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.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:

It's also not what I was talking about. Notice how it was always "rich and lucky" or "privileged". I recognize that people with more cash to spare will have an easier time building armies and getting models and books, this crosses the line because it's literally not available even if you have the dough. And that crosses the line from "by the nature of the hobby, people with more money will have more flexibility" into "this tiny handful of rich and lucky, privileged players gets an advantage over everyone else because dumb copyright technicalities are more important than fairness, common sense and a reasonable level playing field".

Except, again, they only gain an advantage if you choose to play against it.

Whether or not you personally have a copy of it doesn't alter that very basic premise.

Hence why banning Skyhammer is also an option. It just needs to be a decision on a club/tourney wide level whether everyone gets it or nobody does, the important thing is to have a level field of at least OPPORTUNITY for all players to get it.

It really doesn't.

If it's a tournie, then yes, rules should only be allowed if everyone potentially has access to them.

For anything else, it's ultimately up to the individual players. You don't need a club rule banning it, any more than you need a club rule banning Eldar for you to turn down a game against a scatterbike army.

If someone wants one of your pics and they aren't available I don't blame them for copying or whatever. It's not wrong because that's their only choice...

Accepting that they just can't have that thing that they want isn't an option?


Seriously?

3) It's not about wanting to have without paying, it's wanting or needing to have without the option any other way, thus forcing this course of action.

You don't need these rules. If you don't have them, the world will continue to turn. You probably won't die from lack of them.

The fact that you want them and can't get them does not force you to resort to piracy. There are all sorts of things that I want that I can't get right now. You know what I do?

I don't get them, and I get on with life without them.

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.
***************************
Well said, spot on!

Also as to banning Sky Hammer because it's pay to wuin. That just gets stupid. Ok well waaa I can't afford a Wraith Knight, or Wraith Lord, or Windriders, and so just have some Guardians and a few other basic units. I also can not aford a Storm Raven, or multible Vindicators or the 10 Razorbacks for the current Space Marine book.. It's pay to win I tell you! Ban it ban it!

Ummmm how about.. Nooo.. See this is why you do not need the percice set of Skyhammer or that box of Sternguard. Are those Black Reach Marines painted up nice to look like Sternguard? And those are Blackreach marines with jump packs to be Assault marines?
Hell yes, they are my Skyhammer!
Ok cool, so they have combie weapons and which ones?
Done!

Also Copyright is all fowled up.
Ever went to a swap meet, Ebay, used book/music store and bought any sort of music/movie/book/game? Guess what.. It's all copy right protected and the copy right holder saw not a single penny.
And as to who ever said the 40k minnies are not copy righted and our trading / selling them is not protected? Ask Chapter House is A Space marine or A Wolf Lord is a protected mini and not to be sold.
We buy our minnies for personal use, not for resale, the models ARE copy retied, GW has defended that copy right repeatedly in court, and no where does it give permission for resale, trade, ect.
So if you are going to go 'aww but you did not buy that piece of paper or down load and so can not use it because you did not pay GW and it's immoral. Well then everyone who bought a 2nd hand army is in the same boat, GW not having seen a penny for that army and they believe, as corperations have stated is the case for copyright infringement, that they believe that all breaking of copyright would have been a case where the person would have bought from them at full price. Look up the arguments where they, in court, and to congress, state how they come up with the numbers for how much to fine someone.
Can't say the rules are wrong to have but the minnies are ok, you either come down on the whole community or drop the whole line of reason.

As to whoever said that 'hay you can look up the rules, take your own notes for own personal reference. Just so, awesome.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The fact that you want them and can't get them does not force you to resort to piracy. There are all sorts of things that I want that I can't get right now. You know what I do?

Also this whole debate gets into higher levels of stupidity.
See realistically I run Skyhammer and you are 'Ohh no what are the rules? I don't know them but don't want to be forced into piracy to know them, what ever shall I do!?'
Ummm the same thing that you do when you have a rules question about if something I am doing with my codex, which you do not own, is correct or not... You look over at my copy, physical, digital, printed out self notes/ect and look..
And that does not make you a pirate. It's ok, you are morally clean. Big breath, it will be ok.

And if you need information of the rules, to run it. Guess what, you can actually get that information as news. Say from Bell of Lost Souls or such, who have put some of the rules up via fair usage as a news report.
You then see them, make your own notes, and then run it.

Archon Malantai wrote:
Also Copyright is all fowled up.
Ever went to a swap meet, Ebay, used book/music store and bought any sort of music/movie/book/game? Guess what.. It's all copy right protected and the copy right holder saw not a single penny.
And as to who ever said the 40k minnies are not copy righted and our trading / selling them is not protected? Ask Chapter House is A Space marine or A Wolf Lord is a protected mini and not to be sold.
We buy our minnies for personal use, not for resale, the models ARE copy retied, GW has defended that copy right repeatedly in court, and no where does it give permission for resale, trade, ect.
So if you are going to go 'aww but you did not buy that piece of paper or down load and so can not use it because you did not pay GW and it's immoral. Well then everyone who bought a 2nd hand army is in the same boat, GW not having seen a penny for that army and they believe, as corperations have stated is the case for copyright infringement, that they believe that all breaking of copyright would have been a case where the person would have bought from them at full price. Look up the arguments where they, in court, and to congress, state how they come up with the numbers for how much to fine someone.
Can't say the rules are wrong to have but the minnies are ok, you either come down on the whole community or drop the whole line of reason.

As to whoever said that 'hay you can look up the rules, take your own notes for own personal reference. Just so, awesome.

Copying means that you make a COPY OF THE ORIGINAL. Selling means that you TRADE THE ORIGINAL TO SOMEONE. Only one of these has anything to do with producing duplicates of the items and yet you insist that they are one and the same. I can't even being to comprehend how in your head suddenly 1 is 2.

Let's try this approach for a change.
Scenario 1: Alice buys a Leman Russ battle tank from a FLGS, gets home, uses her brand new 3D printer to produce a high quality copy. She sells this copy to Bruce, who now has a LRBT of his own. In this scenario, Alice COPIED THE MINIATURE and BOTH Alice and Bruce now have a LRBT of their own.

Scenario 2: Alice buys a Space Marine terminator squad from the same FLGS. Back home she reads on Dakka how termies are overpriced gak and decides to sell the box to Clive. In this scenario Alice SOLD THE MINIATURES and ONLY Clive has them now.

So, which of these two scenarios is infringing on GW's copyrights? If you still say both you are beyond any help or just trolling. In that case I wish from the bottom of my heart that it's the latter.

Archon Malantai wrote:

We buy our minnies for personal use, not for resale, the models ARE copy retied,

That's not how copyright works .

Copyright deals with copying the original work . Not buying it and then selling it on to someone else.

Copyright or in other words trade infringement law, goes vastly beyond 'making a replica of intellectual property.'

In version 2: Corporations have fought many times to have that be illegal and at various times it has and has not been legal or illegal. It was not until Mar 24, 2013 that the Supreme Court actually ruled a 'you bought it, you own it.' view. So in version 2 you are correct it is legal. And if you look back, I said that the corps are fighting it and are in court and in congress using the argument 'that Clive would have bought those terminators from them at full price and so their buisness is suffering, as an argument against piracy, and to fight for putting forrward reinforcment of physical copyright to things like cars and minnies and have the court go the other way. So this is currently legal but being fought to turn it back.

In version 1 yes this is illegal.. Unless ofcourse Alice does it like a corporation would, and changes 20% of the design and thus makes it her own similar and roughly inspired by but still her own creation, which she then uses within her own creative license to play within the structure of the game which she bought from GW, which is also legal. As to the rules for that model, maybe she saw a picture for it online via a news articular the way way she might get a cooking recipe from a copyrighted book while not getting the entirety of the book. Thus she made notes of the unit's stats for her own educational use in play. Legal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That's not how copyright works .

Copyright deals with copying the original work . Not buying it and then selling it on to someone else.

Umm yes it is. Own a video, any movie ever? Simple test. Start watching it. Notice that under the copyright notice that it does not just mention copying but also mentions distribution and resale.


Again.. Notice that the Supreme court had to settle the matter because there were state laws on both sides.. On physical materials and reselling as they relate to copyright? Or maybe you think the Supreme court was just really really bored that day and so decided to rule on random things that were not an issue?

Better call the police then, there are so many criminals out there doing their nasty copyright crimes on the internet. Because I'm such a nice guy, I can even provide you a list of some of the illegal items being sold.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/DVDs-Movies-/11232/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=movie

There are about 3,5 million movies on sale there... I'm guessing that at least half of those are in the US. Think about it, you could prevent over a million crimes at once if you report this horrible criminal website! Not to mention all the other items being sold there, you could make your country almost crime-free in one stroke, think about it!

 Lammikkovalas wrote:
Better call the police then, there are so many criminals out there doing their nasty copyright crimes on the internet. Because I'm such a nice guy, I can even provide you a list of some of the illegal items being sold.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/DVDs-Movies-/11232/i.html?_from=R40&_nkw=movie

And this is why copyright is so screwed up. Maybe it's best to stop standing up for something so screwed up, y'know?

And Insaniak, you keep pushing this "oh they should accept it", WHY should they? In this case, the circumstances mean their piracy wouldn't be doing any damage whatsoever. They would totally buy it legitimately, but they can't! Maybe "just accept it" would be fine if they physically couldn't subvert this, but they can get around this and no harm is done if they do. There is no reason why this tiny handful of people should get the exclusive privilege of using these rules and no refusing to play it on a one-on-one level is not good enough. In order for something like this hobby to work properly everyone has to have at least the same OPPORTUNITY for each thing (anyone can get Decurion even if not everyone wants it or could really afford it. Anyone could get a Wraithknight even if not everyone wants it or can afford it. And it's no unreasonable to ban unbalancing things, many clubs and tourneys make that decision with stuff like LOW units, certain formations and so on, if this is another case then it's something that should be banned. If not, the only recourse to accept people playing it that didn't get one of those tiny handful of legit copies. Those are the only two fair ways to do it and there's no reason to "accept" anything else.
Look, the very same things could all be said about someone downloading a Rogue Trader .pdf and getting generic sci-fi Dwarves from another miniature company so they can play a First Edition Squat army nowadays. It's still GW's copyright even though it's been OOP for like 30 years. If people having Skyhammer pirated lowers the value of the real sheets (which is doesn't in any serious way, but for the sake of argument...) then those .pdfs floating about lower the value of a real authentic Rogue Trader book. And if people pirating Skyhammer are lost sales for if GW puts it up again (which they aren't, but for the sake of argument...) then those .pdfs floating about would be a serious threat to GW's sales if they reprinted Rogue Trader as "Retro 40k" or something.
But would you SERIOUSLY get on hypothetical retro 40k guy's case over it? Really?
If so, this removes any doubt about this being completely absurd and ridiculous logic based on nothing but rigid adherence to flawed doctrine and a toxic "deal with it" attitude to anyone harmed by bad practices.
If not, then you should accepting people doing it with Skyhammer just the same.

i dont understand the skyhammer is listed in my codex? is this whole convo from before the release?

Rx8Speed wrote:
i dont understand the skyhammer is listed in my codex? is this whole convo from before the release?

It's a formation that is restricted to an online only bundle that was limited to 200 world wide. The issue is there is literally nothing special about that bundle other than the rules for this formation.

Archon Malantai wrote:
Again.. Notice that the Supreme court had to settle the matter because there were state laws on both sides.. On physical materials and reselling as they relate to copyright? Or maybe you think the Supreme court was just really really bored that day and so decided to rule on random things that were not an issue?

The Supreme Court settled a challenge to the law from copyright holders.

That doesn't make what people were doing prior to that illegal. It just means that some copyright holders felt that the law should be interpreted the way they wanted it interpreted.

And from my understanding, it was nothing to do with stopping people from selling their second hand copy of The Matrix. It was an attempt to stomp on parallel imports.


The Supreme Court ruling simply clarified that the law works the way everyone had up until that point been assuming it worked.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And Insaniak, you keep pushing this "oh they should accept it", .

No, I'm not.

I'm pushing the idea that obtaining something illegally is not the only possible action you can take when it turns out that the thing you want isn't easily obtainable legally.


Here's the thing - You want to stop GW from making limited edition rules?

Going out and sourcing them any way you can so that you can use them is not the way to do that. The only reason that GW will stop doing something that works is if it stops working. Limited Edition rules will stop being a sales hook when people stop wanting them. And people will stop wanting them if they find that they never get the opportunity to actually use them.

So, ultimately, if your goal is actually to stop GW from publishing things like this in a limited format, you'll get much closer to that goal by just refusing to play against people using those rules than you will by going out and downloading them to use yourself.

 insaniak wrote:

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And Insaniak, you keep pushing this "oh they should accept it", .

No, I'm not.

I'm pushing the idea that obtaining something illegally is not the only possible action you can take when it turns out that the thing you want isn't easily obtainable legally.


Here's the thing - You want to stop GW from making limited edition rules?

Going out and sourcing them any way you can so that you can use them is not the way to do that. The only reason that GW will stop doing something that works is if it stops working. Limited Edition rules will stop being a sales hook when people stop wanting them. And people will stop wanting them if they find that they never get the opportunity to actually use them.

So, ultimately, if your goal is actually to stop GW from publishing things like this in a limited format, you'll get much closer to that goal by just refusing to play against people using those rules than you will by going out and downloading them to use yourself.

Exactly and it's such a demand that also fuels the reselling scene which ultimately helps fuel the issue further as the sellers buy the product as stock. Which is small so probably doesn't matter over all, but would mean a chunk of that limited release sells purely to be sold which doesn't help indicate the success as those might not even resell. What they should go for if they actually want these limited release bundles is to do what they used to and toss in a limited ed model for it. But, the rules would come much cheaper anyway. :/

 insaniak wrote:
No, I'm not.

You most certainly are.

 insaniak wrote:
I'm pushing the idea that obtaining something illegally is not the only possible action you can take when it turns out that the thing you want isn't easily obtainable legally.

It's still a perfectly acceptable action considering that it's perfectly reasonable and does no harm.
And definitely the only way to get something, when wanting that particular something is no less reasonable than wanting a Codex. There's no reason they SHOULD be barred from getting it and you've failed to establish otherwise.

So you really do need to stop pushing this point once and for all, it's a horrible point in favor of an unacceptable practice, and we don't need that.

 insaniak wrote:
Here's the thing - You want to stop GW from making limited edition rules?

Going out and sourcing them any way you can so that you can use them is not the way to do that. The only reason that GW will stop doing something that works is if it stops working. Limited Edition rules will stop being a sales hook when people stop wanting them. And people will stop wanting them if they find that they never get the opportunity to actually use them.

So, ultimately, if your goal is actually to stop GW from publishing things like this in a limited format, you'll get much closer to that goal by just refusing to play against people using those rules than you will by going out and downloading them to use yourself.

Some people randomly not wanting to deal with would never be enough. A wide-spread ban might work though.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
. There's no reason they SHOULD be barred from getting it and you've failed to establish otherwise.

.

So , your argument ultimately is 'I want it, and therefore I am entitled to have it, regardless of the wishes of the person who owns it.'


And you seriously think that's just as reasonable as simply , you know, not having something that you don't actually need?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Regardless, I think this thread has pretty much run its course by this point.

Ultimately , the virtues or lack thereof of current copyright law are not really appropriate discussion for this forum, so I will wrap this up with the usual reminder that Dakka Dakka does not and can not endorse copyright infringement.