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.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Morals aren't subjective?

Ask Ted Bundy.

That's no subjectivity, that's someone being wrong, there's a difference.

An example of subjectivity:
40k fan 1: I like the Dark Angels best.
40k fan 2: I like the Space Wolves best.

An example of someone being wrong:
Random dude: The sky is blue.
Stupid dude: No, it's green!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)

Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.

No because sometimes the law is quite blatantly wrong (see many of the screwed up laws of older times), but that doesn't change moral facts.

You can prove them, just not THAT way. That's why I said moral fact rather than something like mathematical fact or historical fact. Just because you can't do a mathematical proof of water freezing at 0 degrees Celcius doesn't mean it's subjective, just means you use a different method.

 jah-joshua wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
A Google result doesn't show what a Space Marine looks like "in the eyes of the world."

What an absolutely daft thing to try and argue!

Seriously, give me anything to Google, and in a few seconds I'll know what it looks like.

I don't need to have heard of the thing before that point, I don't need to be aware it exists, and that's exactly what a Space Marine is "in the eyes of the world" - a thing completely unheard of.

Except that unlike say, an obscure medical instrument or some outdated piece of medieval farming equipment, the term "Space Marine" is so generic that any half intelligent person can probably surmise what it is simply from the name, and I bet, if asked to draw one, sight unseen, a good percentage of people with no prior knowledge would draw something with at least some elements that could be ported straight onto GW's version.

i disagree...

anyone coming up with a new product, whether it be sculpting a miniature, writing a book, or any other commercial endeavor should do their research, and know what products already carry that name...
then it is their choice to carry on, or change their angle...

if you honestly think that a Space Marine, after over 30 years of Warhammer 40,000 and numerous worldwide video game releases (one of which is even titled "Space Marine"), is "a thing completely unheard of" in the eyes of the world, then i have to wonder what rock you live under...
i have never once said that i think GW should be able to trademark the words Space Marine, but if you asked anyone who was not aware of 40K to draw a Space Marine, i am pretty sure that the result would look much more like a character from Aliens or Starship Troopers, and not an 8-foot power armored behemoth...
my point is, which you have neatly side-stepped as usual, there is over 30 years of usage by GW of the term Space Marine, and it is not surprising that they should feel some propriety over the term...
turns out they are wrong, so no worries...

but hey, thanks for trying to imply that i am stupid...again...

cheers
jah

You disagree? Really?!!!

Well, first up, I didn't imply you were stupid, I said your argument was, a distinct and important difference.

I'm sure there's a tiny percentage of the population that thinks of the image you're suggesting when "Space Marine" is mentioned, but then, I'm sure there plenty of people who would think of some other image associated with the decades it had been in use before GW co-opted it.

You'll also notice I didn't say "would draw something that looks like a GW Space Marine" (although good try at strawmanning) I said "would include elements that could be ported onto a GW Marine." So, big guns, armour, backpacks, maybe a CCW of some sort. There is nothing unique about the idea of a superhuman space soldier, and while GW have undoubtedly run with the idea to the point that people on the Internet are trying to argue that theirs is the only true Space Marine, the courts decided otherwise.

But, to address the point you accuse me of sidestepping, why would a non-thinking, non-emotional entity like a company "feel" anything? It is a fact they didn't have the ownership of Space Marine they thought they had, their lawyers should have been better at making something protectable or advising them of their vulnerabilities. It's all matters of fact, they can't sue someone because they "feel" entitled to something and win.

 Azreal13 wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

Azreal13 wrote:No, still not a fact, just a consensus.

Nope, a fact. Everyone knows it's true and anyone who "disagrees" is wrong.
Not everything in the universe is mutable or opinion-based. That sort of attitude does nothing but support awful behavior by treating it as a choice that someone disagrees with rather than something actually wrong.
Society can't function without moral facts. We'd end up with stuff like innocent people being murdered with it being passed off with "Well, you think it's wrong but that's just your opinion!".

Desubot wrote:Its clearly opinion considering if it was a fact that they shouldn't be doing it "that" way it would be law..

Nope, just means the law is royally screwed up, hardly the only example of that.

Morals aren't subjective?

Ask Ted Bundy.

Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)

Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.

I really hate to say this, but ask Nazi Germany as well. :(

There are cultures that do not feel that folks should be allowed the luxury of continued breathing, for a multitude of reasons.

That you, or I, or even Ted Bundy feels that something is beyond any morality does not mean that some culture, at some time, and in some place, will not disagree.

For me, that was part of why Oskar Schindler stood out - the man was, well, kind of scummy.

Yet in a position where he had to do something that he found morally reprehensible, he turned around.

But the leadership of his nation would have found his actions to be morally unacceptable.

A society cannot enforce morals, but it can try to enforce either mores, ethics or both.

This is why mores, morals, and ethics are all such very different things.

GW is a company, it cannot have morals, but it can have ethics - and to some extent it does. That these ethics fall short of what much of the public feels should be the case... has an impact upon GW's bottom line.

The Auld Grump

 jah-joshua wrote:

your moralizing doesn't help your argument...
telling me what i should be up in arms about is over the line, as far as i'm concerned...

Note that I specifically said you didn't have to stop supporting 40k or GW, just admit they were wrong about something.

I personally recognize that (and some other things) as bad things they've done but continue to support 40k anyway, sometimes it's just a matter of admitting that someone you like did something wrong, doesn't necessarily have to change anything.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

An example of someone being wrong:
Random dude: The sky is blue.
Stupid dude: No, it's green!
.

Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Morals aren't subjective?

Ask Ted Bundy.

That's no subjectivity, that's someone being wrong, there's a difference.

An example of subjectivity:
40k fan 1: I like the Dark Angels best.
40k fan 2: I like the Space Wolves best.

An example of someone being wrong:
Random dude: The sky is blue.
Stupid dude: No, it's green!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Society functions on a consensus of rights and wrongs, these are then written into law and enforced by state appointed enforcers (the police.)

Right and wrong are human constructs, they are not facts. Water freezing at 0C is a fact. Killing another person is a thing that most of us have decided is wrong, but there's no way on earth you can prove it, because it isn't a fact, it's just a consensus of opinion.

No because sometimes the law is quite blatantly wrong (see many of the screwed up laws of older times), but that doesn't change moral facts.

You can prove them, just not THAT way. That's why I said moral fact rather than something like mathematical fact or historical fact. Just because you can't do a mathematical proof of water freezing at 0 degrees Celcius doesn't mean it's subjective, just means you use a different method.

Facts are facts, they don't come in different flavours.

You can measure the wavelengths of the light reflecting from things, so you can prove what colour it is, even if you can't see colours yourself.

You can argue that murder is wrong, the overwhelming majority will agree, but you still can't prove the rightness or wrongness of a thing.

 Desubot wrote:
Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?

Yep, because the sky is blue whether he sees it being blue or not. Much like if a deaf person doesn't hear a marching band nearby doesn't mean there isn't a marching band nearby making noise.

We are not Orks, just believing something isn't enough to make it true.

Yet you are arguing morals are facts?

 jah-joshua wrote:
if you really think that GW should not try to protect what they perceive to be their IP, that is your choice...

See, that's the thing... GW trying to protect what they perceive as their IP is exactly the problem, because what they perceive as their IP has no basis in reality. But they largely get away with it because most of the people they go after can't afford the legal costs of trying to defend themselves.


Just to be clear, are you aware that GW consider this to contain multiple violations of their IP rights? There is no copyright attribution on the image, it's a conversion, and it includes a third party component... all of which GW considers to be a violation. And none of which are actually a violation.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?

Yep, because the sky is blue whether he sees it being blue or not. Much like if a deaf person doesn't hear a marching band nearby doesn't mean there isn't a marching band nearby making noise.

We are not Orks, just believing something isn't enough to make it true.

As well you are aware the the sky can be green at times or any number of other colors.

of course believing something doesn't make it true. that's why you have to set out and prove it. now feel free to Prove to me that IP protection of the 3rd kind is in "FACT" morally wrong.

Try and prove to me that the sky is in FACT blue right before a tornado when it is in fact green (ish).


Edit: Azeral stop copies my thoughts :(

 Azreal13 wrote:
Facts are facts, they don't come in different flavours.

I certainly find it helpful to label them based on nature, but it's really not important I'l admit.

 Azreal13 wrote:
You can measure the wavelengths of the light reflecting from things, so you can prove what colour it is, even if you can't see colours yourself.

You can argue that murder is wrong, the overwhelming majority will agree, but you still can't prove the rightness or wrongness of a thing.

And measuring wavelength wouldn't work for proving that matrix multiplication is not commutative, some things require different methods.

Similarly proving a particular action is wrong requires laying out the reasons for and consequences of the action in question instead. For murdering an innocent for personal pleasure, it is known (axiomatically) that losing an innocent life is bad and someone's personal enjoyment of it doesn't outweigh that. Thus it's wrong, and of course every sane, decent human being already knows this. That's a moral fact.

All this "oh it's not a fact!" thing does is whitewash unacceptable behavior, we'd be better off without it.

 Desubot wrote:

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Desubot wrote:
Other dude. No the sky is grey ya morons. (Color blind) does that make him wrong?

Yep, because the sky is blue whether he sees it being blue or not. Much like if a deaf person doesn't hear a marching band nearby doesn't mean there isn't a marching band nearby making noise.

We are not Orks, just believing something isn't enough to make it true.

As well you are aware the the sky can be green at times or any number of other colors.

of course believing something doesn't make it true. that's why you have to set out and prove it. now feel free to Prove to me that IP protection of the 3rd kind is in "FACT" morally wrong.

Try and prove to me that the sky is in FACT blue right before a tornado when it is in fact green (ish).


Edit: Azeral stop copies my thoughts :(

My fav is when the Sky is red-orange.

 Desubot wrote:
of course believing something doesn't make it true. that's why you have to set out and prove it. now feel free to Prove to me that IP protection of the 3rd kind is in "FACT" morally wrong.

Easy peasy lemon squeezy!

They're claiming ownership of a general concept that does not, can not and should not belong to them - BAD
It results in restricting harmless, potentially worthwhile art - BAD
They don't actually have anything to gain from it, it's not a direct competitor nor are they being ripped off or threatened in anyway - NO REASON TO DO IT
So it's a bad thing to do and they don't have any reason to do it, thus it's wrong.

On a sidenote, if the third bullet point were true in part, it might not be enough to change it, but that's not the discussion so no need to get into that.

Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?

CrashGordon94 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
You can measure the wavelengths of the light reflecting from things, so you can prove what colour it is, even if you can't see colours yourself.

You can argue that murder is wrong, the overwhelming majority will agree, but you still can't prove the rightness or wrongness of a thing.

And measuring wavelength wouldn't work for proving that matrix multiplication is not commutative, some things require different methods.

This isn't a point. The means of determining something aren't relevant to whether the thing can be determined. If you try and prove something with the wrong method, that just makes you a poor scientist.

Mymearan wrote:
Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?

He's in charge , so it's his fault .

The fact that he may have been doing a better job 20 years ago doesn't change that .

Mymearan wrote:
Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?

Essentially, most of the highs involved an element of dumb luck, and most of the lows are self inflicted.

Meanwhile, the discussion of comparitive morality is probably better suited to Off Topic...

And your post shows why this "Morality is subjective" spiel is horrible. Stuff like human sacrifice and homophobia are wrong, and the people who do them are wrong if they think they're okay, saying they're only wrong "from a certain perspective" is horrible, it encourages those awful things by saying they're an opinion rather than a mistake to be corrected and avoided entirely. That people come to these incorrect conclusions only show that morality is complicated, rather than subjective. People often get a different answer to a math question than the accepted one, not because it's subjective but because they don't fully understand math and thus make mistakes. So definitely be open to something being proven right or wrong, but don't say it's subjective.

And who's to judge? Anyone with any sense. And if they get it wrong, well that's what logical debate is for!

@Above: Ninja'd by that. I feel I should leave this up, but if this is off-topic I won't say any more in this debate.

Rather I'll bring it mildly back on topic. This kinda weighs into how I feel about buying GW stuff. Their artists and such are good and creative and many local shop owners are nice so I don't mind supporting GW by buying 40k miniatures, but their upper management are a load of assorted douche-balls so I don't mind screwing over GW by buying stuff off eBay or pirating Codexes. There's a split in GW's merit to me so there's a split in me supporting them. Could imagine the same is true of others too.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Mymearan wrote:
Everyone blames Tom Kirby for everything. But I just read that he's been heading up GW since -91, through all the highs and lows, including most people's personal "golden age" of GW. So what gives?

Essentially, most of the highs involved an element of dumb luck, and most of the lows are self inflicted.

So why are people ever surprised or disappointed when he makes bad decisions, or expect him to change, or indeed quote his otiose marketing thing like its something new? He's been doing the same thing as long as all of us have been involved in the hobby (well, not ALL of us, sorry oldtimers)!

Mymearan wrote:
So why are people ever surprised or disappointed when he makes bad decisions, or expect him to change? He's been doing the same thing as long as all of us have been involved in the hobby (well, not ALL of us, sorry oldtimers)!

Most probably aren't SURPRISED and if they are it's because of it being a "new low" or in a place they didn't expect it would be.
If they're disappointed, probably because upper-management jerk-ery is saddening regardless.
Expecting him to change? Most probably don't expect it, they just want it. Or if they expect it, maybe they're expecting that the consequences will hit him eventually. Which isn't too unreasonable. If your tooliness endangers the business, then your investors might very well give you a boot up the bum... Or maybe they just expect him to get sick of all this and just quit. Not too unreasonable either if he has enough money, if that's all he wants it wouldn't be surprising if he just decides one day he has enough and just retires early with all the money he's already got.

Mymearan wrote:

So why are people ever surprised or disappointed when he makes bad decisions, or expect him to change, or indeed quote his otiose marketing thing like its something new? He's been doing the same thing as long as all of us have been involved in the hobby (well, not ALL of us, sorry oldtimers)!

Because it's not really that black and white.

Back in the 90s, GW were still projecting that vibe of being a part of a community. Sure , they were expensive, and did some odd things.. . But they also did a lot to build the community up .

In the time since then , they've been steadily stripping that all away, leaving just the corporate entity that exists purely for immediate sales. It's harder for people to feel a connection with that entity, and so they become more critical... Which is compounded when that entity does things that seem completely ridiculous.

I know a lot of people descend into nuclear rage over GW's prices, but I'm personally not bothered. I can still afford the models I want and I still have lots of fun playing and painting with friends. Of course I'd buy more if they were cheaper, but having a full-time job and moving into law school, I already buy more than I have time to finish. And why complain so viciously to all of us about it?

I guess it's also become more obvious. 20 years ago there weren't really any competition, so GW could just keep on keeping on, they got lucky with the success of LotR and essentially trod water.

Fast forward to present day, LotR is long dead in any meaningful sense, and GW are managing the increased pressure from competition horribly, the Internet means people with knowledge can converse about it and educate people who may have otherwise had no idea.

wow, CrashGordon, you really seem to like telling people what is right or wrong...
i happen to disagree with you being the judge of how other people should think or feel...
on this one, i am going to have to go with Azrael here...

i have been very clear in my opinion of feeling that GW have a right to protect their IP, but that they shouldn't be bullies...
they tried, the court disagreed, and GW took the hit to their reputation...

you completely blew away any credibility you may have had in your stance as soon as you said you support the pirating of a Codex...
very hypocritical...

@Insaniak: i don't understand what you are trying to convince me of...

as we have seen, many lawyers are happy to step-in to defend the little guy, do the defense pro-bono, and give GW the smackdown in the bargain...
yes, i am aware of GW management's technical stance on my work...
they are more than welcome to have a go at me...
feel free to give them a call and blow the whistle if you would like to...

cheers
jah

Also I think the main reason for their success if because they're often known as THE wargaming company and 40k is often known as THE wargame (in terms of popular exposure for both, of course), if they weren't so much more well-known than everyone else they would have a "clean up your act or die" moment long before now, I could imagine.

On the subject of trademarks and intellectual properties, one daft move GW made is changing the names of their model ranges. I get for example that they want Astra Militarium to replace the term Imperial Guard, because God forbid they can't copyright "Imperial Guard" But ffs, if you're going to make a unique trademark name for something, at least make it reasonably fething prounouncable! not that I have a difficulty wrapping my tongue around a bit of latin (or pseudo-latin?) but I doubt your average 11 year old walking into the store for the first time does...

 thegreatchimp wrote:
On the subject of trademarks and intellectual properties, one daft move GW made is changing the names of their model ranges. I get for example that they want Astra Militarium to replace the term Imperial Guard, because God forbid they can't copyright "Imperial Guard" But ffs, if you're going to make a unique trademark name for something, at least make it reasonably fething prounouncable! not that I have a difficulty wrapping my tongue around a bit of latin (or pseudo-latin?) but I doubt your average 11 year old walking into the store for the first time does...

Sorry all the good names where taken. probably by people that can actually defend there claims

I think its fine that they are using TM able names even if it all sounds like gibberish. most people will keep using the "slang" terms

 jah-joshua wrote:

yes, i am aware of GW management's technical stance on my work...
they are more than welcome to have a go at me...
feel free to give them a call and blow the whistle if you would like to...

I wasn't pointing it out as a threat, just as an example of how GW's perception of their IP is a very different, and much less reasonable, thing to their actual IP.

 insaniak wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:

yes, i am aware of GW management's technical stance on my work...
they are more than welcome to have a go at me...
feel free to give them a call and blow the whistle if you would like to...

I wasn't pointing it out as a threat, just as an example of how GW's perception of their IP is a very different, and much less reasonable, thing to their actual IP.

yup, i am well aware that their stance is flawed, which is why i am not outraged over Spots...
they tried, and they failed, and in doing so brought the author more publicity and sales than she ever could have hoped for...
i am not going to stop buying the work of sculptors who i respect immensely, simply because the company they work for is run by a few jackasses...

cheers
jah