Switch Theme:

As a TO, do you allow scanned and printed PDFs of rules in your event?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






Jeez, people like you just don't give up with the spurious disingenuous arguments do you.

It's like talking to a brick wall.

I guess ignorance is bliss.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

I dunno, I've written material for which I retain the copyright, and I've never felt compelled to hit up random venues where my material might theoretically be present in an infringing form and file lawsuits. If someone's actively distributing it that's a whole different ball game.

I've never heard of others in my industry do it either, nor in wargaming, so you'll have to forgive me if 'I know a dude and he's getting real mad and someday he'll come after you for frivolous reasons' isn't particularly compelling.

Nothing disingenuous on my end. Nothing spurious either- if you can articulate why you feel infringement on copyright of written material needs to be zealously guarded on GW's behalf but infringement on copyright of sculpture doesn't, I'd be happy to hear it.
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan






Austin, Texas.

This thread has become incredibly amusing. The power of perspective I guess.

I do drugs.
Mostly Plastic Crack, but I do dabble in Cardboard Cocaine.

"Be aware that the 'I buy models I like, and then discover that they're absolutely useless and I need to toss them and buy something completely different' is a core part of the 40k experience." - AnomanderRake

My hobby blog__ Hell Raised Regiment Three - Link in Bio
 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 catbarf wrote:

Nothing disingenuous on my end. Nothing spurious either- if you can articulate why you feel infringement on copyright of written material needs to be zealously guarded on GW's behalf but infringement on copyright of sculpture doesn't, I'd be happy to hear it.


Nothing disingenuous on your end.

Riiight.

I haven't said anything about recasts and other sculpting IP infringement. FYI I have the same view on that - it's unlawful.

Do I know or have an idea on how that should be dealt with, no not really.

But that doesn't take away from the issue being there, nor do I think anyone should just turn a blind eye to it and let it carry on.


Please do carry on making up things about what I've said or haven't said or what I think or feel though.


If you can tell me why, besides "because they won't get caught", people shouldn't care about the law around making copies of books they don't own, recasts, or why any other sort of copyright infringement should be tolerated, then please do, I need a good laugh.


I guess I'm the bad guy here though, right, thinking people should do the right thing, shouldn't be turning a blind eye and should be aware of an issue that could come back to bite them and those around them in the ass, rather than ignorantly dismissing such concerns.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 17:33:14


 
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Macon, GA

 catbarf wrote:
Photocopies are legal. Photocopies of books you don't own are not.


The first is probably legal, the second is probably illegal. That's the thing with this stuff, it's just not as clear as people on either side want to think.

It's obviously not illegal to sometimes make photocopies of copyrighted material, otherwise libraries wouldn't have copy machines.

And we know we can't scan, print, and bind up copies of books and resell them.

What's legal is somewhere in there.

Look at a codex. Is even half of it actually rules? cut out the crusade stuff and the points values, and you're left with half of the Space Marine codex. If you are smarter still, and only include those datasheets you plan on using, the startegems, the general rules, and the points from CA2020, you might only be carrying 20 pages of photocopies out of a 200 page book. is that fair use? Probably not?

The reality is that outside of the napster years with DRM, there just haven't been a lot of cases of rights holders filing suit against individuals with copied works for personal use. And even in the napster cases, the people they sued didn't just downloaded, but "published" (shared) the works.

Remember that copyright is a federal matter. This doesn't go to small claims or mayor's court, a real corporation would have to hire an attorney to file a complaint in federal court against a person for making a photocopy of their rules for a friend. One of the few ironclad rules of the federal courts is that judges hate cases that waste their time, which this 100% does. then the person becomes a minor cause celebre because they are being bullied by a multinational corporation over a few photocopies. All of this, for, best case, $750 in statutory damages. I'm not here to say that this will never happen, but I'd buy comet insurance before I'd worry about being sued over a few dittoed rules. Mostly because copyright does not, and cannot, protect facts, information, data, or ideas. It can only protect the expression of that idea. Rules and manuals are notoriously difficult to protect by copyright.

I think a lot of people think that the law is simple (it's not) and the threats/concerns are complex (they aren't). Copyright law is incredibly complicated, and nobody is in a hurry to actually take a case to court over personal photocopies of rules. There simply is no threat.


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 21,000pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Rob Lee wrote:
I haven't said anything about recasts and other sculpting IP infringement. FYI I have the same view on that - it's unlawful.


If you recognize they're both unlawful, why are you adamant that TOs are going to get sued for allowing photocopies that may or may not be legal, but aren't worried about TOs getting sued for allowing models that may or may not be legal?

I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking you to articulate a consistent and logical position.

Oh, and to be clear: I do not condone or support copyright infringement or recasting. Nobody in this thread has done that. Being against your position that TOs, an unrelated third party, must take up the role of overzealously guarding GW's copyright on their behalf, does not make me pro-infringement. That is a disingenuous argument you are making and I would appreciate if you didn't.

 Polonius wrote:
The first is probably legal, the second is probably illegal. That's the thing with this stuff, it's just not as clear as people on either side want to think.


Thank you for that correction- you are absolutely right, it's never clear-cut. And even when it is ostensibly clear-cut, that's no guarantee against a lawsuit. We can only speak in generalities and trends.

But I want to point out that Rob's concern isn't individuals being sued for personal photocopies, but rather some kind of liability on the part of a TO for allowing photocopies to be present at the event. That, in theory, could be for a lot more than $750 in statutory damages- but why anyone would construe merely allowing photocopies as aiding in the distribution of copyrighted material, let alone pursue legal action, is beyond me.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/08 18:19:47


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 catbarf wrote:

I'm not putting words in your mouth


Yeah actually you are. Again, I'm not adamant that TOs are going to get sued. I can just recognise there is the potential and that people need to be more careful about turning a blind eye.

I also haven't said anything about being concerned, or not, about liability for models of dubious legality being used.

That's your inference.

Also I don't need to articulate anything, I've repeatedly stated what I actually think. If you are not "pro-infringement", to use your term, then we are both on the same page and I don't see why you or anyone else is trying to argue over it.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 18:41:47


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Rob Lee wrote:
I also haven't said anything about being concerned, or not, about liability for models of dubious legality being used.

That's your inference.


Yeah, that's where you lose me. I'm not putting words in your mouth, I'm asking whether you have the same concerns and advocate the same extreme measures about other forms of copyright infringement.

You're extremely concerned about one specific type of potential copyright infringement resulting in lawsuits but can't explain why it's more of a risk than other forms of potential copyright infringement in the same context against the same entity.

So it sounds like there isn't any rational basis for your concern.

 Rob Lee wrote:
If you are not "pro-infringement", to use your term, then we are both on the same page


I don't think so. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 catbarf wrote:


Yeah, that's where you lose me. I'm not putting words in your mouth


Again yes you are, prime example -

 catbarf wrote:
You're extremely concerned about one specific type of potential copyright infringement resulting in lawsuits but can't explain why it's more of a risk than other forms of potential copyright infringement in the same context against the same entity.

So it sounds like there isn't any rational basis for your concern.


You're telling me what I'm thinking. You're telling me that I'm "extremely concerned about one specific type".

Thank you for telling me that, I'm glad I can rely on you to tell me what I'm thinking.

The topic is/was about books, copies of, PDFs etc, so, yeah, my comments have been in reference to copyright infringement of those items.

If your gripe is that I've ignored comments about recasts etc., then yes, I've been ignoring them, because they're spurious arguments coming from people using reductio ad absurdum examples to justify turning a blind eye.


 catbarf wrote:

 Rob Lee wrote:
If you are not "pro-infringement", to use your term, then we are both on the same page


I don't think so. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.


Sorry what?! You're either not "pro-infringement" or you are.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 18:59:35


 
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





 catbarf wrote:
 Rob Lee wrote:
If you are not "pro-infringement", to use your term, then we are both on the same page


I don't think so. That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
None of us are for copyright infringement in this thread, but I think Rob isn't just on a different page he's reading a different book, in a different language, probably in Russian
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Rob Lee wrote:
You're telling me what I'm thinking. You're telling me "You're extremely concerned about one specific type".

Thank you for telling me that, I'm glad I can rely on you to tell me what I'm thinking.

The topic was about books, so, yeah, my comments have been in reference to copyright infringement regarding books.


Okay. Let's make this simple.

Do you think TOs need to be worried about forms of copyright infringement other than books?

If not, why not?

 Rob Lee wrote:
Sorry what?! You're either not "pro-infringement" or you are.


I'm against copyright infringement.

I'm also against TOs taking it upon themselves to ban all potentially copyright infringing content over dubious fears of lawsuits.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 catbarf wrote:

Do you think TOs need to be worried about forms of copyright infringement other than books?

If not, why not?


Pretty much asked and answered already. I'll reiterate. Yes. Worried isn't the word I'd use. Aware of and cautious are the words I'd use.

 catbarf wrote:

I'm against copyright infringement.

I'm also against TOs taking it upon themselves to ban all potentially copyright infringing content over dubious fears of lawsuits.


Riiight. Gotcha.

If you're against copyright infringement I don't see why you have an issue with anyone, TOs, FLGS, even players, taking it upon themselves to do something about it and in the process cover themselves against any potential future where they may get involved in litigation. Because as you and others have stated, apparently there's no threat from rights holders, so if that's genuinely the case, and if TOs, FLGS, even players, don't up their awareness and exercise caution, so that copyright infringement doesn't run unabated, who will?

Rhetorical question, but I'm sure someone will chime in with yet another spurious excuse.

This whole thread is laughable. People arguing against the idea of people doing something about something that is unlawful and which shouldn't be tolerated. Just can't make it up.

This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 19:25:25


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Rob Lee wrote:
Asked and answered already. I'll reiterate. Yes. Worried isn't the word I'd use. Aware of and cautious are the words I'd use.


If the appropriate measure to combat the risk of potentially copyright-infringing printed works is to ban them entirely, what's the appropriate measure for combating the risk of potentially copyright-infringing minis? How do the risks differ?

 Rob Lee wrote:
If you're against copyright infringement I don't see why you have an issue with anyone, TOs, FLGS, even players, taking it upon themselves to do something about it and in the process cover their own backsides.


There's a lot to unpack here.

1. I'm against copyright infringement as a general principle.

2. I'm against overzealous enforcement of copyright law being used to quash legal activity. The erosion of fair use by automated processes or blanket rules is a problem. I don't believe barring players from making their own quick-reference sheets is justifiable, either legally or morally.

3. I'm against TOs, FLGSes, and/or players taking it upon themselves to defend GW's copyright so far beyond what is needed to cover their own (nonexistent) liability. Given the lack of any precedent for tournament organizers, game stores, or random bystanders becoming liable for... tolerating the existence of copyrighted material in their presence, I guess, they don't have any relevant standing. It's not their problem, if it's a problem at all. That ball's in GW's court, and unless you are personally costing them a lot of money, they don't care.

4. I'm against missing the forest for the trees with copyright. Copyright suits are about demonstrable damages. A kid's fanfic about Guilliman is technically a copyright violation (characters in published works are copyrighted), but there are no monetary implications and it certainly isn't going to result in any legal problems if they bring it along to a tournament. There's an element of reasonableness that should be taken into consideration, and a dude bringing a few pages of rules copied from a codex he owns is neither depriving GW of income nor facilitating more extensive copyright infringement. There are no damages. It's a non-issue.

I don't have any problem with a TO having rules against overt recasts or pirated material, but in any case where there's ambiguity and no actual liability, assume good faith. Unnecessary impediments to players for the sake of defending the sanctity of GW's IP is a bad look.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 20:12:07


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 catbarf wrote:

There's a lot to unpack here.

1. I'm against copyright infringement as a general principle.

2. I'm against overzealous enforcement of copyright law being used to quash legal activity. The erosion of fair use by automated processes or blanket rules is a problem. I don't believe barring players from making their own quick-reference sheets is justifiable, either legally or morally.

3. I'm against TOs, FLGSes, and/or players taking it upon themselves to defend GW's copyright so far beyond what is needed to cover their own (nonexistent) liability. Given the lack of any precedent for tournament organizers, game stores, or random bystanders becoming liable for... tolerating the existence of copyrighted material in their presence, I guess, they don't have any relevant standing. It's not their problem, if it's a problem at all. That ball's in GW's court, and unless you are personally costing them a lot of money, they don't care.

4. I'm against missing the forest for the trees with copyright. Copyright suits are about demonstrable damages. A kid's fanfic about Guilliman is technically a copyright violation (characters in published works are copyrighted), but there are no monetary implications and it certainly isn't going to result in any legal problems if they bring it along to a tournament. There's an element of reasonableness that should be taken into consideration, and a dude bringing a few pages of rules copied from a codex he owns is neither depriving GW of income nor facilitating more extensive copyright infringement. There are no damages. It's a non-issue.

I don't have any problem with a TO having rules against overt recasts or pirated material, but in any case where there's ambiguity and no actual liability, assume good faith. Unnecessary impediments to players for the sake of defending the sanctity of GW's IP is a bad look.





Aaaaand right on cue...

1. Just so long as you don't have to do anything about it and others don't either. Civil liberties and all that. Right.
2. Whatever. Allowing or tolerating copyright infringement isn't justifiable either, legally or morally.
3. Nothing to do with defending GW specifically.
4. I guess it needs reiterating again, as you keep coming back to it, time and time again - the issue isn't copying material you own.

Good faith, yeah, that only goes so far. Like when I saw what the OP had stated, I assumed in good faith that people would advise him of what he did wrong and why the TO was rightly sniffy about it and move on, not go for days arguing against the idea of people doing something about something that is unlawful and which shouldn't be tolerated - an argument that is laughable at best.

And you seem to be very selective in your view, you claim to not have any problem with TOs having rules over overt pirated material, so long as it's not rules about pirated GW stuff, because apparently that's going too far and is overzealous, presumably because it's GW.

It's a joke of an argument. And not even a humorous one at that.

Next spurious argumentative post full of excuses please, at some point maybe one of you will work out that you have no valid argument and you're just going round and round in circles.

This message was edited 16 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 20:59:53


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Rob Lee wrote:
3. Nothing to do with defending GW specifically.

 Rob Lee wrote:
so long as it's not rules about pirated GW stuff, because apparently that's going too far and is overzealous, presumably because it's GW.


This is part of why your posts confuse me. It's not about defending GW, but everyone arguing with you hates GW and is justifying piracy against GW.

 Rob Lee wrote:
4. I guess it needs reiterating again, as you keep coming back to it, time and time again - the issue isn't copying material you own.

 Rob Lee wrote:
something that is unlawful and which shouldn't be tolerated

 Rob Lee wrote:
Even if it is your own copy of the book, I think you'll find it's still unlawful to copy it, even for personal use unless parts of the book state otherwise.


This is also why your posts confuse me. Copying material you own is fine, but also it's unlawful and shouldn't be tolerated.

 Rob Lee wrote:
other spurious argumentative and frankly hostile tactics. It makes for a rather unsavoury forum.


Quoted without comment.

At this point I think it's clear that civil discussion is long gone, so I'll just say this: If you really think I am some GW-hating piracy apologist, Polonius is literally a lawyer. You might consider taking a step back, since fourteen edits in an hour suggests you are rather invested, and reconsider their posts.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






Yep look, right on cue again.

Do you know why civil discussion is not possible? Because you and others can't manage to do anything but twist what I and a couple of others have stated, and resort to reductio ad absurdum, to fit your own narratives - something which you might consider taking a step back from.

Like this -

This is also why your posts confuse me. Copying material you own is fine, but also it's unlawful and shouldn't be tolerated.


Unless you're hard of comprehending you know very well that I haven't said that.


And thank you, but I'll edit my posts as many times as I wish.

This message was edited 15 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 22:05:57


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Rob Lee wrote:

If you're against copyright infringement I don't see why you have an issue with anyone, TOs, FLGS, even players, taking it upon themselves to do something about it and in the process cover themselves against any potential future where they may get involved in litigation. Because as you and others have stated, apparently there's no threat from rights holders, so if that's genuinely the case, and if TOs, FLGS, even players, don't up their awareness and exercise caution, so that copyright infringement doesn't run unabated, who will?

Genuine question: Can you explain just how a TO would go about determining if a copy is unlawful?

Keeping in mind that most TOs are not IP lawyers, and even IP lawyers when asked about this topic tend to say that there's no real way to say what would and wouldn't be considered legal because the law is fuzzy and it's never been tested in court. And is unlikely to ever be so tested.



This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/08 22:34:05


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 insaniak wrote:

Genuine question: Can you explain just how a TO would go about determining if a copy is unlawful?


No, and I've never said they have to. Can you? Just don't allow copies. Simplest solution. I realise some people don't like the liberty issues they perceive that causing them personally. Tough luck.


 insaniak wrote:

Keeping in mind that most TOs are not IP lawyers, and even IP lawyers when asked about this topic tend to say that there's no real way to say what would and wouldn't be considered legal because the law is fuzzy and it's never been tested in court. And is unlikely to ever be so tested.


Do they. OK. I'll take your word for that.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 22:42:58


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

OK. So we're suggesting that TO's put in place a blanket ban on something on the grounds that it may possibly be illegal?

Here's a similarly hazy area - Swearing (or, more specifically 'offensive language') in public is illegal in some places. However, exactly what constitutes 'offensive' is not well defined by law. Should TO's in that case ban talking at their events, on the off chance that someone will say something offensive?


 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 insaniak wrote:
OK. So we're suggesting that TO's put in place a blanket ban on something on the grounds that it may possibly be illegal?

Here's a similarly hazy area - Swearing (or, more specifically 'offensive language') in public is illegal in some places. However, exactly what constitutes 'offensive' is not well defined by law. Should TO's in that case ban talking at their events, on the off chance that someone will say something offensive?



And there's the reductio ad absurdum again.

What do you suggest then? Let copyright infringement run riot?

And no doubt we're back to the circular argument about it not being an issue, apparently, again.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 22:48:01


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Rob Lee wrote:
And there's the reductio ad absurdum again.

How so? What exactly makes banning talking because swearing might happen any more absurd than banning copies because some of them might be infringing copyright?

That's a serious question. I'm genuinely curious about your answer.


What do you suggest then? Let copyright infringement run riot?

Do you have evidence that shows that copyright infringement does actually 'run riot' if TOs allow photocopied rules?

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







 insaniak wrote:
 Rob Lee wrote:
And there's the reductio ad absurdum again.

How so? What exactly makes banning talking because swearing might happen any more absurd than banning copies because some of them might be infringing copyright?

That's a serious question. I'm genuinely curious about your answer.


What do you suggest then? Let copyright infringement run riot?

Do you have evidence that shows that copyright infringement does actually 'run riot' if TOs allow photocopied rules?


Making this about "running rampant" is just a "it's not a crime if no one gets caught" argument.

If Bob owns the codex, photocopies it, and gives his friend Joe that copy, Bob is committing copyright infringement. Bob is doing so on a scale that is generally impractical to stop, but is doing so all the same. It's the same result if Bob scans his codex, uploads it somewhere, and Joe downloads a copy and prints it out.

If Bob doesn't share with anyone else, and keeps all of the copies to himself, there's no copyright infringement. That's all just "personal use".
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 insaniak wrote:

How so? What exactly makes banning talking because swearing might happen any more absurd than banning copies because some of them might be infringing copyright?

That's a serious question. I'm genuinely curious about your answer.


If that's a serious question then, wow, just wow. I'm not going to even give you an answer, because you are using a ridiculous example to try to imply that taking action against copyright infringement is absurd.


 insaniak wrote:

Do you have evidence that shows that copyright infringement does actually 'run riot' if TOs allow photocopied rules?


No I don't. And you have no evidence that it won't.

I've laid out my view over the past few days, in response to comments made to me, and about me, at every turn my view has been twisted and misrepresented. Whether I am right or wrong, or you agree or not with my view, is there any real need to keep on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the picking and twisting and misrepresenting, from anyone?

Or is that just how it goes around here. "DakkaDakka the wild west outpost of the internet."

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/04/08 23:54:03


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Rob Lee wrote:

If that's a serious question then, wow, just wow. I'm not going to even give you an answer, because you are using a ridiculous example to try to imply that taking action against copyright infringement is absurd.

Why is it a ridiculous example?

Seriously, I'd like an answer on that. Why do you consider TOs removing the danger of offensive behaviour (which actually potentially causes direct, visible damage) to be more ridiculous than TOs acting as defacto copyright enforcers?


 insaniak wrote:
No I don't. And you have no evidence that it won't.

Sure. But you're the one calling for the ban, so the burden of evidence here is on you.


I've laid out my view over the past few days, at every turn my view has been twisted and misrepresented. Whether I am right or wrong, or you agree or not with my view, is there any real need to keep on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with the picking and twisting and misrepresenting, from anyone?

I'm not sure where you're seeing any twisting and misrepresenting going on in my posts. I asked a simple question which you refused to answer.

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 insaniak wrote:

I'm not sure where you're seeing any twisting and misrepresenting going on in my posts. I asked a simple question which you refused to answer.


Haven't said specifically you have. Others have though. Although, there is this -

 insaniak wrote:
Sure. But you're the one calling for the ban, so the burden of evidence here is on you.


I'm not calling for anything, so yeah, misrepresenting my view.

I've simply stated it's one of the simplest solutions available. You're conflating me stating that TOs should be cautious, and aware, and take some action, with calling for a ban.


I'm also not answering your question because, again, your arguing that TOs should turn a blind eye because taking action is absurd.

Been over that argument several times this past few days.



You know, you told me and a certain other person to drop it. And yet here you are, as a moderator, continuing what is in fact a redundant circular discussion. One that I actually wanted no part of since 3 days ago now, and yet, again I'll state it, I've had my view misrepresented and twisted so I have had to interject to straighten that up.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/09 00:19:18


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Rob Lee wrote:

I'm not calling for anything, so yeah, misrepresenting my view.

I've simply stated it's one of the simplest solutions available.

OK. But it's only a solution if there is actually a problem to solve. So you would need to demonstrate the existence of that problem.


I'm also not answering your question because, again, your arguing that TOs should turn a blind eye because taking action is absurd.

No, that wasn't my point at all. I'm not suggesting that TO's should turn a blind eye to copyright infringement. In cases where the infringement is patently clear, I see no issue with them refusing to allow it in their event. My argument was intended to illustrate the absurdity of your nuclear solution. As were the examples earlier in the thread of Forgeworld models (or any models, for that matter) which you dismissed as irrelevant.

You're clearly seeing some distinction between copyright infringement of printed material and any other potential lawbreaking that may be committed at a tournament, hence my request for you to explain that reasoning.


You know, you told me and a certain other person to drop it. And yet here you are, as a moderator, continuing what is in fact a redundant circular discussion. One that I actually wanted no part of since 2 days ago, and yet, again I'll state it, I've had my view misrepresented and twisted so I have had to interject to straighten that up.

I told you and that other poster to drop an argument in which you were both saying the exact same thing and insisting that the other guy was wrong about it.

What's happening here isn't a circular argument. It's me asking you to explain your point of view and you refusing to do that. But yes, unless that changes, there is little point in continuing here.

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 insaniak wrote:
Why is it a ridiculous example?

Seriously, I'd like an answer on that. Why do you consider TOs removing the danger of offensive behaviour (which actually potentially causes direct, visible damage) to be more ridiculous than TOs acting as defacto copyright enforcers?


I think it's pretty telling that every time someone makes an analogy, Rob calls it reductio ad absurdum- which is to say that he tacitly admits that when you apply his logic to TOs banning anything else that could hypothetically be used to break the law, it's completely absurd.

More importantly, reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy; it's an argument that exposes fallacy. It's up to Rob to explain why the analogy is invalid- something he seems unwilling to do.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 insaniak wrote:

OK. But it's only a solution if there is actually a problem to solve. So you would need to demonstrate the existence of that problem.


Demonstrate the existence of that problem? Er, read the OP. Isolated incident? Maybe. Highly doubt it.

 insaniak wrote:

No, that wasn't my point at all. I'm not suggesting that TO's should turn a blind eye to copyright infringement. In cases where the infringement is patently clear, I see no issue with them refusing to allow it in their event. My argument was intended to illustrate the absurdity of your nuclear solution. As were the examples earlier in the thread of Forgeworld models (or any models, for that matter) which you dismissed as irrelevant.

You're clearly seeing some distinction between copyright infringement of printed material and any other potential lawbreaking that may be committed at a tournament, hence my request for you to explain that reasoning.


So, we know that copyright infringement happens, but you don't agree that anyone should be pro-active. Okay.

And no, I'm not seeing any distinction. But OK lets use your analogy, someone is swearing. So, you boot them out. Do we need to be pro-active about it. Not really. Because generally people act in good faith with that sort of thing. Sure you can say the same about copyright infringement, but people engaging in it aren't acting in good faith. My reasoning here is that swearing is unlikely to be an escalating problem. Copyright infringement is. We've seen how it's grown in recent years. Look on the internet and it's not hard to find what you're looking for.

 insaniak wrote:

I told you and that other poster to drop an argument in which you were both saying the exact same thing and insisting that the other guy was wrong about it.

What's happening here isn't a circular argument. It's me asking you to explain your point of view and you refusing to do that. But yes, unless that changes, there is little point in continuing here.


Yeah, it is circular, people keep going round and round asking the same questions, picking at wording, making the same arguments. And yeah I'm refusing to explain my point of view, because I've been doing it for the last 3 days, repeatedly, because people have been misquoting me, twisting my words, and misrepresenting my view.


My point of view - copyright infringement is unlawful (actual fact, not just my view). It should not be tolerated. If anyone doesn't agree. Okay. Doesn't agree that something pro-active should be done. Okay. Doesn't agree that people should care, be aware or cover their arses. Okay. But my view won't change, regardless of the holes anyone wants to pick, or twist my words, or just flat out misrepresent what I've stated.

This message was edited 16 times. Last update was at 2021/04/09 01:27:59


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Rob Lee wrote:

Demonstrate the existence of that problem? Er, read the OP. Isolated incident? Maybe. Highly doubt it.

Sure, it's unlikely to be the only case. But going straight to the nuclear option on the basis of a hunch seems extreme.


So, we know that copyright infringement happens, but you don't agree that anyone should be pro-active. Okay.

What was that about misrepresenting arguments?

I'm totally ok with TOs being 'pro-active' about the issue. That doesn't mean, however, that banning copies entirely is the best or only way to do that.

It's also still unclear why you seem to feel that TOs should be pro-active on this single copyright issue (printed rules) alone.


Sure you can say the same about copyright infringement, but people engaging in it aren't acting in good faith.

What does this mean?

 
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran






 insaniak wrote:

Sure, it's unlikely to be the only case. But going straight to the nuclear option on the basis of a hunch seems extreme.


Okay. That's your view.


 insaniak wrote:

What was that about misrepresenting arguments?


Turnabout is fair play.

 insaniak wrote:

I'm totally ok with TOs being 'pro-active' about the issue. That doesn't mean, however, that banning copies entirely is the best or only way to do that.


I'm aware it's not the only way. Not the best way? What is then? I've not heard one peep from anyone who's been arguing with me, about how they think copyright infringement, before it becomes a problem, for anyone, could be dealt with. Which implies the general consensus is that no-one should even bother.

Although at this juncture I'm not actually interested in discussing that.


 insaniak wrote:

It's also still unclear why you seem to feel that TOs should be pro-active on this single copyright issue (printed rules) alone.


Again, you haven't read what I've stated previously. The initial "discussion" was about books. Hence I commented regarding that. If you think I don't think anyone should be pro-active in general on copyright infringement of any other sort, then that's your inference and you're wrong. I've stated that previously in this thread also.

And yeah, yeah, I know, I know, you can't go round asking people for receipts to prove their Forgeworld stuff is legit. And no, I don't currently know of a solution for preventing or dealing with that where it's not legit.


 insaniak wrote:

Sure you can say the same about copyright infringement, but people engaging in it aren't acting in good faith.

What does this mean?


I'll use your analogy again - people swearing probably don't set out with the intent to start swearing. Those engaging in copyright infringement often do set out to do it intentionally.

Again, and with all due respect, there's no point in continuing this discussion. Would be appreciated if other people can also refrain from misquoting, twisting or otherwise misrepresenting my view if they choose to continue the discussion with others - I'm pretty sure it's been intentional thus far. Or even better, just leave me and my view out of it.

This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2021/04/09 02:20:27


 
   
 
Forum Index » Tournament Discussions
Go to: