't have a problem with people who feel offspring shouldn't get a leg up on life, as long as they don't feel a need to legislate it. This is a personal choice -- who, where, and when I want to give my money to should be entirely my business.

I can't legislate, I don't have the family background to get something like that done. If I could, I would. I realize that this will never happen, ever.
Who you give your money too is entirely everyone's business. What if you give to terrorist organizations?

 Talys wrote:

About them recasts -- I stated my opinion like 10 pages ago that I could care less if someone uses recasts in games with me, and I don't care of someone buys recasts pr downloads music.

But both are illegal (the original topic) and certainly don't benefit the original artist in any way, so in that sense are immoral. I have also said that I, personally, am NOT a particularly moral person, but I wont break any laws. In D&D parlance, Lawful Neutral, rather tha. Chaotic Good . Maybe a little bit Good, but don't tell too many people.

Recasts are illegal to create, not to buy. Even though they are technically illegal to create, I'd bet you have a hard time showing damages (liability would be easy though). It's why there is a secondary market in the US that is going strong. In Europe, the secondary market is legal in most countries for most things, unless IP is involved.
Even your medicine comes from a secondary market.

 Talys wrote:

I make no judgment on other peoples sense of right or wrong but will call it out if someone is trying to justify or rationalize an unlawful activity. Even if a recaster site is beneficial to you and even if you believe it should be allowed, the recaster is breaking the law. Just have a pair and own it, rather tha rationalize it.

Helping slaves escape used to be an unlawful activity.
I rationalize that I think this law is wrong, and was put into place to help big land owners keep others, who can't afford slaves, out of a profitable business. Also, human rights violations are a thing too.
Please call me out on justifying it.

Funding terrorism is a crime. That's a silly comparison to giving your son startup capital for his company, whether that's a robotics pioneer or hobby shop.

The problem with doing it all yourself is that it takes quite a while to build up capital to do a lot of worthwhile endeavors. Some empires are hard to build in one generation.

Likewise, slavery and human rights violations are a terrible comparison to recasting and copyright. Aside from comparing toy soldiers and luxury entertainment to crimes against humanity, 100% of nations of the modern civilized world has agreed to the current copyright laws.

 Talys wrote:
Funding terrorism is a crime. That's a silly comparison to giving your son startup capital for his company, whether that's a robotics pioneer or hobby shop.

The problem with doing it all yourself is that it takes quite a while to build up capital to do a lot of worthwhile endeavors. Some empires are hard to build in one generation.

Likewise, slavery and human rights violations are a terrible comparison to recasting and copyright. Aside from comparing toy soldiers and luxury entertainment to crimes against humanity, 100% of nations of the modern civilized world has agreed to the current copyright laws.

You just said that it's only your business where your money goes to. I came up with an example that this is not the cause.
So it's okay where you spend your money as long its legal? That's fine, but say what you mean.

As to your second line, right, this is true. Children of rich parents have a huge advantage in this regard that people from lower incomes can not match. You can argue if this is right or not, I believe everyone should be treated as equal, so I am not a fan of this.

As to your third line, why is it a terrible comparison?
You claimed you wouldn't break any laws, but when a situation such as human rights violations comes into play (and such violations are the law), you are willing to break them? It isn't 100% of nations (though it might as well be) and nations have a variety of levels when it comes to enforcement. Believe it or not, nations will sign things because America tells them to.
See Palestine for why this is a thing.

If you were Lawful neutral in D&D, and this situation came into play, your character would return the slaves. If he didn't he'd fall to true neutral, perhaps neutral good.
For the record, I play Lawful Evil characters. Being good is easy.

My point is this;
Your morals aren't any better then any others. You have the law on your side, because you currently benefit from it and have an active interest in keeping it in place, any other reasons be damned. Everyone has their own lines in the sand that they are and aren't willing to cross over a variety of topics.
I'm fine with artists and athletes not being top earners in a society. They don't contribute as much as others, IMO

@Aki --

You can assume that I don't break the law, because I've said that... over.. and over.. and over.

The world isn't fair. Some people are born rich, other talented, some beautiful, and some talents and gifts beyond measure; others aren't. Having money is just one factor; it doesn't help if you happen to have childhood leukemia, too. World we live in. The only world in which people all start out from the same point (financial or otherwise) is in fiction. It's just never existed in the real world, and I don't think most people can imagine such a change in societal norms.

I have a slight tendency towards good (practically, more than slight, but I don't want to admit it), though I self-identify with Lawful Neutral The reason: I am extremely rational, and practical to a fault. I am more rational and practical than I am good or evil, in my opinion. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. All that. But practically, I give away vast amounts of wealth to good causes (and none to bad ones!), I make many sacrifices that would characterize poorly with evil, and I try to do all the little things to leave this a planet a better place when I depart than when I arrived (despite believing that there is no afterlife, eternal soul, eternal reward for goodness, eternal punishment for evil, or anything like that). In AD&D, I play everything from LG to CE. My favorite is Chaotic Neutral. RAWR!

I never said that my morals were better than others -- never even once. I have repeatedly said that people should own up to what they do, that's all, rather than try to give some half-assed justification to breaking the law, like GW products being too expensive, or that they wouldn't buy the products anyhow because they don't have enough money to do so. That's not having the courage of your convictions at all.

Artists and athletes don't contribute scientifically to society, but they do give entertainment and happiness, and frankly, I would happily trade wealth for happiness any day. I guess that's why I buy overpriced GW product and paint miniatures and blow my time playing 40k like a kid

 Talys wrote:
@Aki --

You can assume that I don't break the law, because I've said that... over.. and over.. and over.

You've never turned a blind eye to tax evasion in exchange to a little refund on some models?

 Talys wrote:

The world isn't fair. Some people are born rich, other talented, some beautiful, and some talents and gifts beyond measure; others aren't. Having money is just one factor; it doesn't help if you happen to have childhood leukemia, too. World we live in. The only world in which people all start out from the same point (financial or otherwise) is in fiction. It's just never existed in the real world, and I don't think most people can imagine such a change in societal norms.

True, but just because something hasn't existed before doesn't make it something not worth striving for.

 Talys wrote:

I have a slight tendency towards good (practically, more than slight, but I don't want to admit it), though I self-identify with Lawful Neutral The reason: I am extremely rational, and practical to a fault. I am more rational and practical than I am good or evil, in my opinion. The good of the many outweigh the good of the few. All that. But practically, I give away vast amounts of wealth to good causes (and none to bad ones!), I make many sacrifices that would characterize poorly with evil, and I try to do all the little things to leave this a planet a better place when I depart than when I arrived (despite believing that there is no afterlife, eternal soul, eternal reward for goodness, eternal punishment for evil, or anything like that). In AD&D, I play everything from LG to CE. My favorite is Chaotic Neutral. RAWR!

What is a bad cause? Many charities squander their wealth, especially some of the larger ones.

I have gone over to areas suffering from natural disasters to hand out medical supplies directly to the relief workers. I organized this within my company, and the costs saved is in the millions.
I provide educational material such as books to Title 1 schools for cost of publication (which is pennies, no matter what GW claims).
Does this make my work more important than yours? Or me a better person? I don't think so. I too don't believe in any after life.

I do not find you to be overly rational. Practical perhaps, but rational?

I don't think you understand what a Lawful Neutral person is supposed to believe as laid out (though this is subjective).

A lawful good person believes that the law is a force of good and can help people. A lawful good person would free those slaves legally, or attempt to change the government. He may try to get them more rights, but he would return them.
A lawful neutral person would return them. The law is the law after all.
A lawful evil person would attempt to somehow gain ownership of the slaves themselves.

 Talys wrote:

I never said that my morals were better than others -- never even once. I have repeatedly said that people should own up to what they do, that's all, rather than try to give some half-assed justification to breaking the law, like GW products being too expensive, or that they wouldn't buy the products anyhow because they don't have enough money to do so. That's not having the courage of your convictions at all.

This could be my fault. After reading 16 pages I may have paired your posts with...others. So, true enough.
People don't need to justify breaking the law unless they are caught. The law is a set of rules enforced on you by threat of force. And, to be fair, they aren't breaking the law in America by buying them, only by selling.
Sometimes having the courage of your convictions means breaking the law. I would argue that, historically, it is easier to find examples of this being the case rather then the opposite, though this could be my national bias showing.

 Talys wrote:

Artists and athletes don't contribute scientifically to society, but they do give entertainment and happiness, and frankly, I would happily trade wealth for happiness any day. I guess that's why I buy overpriced GW product and paint miniatures and blow my time playing 40k like a kid

Wealth and happiness aren't mutually exclusive terms. However, it is hard to be unhappy while on a jetski on a private beach surrounded by beautiful ladies. It is easy to be unhappy when your decision this month is to attend your father's funeral or pay the rent.
I would not trade scientific progress for a pretty painting or graphic. I would not trade medicine for watching a football game. They could make a fraction of what they make now, and people would line up to do it for miles.

Well, I don't buy much anymore thanks to a friend getting that printer, but I have played nearly every edition of Warhammer 40k and Fantasy. I play all the specialist games except bloodbowl (I like the computer game for that).
I play WMH, WoD, DnD, and pretty much nearly any nerdy hobby you can think of. I love those games, they are excellent. If you haven't played a specialist game, give it a shot! I think you'd love it

That being said, if I don't like the way GW is going as a company, and I want to buy somewhere they won't get the money, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't pirate most games because I like most gaming companies. I pirate EA games though, because they are a trash company.

Akiasura wrote:
You've never turned a blind eye to tax evasion in exchange to a little refund on some models?

I obey the letter of the law, not necessarily the spirit. Remitting sales tax is the burden of the seller. What they choose to do is not my problem.

Likewise, I've never suggested that buying a recast is illegal (except in some countries like France). But selling one is. So is not remitting sales tax.

I've stated the reasons that I don't buy recasts: it's not because it would be illegal to do so; it's because I want to reward GW/FW designers for making stuff I like, because I like my local store and want to support my local economy; and because frankly, the price difference is usually tiny.

But c'mon, supporting a terrorist organization is a whole other level of crazy. Yes, if anyone thinks that is ok, I will be fully judgy and say they are evil or nuts or both.

Akiasura wrote:

True, but just because something hasn't existed before doesn't make it something not worth striving for.

Indeed. But equality at birth is not worth striving for. Not only does a lot of the world disagree with you, but it's impracticable even for the financial aspect; and impossible from a genetic one, unless we're all clones. There are pursuits to strive for and causes to champion which might bear fruit.

Akiasura wrote:

What is a bad cause? Many charities squander their wealth, especially some of the larger ones.

Example of a bad cause: donating time or money to a group that refutes climate change or encourages fracking.
Example of good cause: spending a Sunday cooking for the homeless people. Buying some stuff like a hundred pound side of ham for the event.

While the world is full of grey, I think most reasonable people know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

Akiasura wrote:

I have gone over to areas suffering from natural disasters to hand out medical supplies directly to the relief workers. I organized this within my company, and the costs saved is in the millions.
I provide educational material such as books to Title 1 schools for cost of publication (which is pennies, no matter what GW claims).
Does this make my work more important than yours? Or me a better person? I don't think so. I too don't believe in any after life.

That's great. I think you leave the world a better place, so that makes you a better person (than the version of you if you hadn't)

Akiasura wrote:

I do not find you to be overly rational. Practical perhaps, but rational?

I believe any rational person would want to incentivize invention and creativity to the maximum extent possible. I don't believe it serves the public interest to erode intellectual property rights. You believe the opposite. That's ok; as intelligent people, we can disagree.

Akiasura wrote:

I don't think you understand what a Lawful Neutral person is supposed to believe as laid out (though this is subjective).
A lawful good person believes that the law is a force of good and can help people. A lawful good person would free those slaves legally, or attempt to change the government. He may try to get them more rights, but he would return them.
A lawful neutral person would return them. The law is the law after all.
A lawful evil person would attempt to somehow gain ownership of the slaves themselves.

I have no idea what I would do in your hypothetical of modern-day me coming across someone's slaves in a world where slavery is the law, because I've never lived in a place where slavery is the law. Or met an abused slave. Or met a slave of any other type.

I imagine that if I lived two thousand years ago in Rome as a slave-owning citizen, I would not champion the cause of the slaves or start a slave revolution. After all, in Rome, slavery was neither evil nor unlawful; it was a way of life. But who knows? That's an unanswerable question.

Akiasura wrote:

Sometimes having the courage of your convictions means breaking the law. I would argue that, historically, it is easier to find examples of this being the case rather then the opposite, though this could be my national bias showing.

I agree! My point is, if you're going to do that, be proud of it and own it. Don't weasel your way out of it.

I applaud activists who try to champion environmental protection in contravention to the law. I wouldn't do it, but I am happy that they do. I'm not saying that other people shouldn't break the law, just that my tendency is to obey it.

Akiasura wrote:

Wealth and happiness aren't mutually exclusive terms. However, it is hard to be unhappy while on a jetski on a private beach surrounded by beautiful ladies. It is easy to be unhappy when your decision this month is to attend your father's funeral or pay the rent.
I would not trade scientific progress for a pretty painting or graphic. I would not trade medicine for watching a football game. They could make a fraction of what they make now, and people would line up to do it for miles.

I am a true nerd at heart. I would rather be with my miniatures and buddies playing 40k than being on a private beach surrounded by beautiful ladies. No joke, no exaggeration. Although I lucked out, and married a phenomenally beautiful woman who I love more than anything in the world, who makes me very happy, and puts up with my wonky nerdiness. Like, taking 2 giant suitcases full of painting materials and models, and 1,600 watts of lighting on a 1 week vacation to a cabin. Which is ok, because I put up with 2 giant suitcases filled with hair products, blowdryers, and makeup.

I would not trade scientific progress for art. But the nice thing about the world we live in is that I don't have to. We can have our art and eat it too! Artists and athletes get paid what the market will pay them, which I think is as it should be. I don't believe in artificially capping their income in hopes that people will donate money to the betterment of mankind (because they wouldn't... they'd just spend it somewhere else. We're really just like Dark Eldar, that way). Hmmm.. I wonder if there are hedonistic Dark Eldar nerds that take exquisite pleasure at... painting models.

Akiasura wrote:
Well, I don't buy much anymore thanks to a friend getting that printer, but I have played nearly every edition of Warhammer 40k and Fantasy. I play all the specialist games except bloodbowl (I like the computer game for that).
I play WMH, WoD, DnD, and pretty much nearly any nerdy hobby you can think of. I love those games, they are excellent. If you haven't played a specialist game, give it a shot! I think you'd love it

That being said, if I don't like the way GW is going as a company, and I want to buy somewhere they won't get the money, I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't pirate most games because I like most gaming companies. I pirate EA games though, because they are a trash company.

I love BloodBowl I cannot fathom why they don't sell it anymore. And Talisman! Favorite game of all time. I have a better solution for EA games... I play almost none

I am not going to quote everything, because quite frankly it is getting quite long. I will just address everything in points.

1) The price differences are tiny for you, because you get a nice discount already. Most people do not.

2) Many people are very unhappy with GW's prices. I buy my board games, food when I play, and WMH minis from my local store because I do support my local stores. Although they have a terrible business model.

3) Complete equality at birth isn't worth striving for since genetic manipulation would be a thing (although I may live to see it), but equality in education and chances are. At least so I believe. How the world feels doesn't matter to me.

4) People often don't know the difference between good and evil, right or wrong. If you give money to the Church of Scientology, for example, you may think you are sponsoring a new religion that is helping people. In other countries, you would be thrown in jail for supporting a terrorist organization. It's not always so black and white, and there are few issues you couldn't turn into a matter of gray.
Bad causes include things like the Red Cross, which donates very little of it's money to people who need it.

5) Fair enough. I don't think IP does what it is intended to do currently.

6) I should have been more clear, I meant that example in a D&D setting. But the point still stands, your morality is subject to the world around you and what the culture defines it. It's not a native thing to anyone.

7) I think everyone's tendency is to behave most laws. Speeding, coming to a full stop at a stop sign, and other things get ignored.

8) You are a lucky man.
I picked my example as an extreme obviously. But even your idea of a good time is more then poor people can afford. Obviously you are an adult (or a gifted child? No idea) so you've earned it for yourself.
And we are trading science for art in a way, at least in the US. We have to import most of our scientists and engineers nowadays, and the art/english programs are one of the reasons the student debt bubble is about to burst. There are a variety of reasons (fame of art/writers/actors, scientist being a gakky job to have) but it is a very real problem here. My grant involves changing this, and the government is happy to throw money at anyone who can fix it.

9) I'm happy they don't support the specialist games. It makes conversions easier to sell (Gorka Morka is conversion heaven) to players, and GW isn't fudging up the rules. It's also very cheap to get going if you allow non-gw minis

I'm fine with most of your points, Akiasura.

1. That's why I posted a thread on how to get a better discount. I'd be surprised if there were a major city you couldn't consistently get 20% at.

2. I agree. GW models are expensive. Way more expensive than they used to be 10, 15, 20 years ago. But you know, WMH models are way more expensive as a modelling hobby. Yeah, there are other companies that are a better example of cheaper models that are a reasonable quality. But usually there's just something not quite there. No magic sauce for me.

I would not recommend 40k as a hobby for anyone without surplus disposable income.

3. Education for sure. I wish anyone who wanted to study SCIENCES or practical discipline (read below for why) could be educated through college at the expense of the state, so long as they maintained a decent academic record.

4. OMG. We can totally agree on Red Cross. I've had a horrible experience with them.

5-7. Okay!

8. I would most certainly characterize my life as fortunate in circumstance. However, I've worked pretty crazy hard too: top of my class from high school right through college, skipped 2 years of school, worked 100+ hour weeks for years with no vacations of any sort. I'm a little older now, so I am less ambitious, have more time for stuff like these forums, and more time for 40k and hobby!!!

I will happily concede this to you: I would prefer if sciences (sciences, mathematics, engineering, medicine, etc.) were publicly funded and fine arts were NOT, with a judgment call on some of the other arts (History, for example is of value; but who decides this?). It's not that I don't value art at all. I'm just not sure a university degree makes any sense. Just like religious studies...

My principle reason for this isn't because I hate arts. I love the arts. I just don't think that great artists necessarily study it in school; and most students who graduate from a variety of arts programs can't find employment post-education, or are employed in something where their (publically assisted) education is meaningless. Someone who has a degree in literature who ends up being an area manager for Coca Cola, for example.

9. I'm ok either way, I guess. It just puzzles me, is all.

But c'mon, supporting a terrorist organization is a whole other level of crazy. Yes, if anyone thinks that is ok, I will be fully judgy and say they are evil or nuts or both.

The thing is something you call a terrorist ogranization is freedom fighter to someone else. And not evil for them at all. They are in fact good in fact. There is a ton of countries, where going back home with tech or knowladge how something is done and coping it at home was viewed as not only good, but also patriotic. To a point where taking such actions was even co funded by goverments.

And on that note, I think this one had gone back over the same ground, and wandered far enough afield, that it's probably time to give it a rest.