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.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
I will admit that I am shocked - shocked! - at all the hypocrisy here from Americans who think they, the culture that[ i]defines[/i] itself as "only the financially adept and hard-working can have nice things" have any right whatsoever to get rules for free!

Of course, as a commie-socialist-hippie Brit, I have no compunction against the power being in the hands of the people.

(yes, this post is sarcastic as heck)

I can bring out little red flags if you want to wave them as the revolutionary tanks roll past.

MaoZeDong wan sui! Long live our glorious leaders!

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
At the same time, you are saying that person A is entitled to it, when person B is not, simply because person A has more disposable income available to them at the time the formation becomes available. If they were not limited editions, I wouldn't have nearly the problem with it that I do, as someone could at least save up to buy it.

So, are you saying that if I showed up with a copy of these rules, and I told you I purchased them but this is a copy I made because I don't want to damage the original, would you let me play with it? If your answer is no, then you're not abiding by what you just said. If your answer is yes, then how do you tell (not being a service provider with access to my data usage) if I'm lying or not?

To use the vehicle analogy. I own a car, but my friend owns a BMW. I have an important meeting to go to where appearances are important. I ask my friend if I can borrow their BMW and they say yes. Do I have access to a BMW? I don't own one, but it sure seems like I do. How can you (not being a policeman with access to the vehicle's ownership) tell if I own the vehicle or not?

 Bishop F Gantry wrote:

themadlbb wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
I feel that if you're going to use them, you should own a legit copy. This applies to all rules, including big book and codices. The exception is for trialing something new, and using a group/club copy.

In general I'd agree with you.

In this circumstance, don't you think it is prohibitively difficult to actually get the physical copy of the rules? Of all of the players of 40K in all the world, only a few hundred will end up owning a copy. This is not a matter of buying a rulebook, since if you are able to run the formation you have already paid the monetary requirements to play it (the actual rules are free with the purchase of the web bundle). Thus, we would be limiting it essentially to the people who had the money to buy a set of models within a very short period of time. If they sold the rules separately, I'd be behind you in saying that you need to buy them if you want to use them. In this case, I'd say that a verified scan would do just fine.

Don't mind me just changing all attacks to Strenght D *hits print* runs rules trough a laminator. What? printing is fine so no one will mind some house ruling proxied as official rules aswell.

This argument against allowing scans seems particularly silly to me. Very easy to police, particularly in a competitive setting. I doubt that this would ever be much of an issue.

If you look at the legal of GW's website I bet they say part of the terms of sale of their items is that you don't produce any copies of them whatsoever. I can't say for sure but It would be a fairly typical GW legal move .

nareik wrote:
If you look at the legal of GW's website I bet they say part of the terms of sale of their items is that you don't produce any copies of them whatsoever. I can't say for sure but It would be a fairly typical GW legal move .

The law in Canada and the US (not sure about other countries) is that if you own something, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it (right of resale). You may make copies of things that are copyrighted so long as it is for your personal use only (the copies may not be resold, even if the original can be). As such, in the US and Canada you may make a copy of your rulebooks and codexes so long as it is for personal use only.

But you have to own the original to make copies, correct?

 Blacksails wrote:
But you have to own the original to make copies, correct?

That's correct. If I lent you the original, and you made a copy, that'd be illegal.

EDIT: The problem at a tournament is that you can't tell if the copy I have in front of me was made legally or illegally. Since you cannot prove that it was made illegally, you must assume it is legal. Whether or not you call the police on me to check it out is another matter

 Yarium wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
But you have to own the original to make copies, correct?

That's correct. If I lent you the original, and you made a copy, that'd be illegal.

Right, and if you make a copy, but give it to me, that's no longer for personal use as well, and therefore also illegal, correct?

 Blacksails wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 Blacksails wrote:
But you have to own the original to make copies, correct?

That's correct. If I lent you the original, and you made a copy, that'd be illegal.

Right, and if you make a copy, but give it to me, that's no longer for personal use as well, and therefore also illegal, correct?

Incorrect. You are using my copy that I made for myself, and my right as an owner is to be able to lend it out. If you made a copy of that copy, that'd still be illegal.

Interesting.

So then how does sharing it en masse work? Can I claim 1000+ people are my friend and I'm just giving them these copies of rules/books/whatever?

 Blacksails wrote:
Interesting.

So then how does sharing it en masse work? Can I claim 1000+ people are my friend and I'm just giving them these copies of rules/books/whatever?

Welcome to the whole reason why internet laws exist

It's also possible for me to upload my file to a secure system, then just give 1000 friends access to a read-only version of that system. This is why file-streaming sites are valid. The "owner" (which is dubious already) isn't letting you make a copy - you're just viewing it from them. It's the same thing as owning cable TV and inviting 1000 friends over to all watch it off my screen.

EDIT: I should point out that the main reason why file-streamers are shut down is not because they're letting you view their material, but because they don't own the material in the first place, and obtained a copy of it. This is different from Netflix, which receives licences to "own" the rights to the shows they "deliver" - but ultimately, Netflix is just a very friendly, affordable, file-streaming service.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:

 Maelstrom808 wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
This is full-on internet douchebag "I AM ENTITLED TO EVERYTHING BECAUSE INTERNET" at its finest. You are not entitled to gak.

At the same time, you are saying that person A is entitled to it, when person B is not, simply because person A has more disposable income available to them at the time the formation becomes available. If they were not limited editions, I wouldn't have nearly the problem with it that I do, as someone could at least save up to buy it.

This is still a sense of entitlement, just a different flavor.

Yes, in the same way I am saying Person A is entitled to their BMW because they have more disposable income whereas Person B who has not purchased a BMW is not. I will agree very much so that the fact there is even limited edition stuff that isn't available in another form (Codices are fine, since the LE stuff is just fun to have) is crap and should not exist.

That's not quite a fair comparison. We're not pitting these cars against each other for sport.

Is it morally wrong to subvert a system that provides an advantage for having greater personal wealth?

But maybe you're right; richer people are more worthy, because they are richer. After all, they worked that much harder than the rest of us to be that much richer, right? It only follows that they should be able to use that wealth for personal gain in other areas, like competition.

Blacksails - I think it was Napster that tried that argument. IANAL, but claiming something that's "clearly" bogus, like all of the thousand people are your friends, where its clear you didn't care who those thousand people were, doesn't fly, legally speaking. "For all intents and purposes" style concepts actually do matter. Look to the Aero case for use of loopholes like that.

Yarium,
That might be the letter of the law, but the US DOJ managed to convince all the big names in that sector to either shut down, or give copyright interests their way in policing those files. Look at the news just after MEGA got hit - most similar sites capitulated or closed down.

Long story short, Copyright is a long discussion, and if you think you've found a useful loophole, you're probably wrong.

Bharring wrote:
Blacksails - I think it was Napster that tried that argument. IANAL, but claiming something that's "clearly" bogus, like all of the thousand people are your friends, where its clear you didn't care who those thousand people were, doesn't fly, legally speaking. "For all intents and purposes" style concepts actually do matter. Look to the Aero case for use of loopholes like that.

Yarium,
That might be the letter of the law, but the US DOJ managed to convince all the big names in that sector to either shut down, or give copyright interests their way in policing those files. Look at the news just after MEGA got hit - most similar sites capitulated or closed down.

Long story short, Copyright is a long discussion, and if you think you've found a useful loophole, you're probably wrong.

Well, Mega didn't own the material that was being uploaded. Their argument was that others uploaded it, and they shouldn't be held accountable for what others do with their service. It was legally questionable. Also, note that in Canada there's currently an issue with Canadians using IP-altering services to access American Netflix instead of Canadian Netflix. Since Netflix needs to own the rights to shows for each country they're in, and the two aren't always the same (Netflix US usually has more and isn't bound by the same laws), there's a drive for people to do this. Netflix is also claiming that it is not their fault that Canadians are figuring out ways around their systems, but ultimately the laws are the same - Netflix is inadvertendly giving people access to material that they don't own.

As for loopholes, I'm not trying to show loopholes - this example was merely to demonstrate how you can't assume that a copy brought by someone to a tournament is illegal. There are a plethora of ways and reasons that it could be legal. I myself make it a point to own every source for every model or formation I put down on the table.

EDIT: And yes, that means carrying as many books as I need to for tournaments. Thankfully, my forces are pretty simple, often just CAD.

So with regards to this particular topic, grabbing the rules off BoLS or whatever would be illegal?

Thanks by the way, very informative. My legalese is non-existant for stuff like this.

I would assume it'd be akin to downloading music off of file sharing sites.

The points I'd suggest taking are:
-Individuals can't tell if a printed copy is legal. So don't tell people their printed copies aren't.
-Many ways to get said copies actually are illegal. Doesn't matter to most, though.
-Copyright is a complex topic. If you want to understand it, this thread alone isn't enough. Most loopholes people come up with aren't actually legal.


In summary,
-The copy is probably illegal, but you can't know. So you can't call people on it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Nope; you didn't buy it and it's still available?

You don't get to play it. After it's No Longer Available--fine, whatever.

Why the feth would you care...were talking about a 1 page data slate. Even tournament organizers don't care if it's a digital copy.

I don't care how they get it, if it's the actual dataslate or just a picture of it, I would only allow it if i could see the rules. Too many times have people just brought formations from one of the many supplements or campaigns and not owned the actual rules, trusting me to take his word that it gives all these ridiculously effect rules for free.

Of course, most of the time it's true, Leviathan did let him take 3 Flyrants, but the fact he didn't have it to show me made me feel salty throughout the entire game. In a similar instance, someone took like 5 Dreadnoughts, telling me the formation gave them Rampage and D3 HOW for free. He also didn't have the rules, but on later inspection i found this formation was Apocalyse only and he just pulled it on me and since he didn't have the rules, he just expected me to believe him.

Play what you like, but if you don't have the actual, physical rules don't expect me to believe you when you tell me your assault marines can charge first turn, because Games Workshop went through a lot of trouble to make sure nothing else could. It would be very silly if they did something to counteract all that work...

 Yarium wrote:

nareik wrote:
If you look at the legal of GW's website I bet they say part of the terms of sale of their items is that you don't produce any copies of them whatsoever. I can't say for sure but It would be a fairly typical GW legal move .

The law in Canada and the US (not sure about other countries) is that if you own something, you are allowed to do whatever you want with it (right of resale). You may make copies of things that are copyrighted so long as it is for your personal use only (the copies may not be resold, even if the original can be). As such, in the US and Canada you may make a copy of your rulebooks and codexes so long as it is for personal use only.

pretty sure if you aren't selling anything - you are breaking 0 laws.

 Yarium wrote:

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
At the same time, you are saying that person A is entitled to it, when person B is not, simply because person A has more disposable income available to them at the time the formation becomes available. If they were not limited editions, I wouldn't have nearly the problem with it that I do, as someone could at least save up to buy it.

So, are you saying that if I showed up with a copy of these rules, and I told you I purchased them but this is a copy I made because I don't want to damage the original, would you let me play with it? If your answer is no, then you're not abiding by what you just said. If your answer is yes, then how do you tell (not being a service provider with access to my data usage) if I'm lying or not?

To use the vehicle analogy. I own a car, but my friend owns a BMW. I have an important meeting to go to where appearances are important. I ask my friend if I can borrow their BMW and they say yes. Do I have access to a BMW? I don't own one, but it sure seems like I do. How can you (not being a policeman with access to the vehicle's ownership) tell if I own the vehicle or not?

Pfft. Either show me that Black card and show the receipt for the BMW or GTFO.

Wait, but we can rent BMWs. Can we Rent datacards? Hmmm... How about... "Rent Friendship" so that we can "Borrow Datacard copy"! Aha. "Buy Friendship & Datacard copy!" Friendship for life, send PayPal here!

Bwahaha who knew ebay could be so lucrative.

Xenomancers wrote:pretty sure if you aren't selling anything - you are breaking 0 laws.

I don't believe that's correct, as copy-right law works a bit differently. If I make a copy of a movie and give it to you, then the company that produced the movie has theoretically lost some portion of its earned revenue, as you now own a movie you might otherwise have purchased. This law is so stingy that there are mall stores that have been known to get in trouble for playing music they don't own - hence why numerous stores now either have strictly defined music (possibly controlled by an off-site location), don't allow employees to play their own music, and/or just play the radio. The lawyers say that you are otherwise broadcasting a song you don't own, and any customer walking by the store is potentially lost revenue. It's stupid, but that's the laws as they currently stand.

Blacksails wrote:So with regards to this particular topic, grabbing the rules off BoLS or whatever would be illegal?

Thanks by the way, very informative. My legalese is non-existant for stuff like this.

This is where it gets extra murky, so really be careful with what I'm saying - but I'm sure some part of what I'm saying will be wrong in some way.

Often BoLS posts pictures that are actually just links to images hosted by someone else. For example, today they've posted up the "Dark Angel Decurion" , and an image from a book that is copyrighted. However, BoLS isn't hosting the file, and they're not the ones that uploaded the file. In effect, they're just pointing out to other people where the file is. The image is actually hosted by SpikeyBits, which clears BoLS of any wrongdoing. Even SpikeyBits may be cleared of any wrongdoing, as they are just getting the file image from whomever took the image in the first place and are protected as journalists. Even the person that took the picture may be protected as a journalist (as silly as this may be), since they are taking the photo in order to better convey the news of the image, and the image is from White Dwarf (which is itself a news-item, and so I don't think is copy-rightable) and this information is now deemed Public, and is subject to Public Usage laws.

In other words, using images from BoLS is often safe, and even if it weren't, it'd likely be BoLS that'd get in trouble rather than you.

 Azreal13 wrote:
In a friendly environment, as long as you've got the document in some form so I can check it is being played properly? Fine.

However, in a competitive environment I think it's a much more complicated conversation.

In a "competitive environment" EVERYTHING is a more complicated conversation.

serious business...

I don't care but don't get mad at me if I want to tailor my list to your shenanigans list

This formation should have been in the codex.

Producing a web exclusive bundle to sell a rule for a codex that literally just came out is blatant gouging and extremely poor business practice.

So as a disgruntled consumer I would say make photo copies and throw them out your window

I don't know anyone who would care about you playing. There might be a few special snowflakes who would in the entire country.

 Konrax wrote:
This formation should have been in the codex.

Producing a web exclusive bundle to sell a rule for a codex that literally just came out is blatant gouging and extremely poor business practice.

So as a disgruntled consumer I would say make photo copies and throw them out your window

Hear hear.

Might be a bit of my Brit side showing but boy howdy do I hate abuse of authority and scummy business practices like this. Let's head down to Nottingham and go Clash style on 'em, feth the Queen and such.

 Jambles wrote:

 Konrax wrote:
This formation should have been in the codex.

Producing a web exclusive bundle to sell a rule for a codex that literally just came out is blatant gouging and extremely poor business practice.

So as a disgruntled consumer I would say make photo copies and throw them out your window

Hear hear.

Might be a bit of my Brit side showing but boy howdy do I hate abuse of authority and scummy business practices like this. Let's head down to Nottingham and go Clash style on 'em, feth the Queen and such.

I would be careful, I believe the emperors character is loosely based on the queen.

She hears and sees all.

I am Alpharius

 Yarium wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:pretty sure if you aren't selling anything - you are breaking 0 laws.

I don't believe that's correct, as copy-right law works a bit differently. If I make a copy of a movie and give it to you, then the company that produced the movie has theoretically lost some portion of its earned revenue, as you now own a movie you might otherwise have purchased. This law is so stingy that there are mall stores that have been known to get in trouble for playing music they don't own - hence why numerous stores now either have strictly defined music (possibly controlled by an off-site location), don't allow employees to play their own music, and/or just play the radio. The lawyers say that you are otherwise broadcasting a song you don't own, and any customer walking by the store is potentially lost revenue. It's stupid, but that's the laws as they currently stand.

Blacksails wrote:So with regards to this particular topic, grabbing the rules off BoLS or whatever would be illegal?

Thanks by the way, very informative. My legalese is non-existant for stuff like this.

This is where it gets extra murky, so really be careful with what I'm saying - but I'm sure some part of what I'm saying will be wrong in some way.

Often BoLS posts pictures that are actually just links to images hosted by someone else. For example, today they've posted up the "Dark Angel Decurion" , and an image from a book that is copyrighted. However, BoLS isn't hosting the file, and they're not the ones that uploaded the file. In effect, they're just pointing out to other people where the file is. The image is actually hosted by SpikeyBits, which clears BoLS of any wrongdoing. Even SpikeyBits may be cleared of any wrongdoing, as they are just getting the file image from whomever took the image in the first place and are protected as journalists. Even the person that took the picture may be protected as a journalist (as silly as this may be), since they are taking the photo in order to better convey the news of the image, and the image is from White Dwarf (which is itself a news-item, and so I don't think is copy-rightable) and this information is now deemed Public, and is subject to Public Usage laws.

In other words, using images from BoLS is often safe, and even if it weren't, it'd likely be BoLS that'd get in trouble rather than you.

Alright - I'm not disagreeing with you but consider this. I can buy the original - make copies and then sell the original. GW lost profits but I broke no laws. How could anyone ethically not let me play with this digital copy?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

Xenomancers wrote:pretty sure if you aren't selling anything - you are breaking 0 laws.

I don't believe that's correct, as copy-right law works a bit differently. If I make a copy of a movie and give it to you, then the company that produced the movie has theoretically lost some portion of its earned revenue, as you now own a movie you might otherwise have purchased. This law is so stingy that there are mall stores that have been known to get in trouble for playing music they don't own - hence why numerous stores now either have strictly defined music (possibly controlled by an off-site location), don't allow employees to play their own music, and/or just play the radio. The lawyers say that you are otherwise broadcasting a song you don't own, and any customer walking by the store is potentially lost revenue. It's stupid, but that's the laws as they currently stand.

Blacksails wrote:So with regards to this particular topic, grabbing the rules off BoLS or whatever would be illegal?

Thanks by the way, very informative. My legalese is non-existant for stuff like this.

This is where it gets extra murky, so really be careful with what I'm saying - but I'm sure some part of what I'm saying will be wrong in some way.

Often BoLS posts pictures that are actually just links to images hosted by someone else. For example, today they've posted up the "Dark Angel Decurion" , and an image from a book that is copyrighted. However, BoLS isn't hosting the file, and they're not the ones that uploaded the file. In effect, they're just pointing out to other people where the file is. The image is actually hosted by SpikeyBits, which clears BoLS of any wrongdoing. Even SpikeyBits may be cleared of any wrongdoing, as they are just getting the file image from whomever took the image in the first place and are protected as journalists. Even the person that took the picture may be protected as a journalist (as silly as this may be), since they are taking the photo in order to better convey the news of the image, and the image is from White Dwarf (which is itself a news-item, and so I don't think is copy-rightable) and this information is now deemed Public, and is subject to Public Usage laws.

In other words, using images from BoLS is often safe, and even if it weren't, it'd likely be BoLS that'd get in trouble rather than you.

Alright - I'm not disagreeing with you but consider this. I can buy the original - make copies and then sell the original. GW lost profits but I broke no laws. How could anyone ethically not let me play with this digital copy?

Please see my post about how this formation should be in the codex, and that this is a blatant abuse of business ethics, and therefore not subject to any discrimination from players who request the original copy of the rule.

At best expect a photocopy or printed version. If you request a receipt of purchase for using said formation I would show you the sm codex.