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.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Copyright and legal protections for an out of print work last long after its out of print. No one is entitled to access the rules. Consideration has to be given to the fact that it's a limited edition; so it was out of print when it was released and out of print by design. That actually makes it far worse that someone would produce a copy of the rules for use as it diminishes the value of legitimate copies. Those are legal grounds for GW or someone with a legitimate copy to sue for damages under copyright laws. Presumably there is some value at which someone would sell their copy of the rules and while that may be more than most people are willing to pay that's what they're worth and anything that diminishes a person from being able to get that for a legitimate copy is as unethical as theft or vandalism.

I wouldn't give GW so much credit but GW by making the rules limited edition rules could be seen as imposing a degree of balance on the meta-game in preventing from too drastically shifting in favor of rules that maybe representative of fluff but not necessarily as balanced as other rules sets.

And this raises one very simple question: why should I give a about what GW thinks about this?

(Or about some poor unfortunate collector who wants their special snowflake copy of the formation rules to be worth $9999999999999999? Or the "pay to win" guy who feels like they're entitled to be the only person in their group who gets to use the blatantly overpowered formation just because they have the biggest hobby budget?)

You don't have to care what they think.

If you have an issue with the way copyright law works, you're of course perfectly free to lobby an appropriate government representative to have the law changed to something that better suits your personal preferences.


Unless you have as much money as Disney, good luck with that, though.

Ethics is why you should care. Legality is why you have to care. Yes, at the end of the day you can ignore the law and you can be morally bankrupt but that's the same choice you have when you're in a grocery store and can contemplate shoplifting a candy bar. The grocery store isn't going bankrupt over it, but there is some intrinsict depravity to the action that is wrong.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Ethics is why you should care.

I see no ethical problem here. GW isn't losing any sales from piracy, their only "loss" is the ability to do stupid harmful things to the game I play.

Also, don't forget that game rules can't be copyrighted, so while technically it's a violation of copyright to pirate the picture of the models in the formation or the exact words to describe those rules it's not much of a moral issue.

Legality is why you have to care.

Not really. I'm more likely to win the lottery, buy GW, and print as many copies of the formation as I want than I am to suffer any legal consequences from pirating it.

Yes, at the end of the day you can ignore the law and you can be morally bankrupt but that's the same choice you have when you're in a grocery store and can contemplate shoplifting a candy bar. The grocery store isn't going bankrupt over it, but there is some intrinsict depravity to the action that is wrong.

That's a terrible analogy because the grocery store is suffering a quantifiable loss, no matter how small it is. GW, on the other hand, suffers no loss at all from pirating OOP rules because they weren't going to sell you a copy of those rules anyway. In fact, GW probably gains money from piracy in this case because people who pirate the formation are likely to buy new models to use it.

 aka_mythos wrote:
Ethics is why you should care. Legality is why you have to care. Yes, at the end of the day you can ignore the law and you can be morally bankrupt but that's the same choice you have when you're in a grocery store and can contemplate shoplifting a candy bar. The grocery store isn't going bankrupt over it, but there is some intrinsict depravity to the action that is wrong.

A certain quote springs to mind:

"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Robert Heinlein

I think if you want to equate morality and strict adherence of laws and the appropriateness of their punishments there will be much disagreement.
Whether I can be bothered with the "hassle" is a whole different matter.

So sure, copy-write is a pain in this instance, do not play others who use it or play it anyway and tell others to go look it up if unsure of the rules.
We are "free" to do what we all want.

aka_mythos wrote:And I address the ethical issue that stems from the same place as the legal issue.

No, it's irrelevant legalistic nonsense.
Yeah it's still copyrighted. So what? They're not selling it anymore so pirating it does no harm whatsoever, simple fact.
And just because a stupid, screwed-up law says something doesn't mean it's correct.

aka_mythos wrote:I also address that their limited availability may in fact be how GW has balanced their use on a meta-level.

Then that's not balance, in fact it's the literal opposite of balance. And quite frankly nobody should ever stand up for crap like that.

The most ridiculous part of this thread is the idea that if I show up to play my 2000pt BA army and forget my books at home, there are people who would refuse to play me and it would be ME who would be embarrassed by that fact.

However, in all reality, I doubt any of the people who are spouting this garbage would actually act in this extremely rude, alienating way...so what are we really doing here? I mean, there are tons of people who've replied to this thread in a manner that makes me want to get in a time machine, go back in time to the night they were conceived, and tell their parents "not tonight...just trust me...this one's gonna make a real loser." BUT...I honestly believe if we met in a store, there wouldn't be any issues and we could have a great game. Do you know why? Because gamers, by and large, aren't as big as A-holes as we're being to one another here in this thread.

I know forums are the place for insanity on the interwebs, but this argument is just the DUMBEST crap I've read in a long, long time. It's like I'm talking to my evangelical christian mother about something she just watched on FOX news...the world you're painting just doesn't exist.

 Voidwraith wrote:
The most ridiculous part of this thread is the idea that if I show up to play my 2000pt BA army and forget my books at home, there are people who would refuse to play me and it would be ME who would be embarrassed by that fact.

I'm not sure why you would be embarrassed about it, but absolutely I would refuse to play against you if you didn't have rules to hand.

I've played too many games in the past where guys had not bothered to bring the relevant rules and wound up going by memory... and subsequently getting stuff very, very wrong. That's tolerable when they'll at least entertain the possibility that their memory might be flawed... and very, very frustrating when they won't admit they might be wrong on something that they're misremembering.

As a result, I prefer to just avoid that situation entirely.


There's nothing nasty in that. I'd just prefer to get on with playing the game, rather than debating rules issues that could have been resolved in a moment if you had brought your book with you.

Yeah it's still copyrighted. So what? They're not selling it anymore so pirating it does no harm whatsoever, simple fact.

Yes it does. It harms the secondary market for players who have the rules and might sell them.

It harms the value of any future rules bundles like this as it infringes on the perceived value of an exclusive limited edition rule like this.

Elvis is dead. No, really he is. So pirating his music may not do him any harm, but it does harm his estate and heirs.

Breton wrote:

Yeah it's still copyrighted. So what? They're not selling it anymore so pirating it does no harm whatsoever, simple fact.

Yes it does. It harms the secondary market for players who have the rules and might sell them.

It harms the value of any future rules bundles like this as it infringes on the perceived value of an exclusive limited edition rule like this.

Elvis is dead. No, really he is. So pirating his music may not do him any harm, but it does harm his estate and heirs.

To be fair, copyright was never intended to cover secondary market value, and Elvis' heir's didn't have a hand in writing, producing, distributing, or performing his material and many have a problem with the existing copyright system extending protections that far.

But this is now something suited for a different thread

Breton wrote:
Yes it does. It harms the secondary market for players who have the rules and might sell them.

Who cares? I have zero sympathy for people who bought the rules just because they think they will be valuable. If see someone crying about their devalued special rules then I'll get a cup and collect their delicious tears.

It harms the value of any future rules bundles like this as it infringes on the perceived value of an exclusive limited edition rule like this.

Good. Maybe if there's zero perceived value then GW will stop making them.

Elvis is dead. No, really he is. So pirating his music may not do him any harm, but it does harm his estate and heirs.

The key difference here is that Elvis' music is still available for sale, so pirating instead of buying does harm the legitimate owner of that music. GW, on the other hand, isn't selling the drop pod formation anymore so it's impossible for piracy to cost them additional sales of it.

 Peregrine wrote:
GW, on the other hand, isn't selling the drop pod formation anymore so it's impossible for piracy to cost them additional sales of it.

Which doesn't change the fact that as the owners of that material, it's their choice whether or not to make it available.

Someone not wanting to sell or give you something they own does not entitle you to just take it.

 insaniak wrote:
Which doesn't change the fact that as the owners of that material, it's their choice whether or not to make it available.

They have the legal right to do so. I have no ethical problem whatsoever with ignoring that decision.

Someone not wanting to sell or give you something they own does not entitle you to just take it.

Why not? And let's be clear here that we're talking about a product that GW did sell, not me breaking into someone's house and taking their private possessions or ignoring an artist's desire to keep creative control of their work.

 Peregrine wrote:
Why not? .

Because it's their property. And they've chosen not to give it to you.


The fact that they used to sell it is completely irrelevant. It's their property. That means it's their choice as to where and when they sell it.

 Talizvar wrote:

 aka_mythos wrote:
Ethics is why you should care. Legality is why you have to care. Yes, at the end of the day you can ignore the law and you can be morally bankrupt but that's the same choice you have when you're in a grocery store and can contemplate shoplifting a candy bar. The grocery store isn't going bankrupt over it, but there is some intrinsict depravity to the action that is wrong.

A certain quote springs to mind:

"I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do." - Robert Heinlein

I think if you want to equate morality and strict adherence of laws and the appropriateness of their punishments there will be much disagreement.
Whether I can be bothered with the "hassle" is a whole different matter.

So sure, copy-write is a pain in this instance, do not play others who use it or play it anyway and tell others to go look it up if unsure of the rules.
We are "free" to do what we all want.

I acknowledge that ethics and law are two different circumstances; that's why I phrase it as two separate thoughts and continue by addressing them as two separate things. I just happen to believe there is some partial alignment in this specific instance. With these types of discussions all too often people bounce back and forth arguing partially one and then partially the other; I say both in this regard are validly in favor of the right holders. I wouldn't begin to argue the "punishments," I can only assert that there is a monetary damage of some sort afflicted by this disregard for someone's property rights.

You quote Heinlein here he talks of the intolerance of obnoxious rules and the moral indignation against unjust law but he's trying to underscore the responsibility of the individual to stand in opposition precisely because they are free. The question: Is copyright law unjust?-Is the creator of a work unfairly protected by the law or are we unfairly deprived by that law? Considering Heinlein sued for copyright infringement I find it hard to believe he thought the body of laws to unjust. Where is the moral imperative and justice in taking this and using it unduly?

I don't believe in a strict adherence but I think there is a point where they've been abandoned. For instance if someone wants to read a copy of the rules I think its arguably scholarly and thus fair use even though there isn't anything scholastic about reading them, but when they take them to play without having paid for them they wrung all possible utility and worth from that written work without due compensation. At that point there is transgression and nothing left that hasn't been taken.

 aka_mythos wrote:
For instance if someone wants to read a copy of the rules I think its arguably scholarly and thus fair use even though there isn't anything scholastic about reading them, but when they take them to play without having paid for them they wrung all possible utility and worth from that written work without due compensation. At that point there is transgression and nothing left that hasn't been taken.

Under US law game rules can't be copyrighted. The text/images/etc used to describe those rules can, but not the rules themselves. So if you're ok with pirating a copy of the rules to read and learn them then how exactly can you object to using those rules in a game? Once you've learned them you're now using un-copyrightable material (point costs, how many dice to roll, etc) and the copyrighted material is just a reference sheet in case someone else wants to study those rules.

Where is the moral imperative and justice in taking this and using it unduly?

The justice in taking the rules is that the point of copyright law, at least in the context of a for-profit business selling mass-produced rulebooks, is to allow a business to create something and sell it without some other business making a direct copy of their work and undercutting the creator's prices (since the copier doesn't have to recover the time and money invested in making something new). This gives businesses incentive to create new products, and all of society benefits. But in this case GW has abandoned their creation and is no longer interested in making money from it, so what exactly is their copyright protecting?

 Peregrine wrote:
Under US law game rules can't be copyrighted. The text/images/etc used to describe those rules can, but not the rules themselves.

You keep bringing this up as if it's something special about game rules. It's not.

The reason that the rules mechanics themselves aren't covered by copyright is simply that copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The rules mechanic is the idea. The written page of rules is the expression.

Sure, you can learn how the rules work by reading a pirated copy. Or by going to the library. Or by looking at a friend's book.

Good luck showing up to a game and persuading an opponent that the rules totally work the way you say they do, because you memorised them three month ago...

But in this case GW has abandoned their creation and is no longer interested in making money from it, so what exactly is their copyright protecting?

It's protecting their right to choose how and when their creation is made available.

As it should, on account of it being theirs.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:And I address the ethical issue that stems from the same place as the legal issue.

No, it's irrelevant legalistic nonsense.
Yeah it's still copyrighted. So what? They're not selling it anymore so pirating it does no harm whatsoever, simple fact.
And just because a stupid, screwed-up law says something doesn't mean it's correct.

You assert the law is some how unjust but then why is "no harm" even enter the equation? -If the law is unjust your ethical imperative should be to break it explicitly because it will cause harm. It diminishes the value of the limited edition and diminishes their ability to sell such future limited editions. If people can just acquire future rules for free with impunity why would they ever buy legitimately the next limited edition?

If the law is somehow "stupid" then it demands a rational argument as to how the law fails. Laws are intended to protect the mutually agreed respect we regard for each other. Something has been created and sold as a limited edition, GW enjoyed the benefits of being able to do that and the customers who bought it get to enjoy exclusivity, but GW still gets to enjoy their rights after everything is sold because we don't know what their long term intention is and even if at present they might not intend to do any more printings of the rules they have the rights so they can freely change their mind.

CrashGordon94 wrote:

aka_mythos wrote:I also address that their limited availability may in fact be how GW has balanced their use on a meta-level.

Then that's not balance, in fact it's the literal opposite of balance. And quite frankly nobody should ever stand up for crap like that.

If there are only 800 legitimate copies of the rules the statistical odd of encountering someone who is playing with them is pretty low given the number of people who play the game. So even if the rules are imbalanced they are statistically negligible in the grand scheme of all the games of 40k played everywhere and if it is negligible its indistinguishable on this level and thus balanced.

Vaktathi wrote:

Breton wrote:

Yeah it's still copyrighted. So what? They're not selling it anymore so pirating it does no harm whatsoever, simple fact.

Yes it does. It harms the secondary market for players who have the rules and might sell them.

It harms the value of any future rules bundles like this as it infringes on the perceived value of an exclusive limited edition rule like this...

To be fair, copyright was never intended to cover secondary market value, and Elvis' heir's didn't have a hand in writing, producing, distributing, or performing his material and many have a problem with the existing copyright system extending protections that far.

But this is now something suited for a different thread

While copyright doesn't protect the second hand market, damage done to it by piracy is proof of damage to right holder and their ability to release revised or new editions of a work. Take Tolkien, his books were in such high demand that they were pirated quite extensively when they were first brought over and while I'm sure some justified buying pirated copies because of the shortages in the US ultimately diminished sales of later printings. Ultimately we don't know what GW plans on doing, they may well be planing a book that compiles them, but why should they ever release it if too many people so blatantly disregard their creative rights.

Very interesting ideas posted here.
Ok so if I did not buy the Skyhammer set then I can not play them and can not use their rules? Wait I can not get some Devistators, put them in pods, and some Assault marines and say these are those. They have to be 'those exact models that came from that purchases?

Sooo I guess if I bought some Dark Angel Terminators and marines at one point and eventually repaint them because I want to change my army over to say Imperial Fists I can not... Because tough luck, I bought the Dark Angels sets and not the equivilent Space Marines sets and I can not use their rules?
Yeeeaaah ok the crazy train is at full steam...

"What! Oh hell no those are not 'SternGuard box sternguard! Those are juist bitted and painted up normal marines! Hahahaha they have normal ammunition and rules, you can not use the rules of Sternguard, lol!!"
Yeah, nooooo. Not how that works.

 insaniak wrote:
You keep bringing this up as if it's something special about game rules. It's not.

The reason that the rules mechanics themselves aren't covered by copyright is simply that copyright covers the expression of an idea, not the idea itself. The rules mechanic is the idea. The written page of rules is the expression.

Sure, you can learn how the rules work by reading a pirated copy. Or by going to the library. Or by looking at a friend's book.

Yes, I know that's what the law says, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of the situation. You can learn what the rules are, memorize them, and play as many games with them as you want. And all of your opponents can do the exact same thing to prepare for you using those rules. The only thing you can't do is print an exact copy of the formation sheet to bring to your game. So no, I'm not really too worried about the ethics of breaking a minor technicality of copyright law for the sake of convenience.

It's protecting their right to choose how and when their creation is made available.

As it should, on account of it being theirs.

That's nice. I don't give a about that right. You'd have a point if we were talking about an artist creating one-of-a-kind works that were never intended for mass production and wanting to keep them special by limiting their numbers, but we aren't. We're talking about copying a piece of mass-produced promotional material that was thrown in the box with some plastic toys. It has no creative merit, and I don't think there's any plausible argument that its creator cares about it beyond how much profit it generates. So no, I'm not going to feel one bit of regret about ignoring GW's right to choose how their rules are available.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 aka_mythos wrote:
It diminishes the value of the limited edition and diminishes their ability to sell such future limited editions. If people can just acquire future rules for free with impunity why would they ever buy legitimately the next limited edition?

Good point. We clearly have an obligation to pirate GW's limited edition rules so they get rid of this "pay to win" insanity.

If there are only 800 legitimate copies of the rules the statistical odd of encountering someone who is playing with them is pretty low given the number of people who play the game. So even if the rules are imbalanced they are statistically negligible in the grand scheme of all the games of 40k played everywhere and if it is negligible its indistinguishable on this level and thus balanced.

Which does nothing to address the balance issue. If you happen to have one of those buyers in your group then they have access to a blatantly overpowered formation that you can't use. Why? Because they have more money than you and can afford to buy an expensive new formation as soon as it becomes available. That's just barely short of replacing all of the D6 rolls in 40k with having each player burn $20 bills and letting the person who sacrifices the most money choose the outcome of the "roll".

As to how important and 'propitiatory' those Skyhammer rules are and how important it is that only those who bought and have them in hand are to be the only ones allowed to play them... I point you to the what the Warhammer 40k rule book says on that exact subject of their own rules..
"The Spirit of the Game.
Warhammer 40,000 may be somewhat different to any other game you have played, Above all, it's important to remember that the rules are just a framework to support an enjoyable game."
It goes on from there. That is rather the opposite of 'You must have an in hand copy of the purchased rule set with GW recipe, and such rules must only be played along with that set's own models, and only in acordance to the build specified within those rules found within that play set."

Also if you want to get into it about copyright... Selling armies second hand is against copy right. As companies see it, you would have bought that company from them at full retail price so in getting that second hand army you jipped both GW and the store that you play at.. Also no sails tax was paid from said sale. Oh no another law that was broken!

So please, see that the whole idea of saying that only people who bought such can play such, is insane.

Archon Malantai wrote:
Also if you want to get into it about copyright... Selling armies second hand is against copy right. As companies see it, you would have bought that company from them at full retail price so in getting that second hand army you jipped both GW and the store that you play at.. Also no sails tax was paid from said sale. Oh no another law that was broken!

I have a really hard time believing that this is actually the case in US. Selling second hand armies is most certainly not infringing on any copyrights, you are not copying anything, you are selling. If you made 3D-printed copies of the sprues you bought and sold those for profit, that'd be against a few copyright laws, I'd imagine. Or are you seriously claiming that all flea markets are nothing but hives of scum and villainy because everything sold there is second hand? I just can't comprehend what kind of logic you must apply to this situation if you come to this conclusion.

I sure do hope that you've never bought anything significant second hand, like a used car for example, because that would make you not much better than a car thief, right?

I know most tournaments around here and some bigger cons are just fine with copies of datasheets and formations. They will not accept typed text but a laminated copy of a formation printed off the web is just fine. No different than buying the cypher dataslate, printing and using the formation sheet for games.

As far as I know, the only naysayers regarding printed copies were the ones who bought a slammer set just for the limited factor.... and who cares what those naysayers have to say anyway when tourneys and fellow gamers are what matter.

If I had bought a set I would have posted high quality scans up for the community... rules should be available for everyone!! I have seen copies on the internet that print just fine, not quite the same quality but still works well!!

Breton wrote:

Yeah it's still copyrighted. So what? They're not selling it anymore so pirating it does no harm whatsoever, simple fact.

Yes it does. It harms the secondary market for players who have the rules and might sell them.

It harms the value of any future rules bundles like this as it infringes on the perceived value of an exclusive limited edition rule like this.

Elvis is dead. No, really he is. So pirating his music may not do him any harm, but it does harm his estate and heirs.

The secondary market usually seems to be the ones who rushed to get the LE stuff just to sell it for 150-200% more as soon as it finished selling though. Some even obviously breaking 1 per customer limits GW had put in place. There's no sympathy to be left for these people.

I am glad if the secondary sellers for the LE stuff are hurt by this lack of sale because it would help encourage them not to buy a bunch of it to sell this way, which in turn leads to GW's current limited edition fetish.

Archon Malantai wrote:

Yeah, nooooo. Not how that works.

It's also not what anyone other than you was actually saying .

The sole claim being made is that you need the appropriate rules for the formation you are wanting to field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Archon Malantai wrote:

Also if you want to get into it about copyright... Selling armies second hand is against copy right.

No, it isn't.

 Peregrine wrote:
[.....Under US law game rules can't be copyrighted. The text/images/etc used to describe those rules can, but not the rules themselves. ...

Just to clarify for those that maybe confused by this statement, printed game rules are protected under International Copyright law, and as the US is a member of the Berne convention, they are also bound by that too. Have a read HERE for clarification.
However, you can read someone else's copy of a product to get the idea for free, and then play the game from memory, however, If you are challenged to prove your assertion, how do you do it?

As I stated before, in a casual game, anything goes. Happy to play pretty much what anyone wants to throw down, as long as they show me what they have at the the beginning.
In a tournament, however, I would not accept your memory, or a photocopy, or a print out as proof. I would expect a legitimate set of the current rules for what you wish to play. Some tournaments may offer lee-way on this, and should say so at the beginning. If they do, and we all agree to play under those conditions, then fine. It would give me an opportunity to check the rules of the formations prior to the event to make sure that no interesting new buffs make an accidental appearance.

Also, If someone forgot their codex and they are participating in a tournament, they would need to find someone willing to let them borrow a set, or agree with the organisers and opponent that they can look the rules up on someone else's equipment. But if no one will let them borrow a set, or don't have access to a copy, they're boned. I wouldn't expect to sit down to play against someone who had forgotten half, or all, of his army and is proxying table mats and pennies either.
In a casual game however, I don't mind the odd proxy, and if someone forgot their codex I'd still play them, but I'd hope it was just a one off.

Breton wrote:
Yes it does. It harms the secondary market for players who have the rules and might sell them.

It harms the value of any future rules bundles like this as it infringes on the perceived value of an exclusive limited edition rule like this.

Elvis is dead. No, really he is. So pirating his music may not do him any harm, but it does harm his estate and heirs.

I will make a confession that I actually meant "no harm done to GW" and I really should've been more specific saying that.

But looking back now I stand by what I said and I'm 100% with Yaktathi and Peregrine on this one (in fact I'm pretty well 100% with everything Peregrine just said in this thread after that post too).

What's more, I'm not too convinced it'd be all that harmful to these people anyway. Even if other people can pirate those rules, they still have a fancy limited-edition thing that's really special. Back before the classic SNES RPG EarthBound was released on the Wii U's Virtual Console the original carts sold for bucketloads of dosh, even though most people who wanted to play the game just grabbed a ROM and emulator off the web! What's more, many of these people would totally buy a legit copy if they could (EarthBound's another great example, many of those people who emulated it -like me, for one example- immediately bought it when it came out on the Virtual Console), it's not like someone downloading Codex: Dark Angels for free when it's available to buy from GW or even other retailers!

@Insaniak: Yes, it's absolutely GW's right to stop printing it. And now that they have, they have absolutely no reason to object to people pirating it anymore. It's not like Skyhammer is Tom Kirby's sex tape or something.

What "entitles" us to do that? Because it's LITERALLY NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE, because some might want it and that's the only way to get it and because saying only the rich and lucky get to use certain rules is the most ridiculously unfair crap ever. Say what you will about Superheavies, current Eldar and so on, at least anyone with a mind, budget and will to play those can do it!
Let me use another OOP GW product as an example. Let's say you read about Rogue Trader, the very first edition of 40k from the '80s on 1d4chan and you decide you want to try it. No harm in downloading a .pdf, it's been OOP for nearly 30 years! You can't get a copy from GW and thus they're not losing any sales. What's more, as mentioned above this wouldn't even do a lot of harm to those selling it second-hand. An authentic Rogue Trader book would still sell for oodles because it's a rare and valuable thingy that you can't get anymore, even though .pdfs exist.

 aka_mythos wrote:
If the law is somehow "stupid" then it demands a rational argument as to how the law fails. Laws are intended to protect the mutually agreed respect we regard for each other. Something has been created and sold as a limited edition, GW enjoyed the benefits of being able to do that and the customers who bought it get to enjoy exclusivity, but GW still gets to enjoy their rights after everything is sold because we don't know what their long term intention is and even if at present they might not intend to do any more printings of the rules they have the rights so they can freely change their mind.

Okay, stupid in this case or stupid in general?
In this case it's stupid because it's protecting something OOP that needs no protection ("long term intentions" be damned), you can't get it anymore, so those that pirate it ain't doing any harm to GW, protecting it makes no bloody sense ("Too bad you can't get that, that's still wrong even though you're doing no harm and would likely get a legitimate copy if you could!"). Same reason it'd be dumb to get up peoples' asses about circulating pirated VHS tapes of a movie that had a really short run and was never sold again.
In general, that's actually hard to explain here. Not because it's hard to see but because I wouldn't know where to start! It's all over the place, if you want to see how screwed-up copyright can be you can find it all over the place with simple searching. What's more, it's pretty damn obvious and explaining something really, really obvious is really quite hard because when you know something obvious you really take it for granted and it's hard to actually explain it properly without just going back to basically restating it and going "it's obvious!".

 aka_mythos wrote:
If there are only 800 legitimate copies of the rules the statistical odd of encountering someone who is playing with them is pretty low given the number of people who play the game. So even if the rules are imbalanced they are statistically negligible in the grand scheme of all the games of 40k played everywhere and if it is negligible its indistinguishable on this level and thus balanced.

No, that's even worse. No it's a special advantage for those handfuls of rich and lucky people who could get it that nobody else gets. At least with stuff like Decurion anyone can get it and use it if they want to. This time you can't even fall back on "well you can do it too!". What's more, that's a spectacularly screwed-up way to run a game and I really don't get how you can't see that. How is letting a handful of people get a special advantage in any way reasonable?

But this is all arguably a bit off-topic. What it comes down to is that having a special thing that only a handful of privileged players can use is ridiculously unfair and any club/tourney needs to put a stop to it. It all basically comes down to two options:
A) You make an exception to any anti-piracy rules because it's simultaneously OOP and still valid (unlike old Codexes) so the playing field is leveled and anyone can get it. Having a "club copy" ready for referencing (like some do with Codexes) optional.
B) You ban it entirely, even if it's a legit copy. Sounds harsh but it's happened before, many clubs and tourneys ban certain things and whether or not you own it is basically irrelevant.
Honestly with Skyhammer I'd lean towards B, just because it's apparently so horribly broken. If you have issues with Assault Marines and Devastators then it's probably better to enhance them with house rules rather than this broken crap, then at least you won't fall off the other end as it were.

I wouldn't use the formation, even in a tournament. My buddy's are more laid back (casual) gamers than that, and I don't think we'd have fun playing it.

However, if I wanted to play it, I'd just print out one of the many pdfs floating around the interwebs.

LE rules? feth you, GW. feth you with 20 metal dreadnoughts.

This ethical debate is not necessary - there are plenty of legal ways that a copy of copyrighted material is fine.

"Is that a copy of the skyhammer formation?"
"Yes it is."
"Did you purchase that from GW?"

(these are all acceptable answers)
"That is none of your business."
"I purchased a copy, this is a copy of my purchased copy for my own personal use."
"Nope - bought it off ebay. The guy transfered full ownership to me - he no longer has ownership."
"My friend gave this to me - don't know where he got it - I assume through legal means."

Literally the only way you are not cool with playing against a copy of actual rules is if you are an utter tool.

Is all this talk of the legality of copywrite and such really necessary when there is a picture of the official rules right on the official GW 40k Website that you can refer to, or bring up on your ipad at any time?