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.

Cantus wrote:
Alright, for you or anyone else, here are a series of hypotheticals.
Why are these ok? Or are they ok?
-Scratch building GW models
-Downloading a copy of the newest codex from the internet
-Looking over my friend's shoulder to read his codex
-Leafing through a codex in the store and not buying it
-Scribbling down the stats of a model you always forget the rules for and using those instead
-My friend scans his copy of a codex he just bought and gives me the files
-My friend burns me a mix cd (not strictly 40k related, but i'd argue it's still relevant)

1. You have been given permission this is acceptable use of their IP.
2. It is still stealing, its the same as taking a copy from the local store to check if you'll like it before you return to buy one. You'll have two copies at the end only one is obtained legally.
3. You are looking at the codex, not removing it from the possession of someone else without the owner's permission, the most basic definition of stealing.
4. Same as three. It's a good idea to ensure that you feel that a product is in fact worth the money, otherwise you could consider them the thieves.
5. Depends, if you're doing it while looking at a store copy its bad form. If you're adding it to an army list then I guess it's alright.
6. It's basically the same as downloading it, in fact it is because that's how the electronic copies start. You didn't pay for it therefore you stole it from the company.
7. Depends, if the artist is alright they'll generally have free songs which are ok to distribute unless they ask you not to. If they're from an album that requires you to buy it then it is not alright as you haven taken it without the permission of the author.

The difference in all of these is basically whether you have the permission of the relevant person or not.

As for the piracy != stealing arguments. Sometimes that is true, most of the time however the opposite is true. I'm not going to be one of those ones that comes in here with their nose up on a moral high horse telling you you're fooling only yourself. But don't delude yourself entirely into believing that it is not just a new form of stealing enabled by the internet in most cases.

These threads alway show up and spiral down into a petty squabble before a mod arrives to declare that it doesn't matter what it is and that it's wrong as they lock the thread.

Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.

Stealing is a CRIMINAL offense.

Copyright laws are civil matters.

Dracos wrote:Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.

Stealing is a CRIMINAL offense.

Copyright laws are civil matters.

I've seen people be this wrong before.

But not often.

Dracos wrote:Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.

Proof that the internet has entirely desensitized people. Are you arguing the principle or are you arguing morally?

You are correct, I lumped some things in together that I should not have when I said that Copyright Infringement is a civil matter.

Distribution of copyright material for profit can be a criminal offense.

Also its worth noting that the FBI is only relevant in the U.S. Each country has their own law systems, so quoting your own law system and stating that to be the one, universal truth is misleading and incorrect.

However, as far as I am aware being in possession of copyright material that you do not own is not a criminal offense. At least not in this country.

And so you are right, I just looked it up and turns out law doesn't actually consider it to be theft. That's kind of odd I guess.

Always thought it was stealing because it is so similar and got the name piracy.

Because theft has result in the 'loss' of something - profit you never actually had can't be 'lost'? Or something like that

phyrephly wrote:

Dracos wrote:Piracy is NEVER stealing. At worst it is an infringement on copyright laws.

Proof that the internet has entirely desensitized people. Are you arguing the principle or are you arguing morally?

Interestingly enough, in person I am an extremely sympathetic person. In many ways not desensitized at all.

I think you meant that you wanted me to distinguish between whether I'm arguing by law or morality (principle and morally seem mostly synonymous in this context).

Legally, in many countries owning copies of copyright material is a breach of copyright laws. There is no getting around that, the law is the law.

But then we get into the nuances of law. Smoking pot is illegal in Canada, but there are sooooo many people I know that do (not everyone obviously, but many) that it is largely ignored. What is targeted? The people making money from the illegal activity.

The problem is that when a large segment of a population ignores a law it becomes impossible to enforce, and therefore the law loses its power(illegitimate would be the political science friendly term). So while it is illegal, its not an enforceable offense. That is why people get away with it.

In terms of morality, I'm a socialist. I don't see the Warhammer game as being the product of the company that manufacturers it, but rather a product of the society that created the basis for that company to manufacturer it. We've seen it posted a million times - Warhammer is based off XYZ previous creation. Molding and sculpting processes were based off XYZ predecessor.

To put it plainly, the fact that every piece of work is derived from the basis of the gifts bestowed on the individual by society necessarily makes the intellectual property communal.

Our capitalist societies are not in line with my own personal views, so I can understand if people disagree with me.

All this sounds like is someone who's never created something to live off of the profits, really.

Fair enough, I have not.

However, surely a learned person such as yourself is aware that the fact that I have not made something to live off the profits from in no way invalidates my arguments, right? Doesn't civil debate focus on the argument and not go to ad hominem?

Dracos wrote:Fair enough, I have not.

However, surely a learned person such as yourself is aware that the fact that I have not made something to live off the profits from in no way invalidates my arguments, right? Doesn't civil debate focus on the argument and not go to ad hominem?

What's ad hominem about it, exactly? I don't know if it invalidates your arguments, but to me it casts serious aspersions on your reasons for making them.

I think you would find that a little real-life experience in this field would be eye opening. You don't care because the loss of revenue doesn't affect you. If it did, you might think differently.

You offered no logical counter, but seemed to imply that my argument was invalid based off some characteristic of my person (that characteristic being that I have not profited from a creation). That makes it ad hominem. Instead of attacking my arguments, you attacked me.

I'll be the first to say that my bias is certainly in the direction of communal possession. I would expect anyone who owns copyrights (or whose income is directly derived from the perpetuating of present copyright laws) to argue to their bias - that copyright is necessary. Everyone has a bias, and I'm not trying to hide mine. Then again, I'm also not making ad hominem attacks.

edit: If I did have personal investment in this, I'd hope that I would have the integrity to stick to the same ideals I hold presently. Its pretty easy to take the side of an argument in which you have personal investment. Harder is to look at it objectively for merit of all sides.

It is akin to stealing, but not stealing at the same time.
Basically this whole argument is RAW vs RAI again.
RAW piracy != stealing.
RAI they seem to be the same thing.

Clough, Jonathan (2010). Principles of Cybercrime. Cambridge University Press. pp. 221. ISBN 9780521728126. wrote:In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner without authorization.

Dowling v. United States (1985), 473 U.S. 207, pp. 217–218 wrote: In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright owner by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright owner wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights owned.

This whole argument has just been a pointless battle over semantics. It's wrong it takes away profits from those who deserve it for their hard work. Let the courts worry about RAW vs RAI. Let this pointless argument go and move on with the topic itself.

Pointing out that have have little idea what you're talking about isn't an attack, Dracos.

edit: @ not_u

Again, "takes away profits" is debatable, others have covered why that is. That is why it is not stealing. Most definitions of stealing involve depriving the owner of use of the property. The actions described by "piracy" in no way deprive the owner of the use of the property. That is why they had to make copyright laws in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:Pointing out that have have little idea what you're talking about isn't an attack, Dracos.

Really?

First off, you have no idea how much education I have. Your ability to discern how much of an "idea" I have of what I'm talking about is certainly questionable at best.

Attack is a perfectly accurate word to describe what you did. Now I'm not saying its an unwarranted vulgar personal attack or anything, but attack is still a valid description.

Circular argument about semantics is boring.

Also, the fact that obtaining a codex for free from an illegal source denies GW money actually isn't debatable, regardless of what the economic scholars that posted earlier might have said.

Monster Rain wrote:Also, the fact that obtaining a codex for free from an illegal source denies GW money actually isn't debatable, regardless of what the economic scholars that posted earlier might have said.

So if I am not going to buy a book, and someone gives me a pdf of that book, I have denied to vendor of that book money? You're obviously the one here who has no idea of what you're talking about.

If you never inteded to buy the book, it doesn't change the fact that if you USE it it is wrong. If you never inteded to buy it, you inteded to gain a copy by shady means.

Do you own all the codecis for the armies you play?

Yes I own all the codices of the armies I play.

edit: So I can't look at my friends codex either?

Dracos wrote:Yes I own all the codices of the armies I play.

edit: So I can't look at my friends codex either?

I never said you can't look at your friends codex, i said that if you never inteded to buy it and intended to USE it and got a copy by shady means it's wrong. If you use your friends codex, he isn't using it you are so it's ok. If you both play the same army and you share a codex you start bordering the shady.

You really argue vehemently for someone that is on the right side of this argument. Maybe you just like arguing for the sake of arguing?

I deserve to own digital copies of the books I own. I spend more time around computers than my books.

Until GW gives me a better way of doing that, I feel like my hands are tied.

What you call arguing I call debating

And yes I do enjoy debating.

DarknessEternal wrote:I deserve to own digital copies of the books I own. I spend more time around computers than my books.

Until GW gives me a better way of doing that, I feel like my hands are tied.

Again, no-one said owning a pdf is wrong, I have admitted to having all of the GW codecis in PDF. But not owning the original is the problem.

@Dracos

Do you believe your point of view or is this debating for the sake of debating?

Well, as far as i could tell, the OP was saying that anyone who uses scribe is a terrible person and should be ashamed. Are we not allowed to both own the codex legit and use scribe? I know i'd rather just bring up scribe or whatever with my Codex than go searching for my solid codex. I paid for my hard-copy, but sometimes it's just more convenient to have a digital copy as well.

Mattieau wrote:Well, as far as i could tell, the OP was saying that anyone who uses scribe is a terrible person and should be ashamed. Are we not allowed to both own the codex legit and use scribe? I know i'd rather just bring up scribe or whatever with my Codex than go searching for my solid codex. I paid for my hard-copy, but sometimes it's just more convenient to have a digital copy as well.

I would agree with this a lot. Its also similar to having several music album's on cd but keeping mp3 copies of them on a computer and use them instead so you can preserve your disks. Plus the convenience is nice.

So we have been shown that Piracy (in the modern sense of the word) isn't stealing.

We have also been shown that Piracy is illegal.

Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong*?




*Some illegal actions can be made legal through various circumstances, such a self-defense. The previously illegal action is now made legal thus no illegal action have been made.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong*?




*Some illegal actions can be made legal through various circumstances, such a self-defense. The previously illegal action is now made legal thus no illegal action have been made.

It depends on how well thought out the law is. Copyright laws are archaic by modern standards and media and need to be rethought out in my opinion.

GalacticDefender wrote:So, when it comes to forge world piracy, I say this: ARR MATEY! (There is no way I would consider buying a $70 book that is pretty much the same as a codex.)

Forge World is the one who is stealing lol!

GW I respect though. Sure, their prices might be sorta high too, but they have a great product. I would never consider pirating from them.

So, IA books are too expensive and that makes it okay to pirate them?

If you don't want to buy them you could just, I don't know, not read them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dracos wrote:You offered no logical counter, but seemed to imply that my argument was invalid based off some characteristic of my person (that characteristic being that I have not profited from a creation). That makes it ad hominem. Instead of attacking my arguments, you attacked me.

The point he was making was that once you have someone taking something that you have created and are making your living from you will likely feel very different about the subject.

I do have one disagreement with the OP;

Sanguinis wrote:Is GW's prices a little crazy. YES! No doubt about it.

I actually think that Games Workshop prices are pretty average in todays market, always have done.

But I totally agree that players should not be using copyrighted material. Scratch-built models are fine, provided you don't sell them using the GW brand, as are using other figure line as this is not illegal (you just might not meet official tournament requirements). But copying the Codex or rulebook? No.

Steelmage99 wrote:Do anybody disagree with the notion that doing something illegal is wrong?

I do. It's illegal for me to smoke weed, and I don't think that's "wrong". It's illegal for me to download films, music, and codices, and I don't think that's "wrong" either. If I wanted to watch Inception for free, all I'd have to do is go watch a friend's DVD at their house. If I wanted to see what the stats for a Harlequin Shadowseer are, all I'd have to do is go and read a friend's codex. I listen to music for free all the time, on the radio, in clubs, etc.

At the end of the day, people who want to pay for a product will pay for it and those who don't will not. There are plenty of legal means to see/hear/read things for free, and the only difference is that the illegal methods are more convenient. I don't believe that makes them "wrong" or "immoral" - and to those that would say "well they are", I don't believe in absolute morality either.

yourargumentisinvalid.jpg