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:
So it can't be made your problem, if you were brought to civil court?

It depends on what is seen as "fair use". If I use them myself, no issue. Let's be realistic, no one will ask for any proof based on a photocopy of a page or two.

In English law I as claimant would assert you did not make the copy from an original, you have to get prove on the balance of probabilities that you did. While you could do that by asserting you did (a witness statement being evidence) it then requires the court to determine your veracity as a witness.

In what context would that come up when we discuss fair use here?

nekooni wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So it can't be made your problem, if you were brought to civil court?

In English law I as claimant would assert you did not make the copy from an original, you have to get prove on the balance of probabilities that you did. While you could do that by asserting you did (a witness statement being evidence) it then requires the court to determine your veracity as a witness.

Is there actually a difference between "making a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original" and "making a copy of the original"? If yes, why?

And what happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'?

1) civil law is balance of probabilities, for a start
2) civil law does not do guilt or innocence anyway, and
3) simply saying "I didn't do it" does count as evidence, it's just not necessarily the best. Courts are allowed to decide how much to believe your witness.

These arguments are all ridiculous to me as an American Law student. Yes pirate codexes is technically against copy right but is game workshop every going to go after an individual player. No, not worth it. As for playing against official vs unofficial rules, since games workshop itself now sells pdfs, how do you tell. Truth is you can't really, and why should you care. I don't care how my opponent got his rules. Frankly if GW wants to combat pirating lower the price of your product.

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Frankly if GW wants to combat pirating lower the price of your product.

Or.. stop limiting the supply on something that is an easily distributed imaginary good. Sell the Skyhammer Bundle for a couple weeks then sell the PDFs by themselves for $5. From the sound of this forum there's a lot of people that would pay $5 for a PDF they could also pirate just so they can sleep better.

 deviantduck wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Frankly if GW wants to combat pirating lower the price of your product.

Or.. stop limiting the supply on something that is an easily distributed imaginary good. Sell the Skyhammer Bundle for a couple weeks then sell the PDFs by themselves for $5. From the sound of this forum there's a lot of people that would pay $5 for a PDF they could also pirate just so they can sleep better.

Black Library has a nice little setup selling add-on rules for ~$5 or so. I've bought quite a few as impulse purchases over the years.

 deviantduck wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Frankly if GW wants to combat pirating lower the price of your product.

Or.. stop limiting the supply on something that is an easily distributed imaginary good. Sell the Skyhammer Bundle for a couple weeks then sell the PDFs by themselves for $5. From the sound of this forum there's a lot of people that would pay $5 for a PDF they could also pirate just so they can sleep better.

You are confusing fair use and pirating somehow.

Naw wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

HoundsofDemos wrote:
Frankly if GW wants to combat pirating lower the price of your product.

Or.. stop limiting the supply on something that is an easily distributed imaginary good. Sell the Skyhammer Bundle for a couple weeks then sell the PDFs by themselves for $5. From the sound of this forum there's a lot of people that would pay $5 for a PDF (one which alternatively would be easily piratable instead) just so they can sleep better.

You are confusing fair use and pirating somehow.

Sorry, vague wording.

I think its silly to deny people playing certain rules if they dont have a physical copy of them. With one google search I can find the rules to Skyhammer. The exact same rules would be on my phone as are on the table from a laminated copy or w/e.

I think its a very elitist position to take and makes you look like a dick if you wouldnt play someone over such a silly thing. I would even go as far to say that kind of attitude is harmful for the hobby as it can lead to a potentially more hostile atmosphere.

Now if the guy is trying to play an army without their codex I can see the problem. Thats a pretty big deal, but to field say one unit from FW or a formation like Skyhammer without the offical source (which costs a lot of money) is practically nothing and I just dont see how it can be an issue for anyone other than the most elitist/"dedicated" 40k player.
As long as you and them can look at the exact same rules from a legitimate source there should be no problem.

Thats just by casual player peasant opinion though.

However on the other hand if there is an establishment or tourny with rules that state you NEED the 100% official source to play any unit or formation then those are their rules and should be respected. If you dont like it then dont play there. Thats what I do in regards to my official GW store for their policy against any and all proxies.

 Kriswall wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Stephanius wrote:
If someone did not buy this specific bundle, they clearly stole the rules for the formation. It doesn't matter they bought the very bits in that bundle outside of the limited time offer or stole the models just like the rules, they still are not entitled to use the formation.

{citation needed}

The rules are the rules, regardless of where they are printed. And the rules published by GW do not in any way require you to provide proof of ownership before using them. In fact, there's no requirement to own any of the rules. You're free to play from memory if you like, and you're still playing the same game as everyone else. The printed rules just provide a reminder in case you forget or need to look up a complicated interaction.

True, players do not police each others violations of Games Workshop copyright. A printed or copied page might mean someone didn't buy the rules or might mean someone doesn't want to carry an entire Imperial Armour book for one page. Receipts are not checked

That means people who do steal their rules are most likely able to use them, but wether or not they get away with it doesn't change the copyright infringement or morality of it. Rules are not free. If you disagree, feel free to host a repository and duke it out with GW's legal department.

It would be good for the game if the rules were free, available online (and maintained, while we are dreaming), but the fact is that normal practice is to have your codex, supplement or IA books including FAQs handy to show your opponent that the crazy stuff you just wanted to pull is actually GW's crazy, not your own.

Ah... you're saying it's "normal practice" to have your own rules with you so that you can show your opponent. This isn't a requirement, though. It's a convention. It has long since been considered polite to have your rules with you so that you can show your opponent how your models work. Some independent stores have gone so far as to make this a requirement. Games Workshop tends to go back and forth and also tends to vary from store to store. When I was a GW Store Manager, our direction was to make a 'store copy' available for each army's codex or army book. We were interested in selling models more than rule books. People were welcome to come in and use the store copy if they needed to reference how a rule works. Some stores still work this way while others require you to have an original, purchased copy in your possession before playing a game.

The rules make no actual mention that you have to have the original rule sources with you. The rules simply describe how to play the game. Presumably, you show up to play already knowing how to play. At best, the rules act as a reference for individual unit stats or special rules text. Printing out your own reference sheets is just good organization. You'll never need to reference 99% of the content in your rule books when you play a game. Why not just print out the 1% you're likely to need?

The GW by my place has an awesome manager. Dude has been a wargamer for 20+ years and understands people get rule books for free, buy models off of ebay, or recast, but allows us to use that stuff in store cause most of us will end up buying something off of him cause he's personable. He really knows his stuff and makes the environment warm and welcoming.

However, when he's gone and his replacement shows up for a day or two, the store is empty. The guy who covers for him is frankly a jerk and stingy. There is normally an open copy of all the codexes lying around for players to use. Forgot your Spacemarine codex and wanna look up specifically all the different shots Sternguard can use? It's in the rack. This guy however, won't let you use it. When I asked to look at it real quick, he told me I could buy it. I asked for some color recommendations for the army and he really had no clue in that area either. So me and my group have figured he's just a body in the store to make sure nothing gets stolen, but in the end, he drives out business for the day.

It would be great if they would NEVER do this again... There is no reason to keep anyone from being able to play a formation simply because they didn't buy a limited edition bundle- I have 50 Assault marines already, why should I be forced to order a bunch more just to play this?

 Btothefnrock wrote:
There is no reason to keep anyone from being able to play a formation simply because they didn't buy a limited edition bundle- I have 50 Assault marines already, why should I be forced to order a bunch more just to play this?

Because the whole point of offering it this way is to encourage people to buy the limited edition bundle?

I feel like GW misses out on cool points on bundles like this by not including some sort of new limited edition bonus. It could be a different banner, or even shoulder pads. Many SM fanboys would get second mortgages to buy the bundles with a new unique shiny attached.