This is a thread for the discussion of peoples varying opinions on downloading copyrighted materials and the duplication of copyrighted materials. (ex: downloading PDFs and Casting)
After the "Magic Items Rules Scan" thread was locked I PMed Cbt about the thread and I asked him about the possibility for a thread for the issue of copyright and peoples opinions on the matter of Copyright and Fair Use. He said it was not a problem to have a thread about this topic as long as 3 simple rules are followed;

Rule 1. Do not request copyrighted materials in the topic. This is against forum policy and will have the thread locked/deleted. This includes things like "PM me and I will send/ask for insert book here"

Rule 2. Do not post links to copyrighted material. Once again this is just one of the forum rules but we need to make sure it is followed. Also do not post images of self casted replicas of official models.

Rule 3. Do not talk about downloading/casting copyrighted material. At first this sounds contradictory to the topic we are discussing but what I am saying is don't post something like "I have downloaded all the books for fantasy so I can read through them for weaknesses" This could put the site in an awkward position legally if the wrong/right people read it. Talk about it in a theoretical sense, such as "I don't see what would be wrong with downloading books for other armies so I can see how their special rules work." I know its a pain but we don't want to get the site in trouble.

Rule 4. (I know I said 3 rules but this one is a personal request) Be civil. The degree to which each individual will follow this rule is obviously different but please refrain from name calling or other childish actions. This isn't to say you cant disagree with someone. This topic is for disagreement and discussion it simply needs to
be in a civil manner.

The reason I post this thread is that Piracy, Copyright, and Fair Use are very relevant topics right now for many communities and everyone who uses the internet. It is something that in my opinion deserves discussion and attention. I hope that we can pursue this topic in a manner that wont have it shut down.
Looking forward to hearing your opinions,
Tekik.

Well... to get this conversation rolling I personaly belive on the subject of downloading copys of the rules that its not that big of a deal. The fact is that most people do it in order to either try warhammer out or to try a new army through proxy. Either way if the person ends up liking the game/army they then will procede to dish out large sums of money for models and most times buy the rule book. I see it as no worse then sitting at a bookstore and reading through a manga. If you realy like it you usualy come back and buy the book if you dont well then you didnt waste your money on a product you dont care for. The fact is that Games Workshop is a model company more then the books. The books are to premote the models and make you go buy new figs. Downloading the book still accomplishes that goal so I dont see the problem with it. If the primary thing they sold were armybooks/codexs it would be a bigger deal in my opinion.
Hopefuly this will get the conversation going as I was realy enjoying the debate in "magic item scan"

I agree with you tekik I prefer to try something before I buy it especially if I will be shelling out large amounts of money for it in the long term.
I've been buying all of the new fantasy books as they come out but then I run a small group of players so I get all of that stuff for the house. Having said that I don't see the problem with downloading something if I wouldn't actually buy it. I play Tomb Kings (big surprise there) so I own the Tomb Kings book but as I don't play 40k and so wouldn't buy any of the books I don't see the problem if I want ed to download it it might interest me and then I might start playing 40k and buy the book and more models.

Hopefully I didn't contradict any of the rules there if I did feel free to delete my post so the forum doesn't get into trouble

What you said is perfectly fine. They are more guidelines to think about before you post. Almost everything in the previous thread followed these rules. Its not as strict as I think I made it come across and I oppologize for that. This is just a space for people to talk about the issue of copyright I didnt mean to scare people away from posting...

Thanks for starting this thread. Very productive and appropriate!


A few thoughts on your thoughts - :)

The problem with you making the decision to take possession of the materials since it might entice you to buy is two-fold:

1) It's not up to you to make marketing decisions on behalf of the owner of the item. Sure, some people love to put out freebies, hoping your will enjoy the sample and then buy the main product. That's their choice. I have personally found a ton of new bands as a result of those bands putting singles on demo discs that they sent out. Great stuff! Still, it was _their_ choice.

Another example is Secret Weapon resin bases. I asked the owner if his stuff was somewhere I could go see in in person. He chose to send me three free bases so I could see them. I got them. I love them. I will soon be ordering about 100 of them.

Some bands/writers/manufacturers don't like to do that. It's their choice.
I can't "sample" what they make just on the off chance that I _may_ like it enough to legally own it after that.

The simplest way to put it is that the ends do _not_ justify the means.

2) What about all the stuff you took that you _didn't_ end up buying? In those cases, all you have done is take an advantage to which you were not entitled and the company got nothing for it. Plus, there you sit with the materials in your possession no cost to you. Your intention may or may not have been good, but the end result is that you own stuff you didn't rightly pay for. While I don't think it's the best way to market stuff, some companies hope you will be interested enough in something to buy without a sample, and then make the decision on whether you like it or not. That's their option. Your option, if you disagree with their methods, is to not buy sight unseen.

=> It's much worse. First of all, you have deprived the book seller of some cash by reading their wares for free. Good companies like Barnes and Noble let you do this as part of a carefully thought out marketing plan. Good for them.

The problem, though, is that when you download a book, you now own it. When you read a manga and put it back on the shelf without buying, it's still on that shelf. You don't own it. You don't have a copy.

Your manga example is much more like playing at a friend's house and reading his Marine codex while you are there then going home and leaving the book back at his place.

The incentive to purchase something you already own is not very high for many people. Why buy the book when you already have a PDF copy? That's a question lots of people ask themselves.

Some of them even tell themselves that they will buy the real thing 'later' when they have more money. It's pretty easy for 'later' to become never, especially if you put it off long enough to see a new edition released. Boy! Good thing you only downloaded the old version then, eh? Guess it's time to "force-evaluate" the new one...

OK, so I'd like to start by saying a personal note of thanks to Tekik it's a difficult discussion as pointed out as there is a legal spin to it.

We can flat spin in various directions talking about music CD's films etc however keeping it on the straight and narrow I'd like to cover GW books.

As I mentioned in the "other" post I guess I'm one of the luckier guys, I don't get to play as much as I'd like but I do collect all the books (both WFB and 40K) as it's an ongoing thing it's not too expensive to add a book ever so often. Now I carry around to the various games a bag full of books, not so easy especially as they are going to a hard back (heavy) format and the thought of having a small PDF that I can access on either a note book computer or even an Iphone or similar electronic wizardry does appeal.

Now I'm not sure if just copying the pages constitutes breaking the copyright law but as it's for personal use (not selling, distributing etc) I feel that's OK as you own the original, in the same way as purchased music can be burned to a CD for say; your car's CD player.

It's all about profit at the end of the day, as soon as something is produced electronically it can be transfered to another person and the original author doesn't get paid for it, that said if you resold the book that doesn't break any laws, however making copies first is just the same as them copying the book and giving you the copies (just in reverse)

I guess the other question is if you were wanting GW to produce a electronic version of the army book what would you want? Army list, special rules and magic items? Being a long term player all the fluff I've read rarely changes from one edition to another, vampires are still undead nobles, Orcs are still green and high elves still wear dresses. Do I need the extra fluff? Probably not essential to my gaming experience.

So, what are your thoughts?

Cbt

If I were to have downloaded a book and it ended up not to my taste I would deleat it.
@ Slebota Also you did not adress the fact that games workshop is pirmarily a modeling company. The books are designed to entice you to purchase their plastic crack. If this is acoplished by someone looking through the book at a local gamestore or on their computer I dont see why it makes that much of a difference. Also even if I did just read it in the store I wouldnt need to buy it after that as I would have the rules memorized and so GW wouldnt make money off me through the book anyway. (I buy them even though I memorize them because I love the fluff and pictures) In the end you buy the models which is what the company is attemping to market.
@ Cbt I also buy each book as they come out. I hope to one day own a copy of everything but I just cant afford to go back and retroactivly buy a copy of every armybook thats out there.
Thanks again for commenting on this topic :)

I'm with you there tekik I've started buying all of the new army books as they come out and I'm going to do the same with 40k when the new edition comes outbut getting the money is hard. I've started charging for the games I run it's not much just enough to cover snacks and what not and then the rest goes into a tin to be spent on war hammer stuff like terrain and books but luckly my friends don't mind that.

Also is it wrong to download it if you wouldn't buy it anyway? Like if I was curious about space wolves I would want to know a bit about them before I made a commitment to buying them now sure I could go into a store and read the store copy but that is reall y inconvenient and I don't have the time so I would download it and read it.

Also I know that my friends get downloads of a lot of the books that others in our group play but if they actually play an army on a regular basis they have to buy the book otherwise they aren't aloud to play that may sound a bit harsh but it's one of my rules for my group (damn its good to be in charge)

(Once again, writing from a purely UK perspective)

The purely objective fact is that piracy is illegal. No ifs, no buts, it's illegal. But that's not the same as it being wrong. However that is a subjective opinion, and at the end of the day opinions are gonna vary wildly. But I personally think looking at the situation as black and white is DANGEROUS.

I think the biggest issue I take with people who sit on their pedestal (because they are) yelling how everyone who pirates ever is an evil scumbag is that it's simply a narrow minded view. Never mind their financial situation ("too poor? ###### you!" I think Mr Cameron would probably give you a medal...), never mind how big an ass the company is being, no matter what reason, in the minds of these people if it's illegal, it's reprehensible.

Once again, I put forward the objective fact that piracy has not been proven to hurt sales. No one can prove nor disprove for that matter that everyone who pirates was gonna buy the damned macguffin in the first place. Second hand sales, the "moral" legal choice HAS been proven to damage sales due to their sales being aggressively marketed to customers instead of new sales. Even if we assume everyone who buys second hand would never buy new, the best situation is still all of these people are giving their money to the person who originally bought the product, not the content provider, who might very well have a copy himself (and legally, since it is LEGAL to copy things for personal use). Tell me again why that's better?

And yet another point, not that piracy is right, because I don't think it is most of the time, is the humble indie bundle. You can pay what you want to get a bunch of games from participating developers. Great right? Well like all systems it gets abused and so people can pay 1p for them all. Not only is that frankly bull anyway, it COSTS the humble bundle guys to provide you with your games. Nothing goes to the developers or charity, and it costs the humble bundle in server maintenance, paypal fees and all sorts. If they're gonna pay 1p for these games, they should just pirate them! Why make the humble bundle suffer when you clearly don't wanna pay anyway?! Because it's legal?!

Something else I also take issue with, terminology. I made this point before about piracy not being theft, because it's not. It just got hand waved with "well people don't understand the difference anyway". Why are you adding to the problem then? Seriously, uneducated people don't need to be told they're right, because whatevs, they need to be corrected and informed. We're getting crap like SOPA, PIPA and ACTA because of people are are not informed it seems.
In the UK, Piracy is not the same as theft, there is a big difference. Piracy is illegally getting a copy of a copyrighted work, Theft is depriving someone of an object. Big difference. Similarly, at least here in the UK (as far as I'm aware), Piracy is not a criminal offence, it's a civil one. BIG difference. Pirates are not actually criminals, but it's still illegal obviously.

So that's my issue with pirates automatically being designated hardened criminals, whether or not they're 8 or 80, or if they've ever committed a crime before or not.

Disc10

Hopefully I am not reading this out of context... :-) It is my understanding, in the US at least, that copying for personal use is limited at best. IN the... 6th? edition book there are army roster sheets labeled at the bottom "ok to copy for personal use". Is that just to reaaffirm you can copy it? Likewise i am pretty sure I have been told at the copy center I cant copy copyrighted text.

Reason being it would be real nice to have a "cheat sheet" of all the quick reference rules (to hit charts, miscat tables etc) rather than flipping thru the book. Of course though, my litttle book has fallen apart, just as my freinds so I guess I could just carry those back pages around and not worry about it :huh:

Nice topic-
Jay

Lots of good stuff in this topic, thanks Tekik for getting it rolling. First the legal question - the unfortunate reality is that laws/regs vary significantly by jurisdiction. In the US (and in the UK I believe) we have "fair use" language in the copyright laws. Fair Use allows for some limited reproduction of copyrighted works for both personal and commercial use. The rules are not clear or specific and interpretation can vary significantly by situation. In Australia however any reproduction for personal use is illegal with express permission of the copyright holder. Not sure where everyone on this forum hails from, but I know we have members from all three of those countries.

That being said, the law in all three jurisdictions is pretty clear that reproducing entire copies of works and distributing them online is illegal.

I understand folks' feelings about the books only being a tool to sell models, but the reality is that GW charges for books. I personally think they should consider giving rulebook softcopies away for free (Privateer Press does that right?) but its not my decision to make, its theirs. I would love to own a copy of every armybook/codex ever printed, but I don't actually have the right to do so unless I pay for them. The fact that I spend money on some GW products does not somehow give me the right to their other products.

Regarding "previewing" products before you buy them - I can understand that wish as well. There are several ways to do that - look at a friend's copy, read the store copy, etc. Those methods may be less convenient than downloading one, but they are legal.

Lastly, the "I wouldn't pay for it anyway so I'm not really depriving the company of money" is in my opinion a cop-out. If you wouldn’t pay for it, why do you think you’re entitled to have it?

I hope that didn’t come across as too harsh. I don't think that everyone who engages in online piracy is a hardened criminal. And I respect the right of others on this forum to disagree with my views. I just think that they’re wrong. ;)

@Sleboda – SWM bases rock! I’m not surprised they sent you samples for free, the guy who owns it is really nice and makes a great product.

See this is the issue with discussing such things on the internet, there are important differences in the law. As far as I'm aware (please correct me if I'm wrong UK lawyery people), but here if we bought something we're free to make copies for personal use I know for a fact this applies to CDs, but for books I'm pretty sure it's the case.

Ever notice how most important rules fit on one sheet? Almost like they designed it to be easy to scan. ;) (especially the summary pages!)

Lots of discussion and differing opinions which I'll try and comment on, to begin with I'm glad the general consensus is that we agree that a copyrighted item (what ever it may be) is illegal to copy and distribute. As we've said before whether you can prove it or not via sales figure someone obtaining and not paying for it will have an effect on the market. If the person cannot be traced it will usually drive the price higher for the individual item if nothing else.

Anyway, onto the topic...

Legally I'm not 100% sure - music you can copy to a CD but the important thing you're saying is personal use, if after all you didn't distribute who'd know?

Unseen lerker as an example Here have a small online magazine available as free viewing, I don't think that would be any good for an army book as you'd have to exclude so many bits, it's there to promote the sales of the actual magazine - to give you an incentive but I can't see it working for these type of books.

God forbid! After my most recent house move I've ditched all my older copies and even the older white dwarfs I've only kept from the latest edition of the rules, after all battle reports and the like are pretty useless after a rules change, just pretty pictures.

Pirates in the old sense of the word, or even new sense if you look at Somali pirates recently, they steal stuff.

I know we're getting into nit picking and it's not intentional and don't get me wrong I understand what your saying - and your right, civil law and criminal law but there was a case in the past couple of years where a company was noticing a large amount of it's download Mb was happening and were running over budget, they traced it down to an after hours incident where a traveling sales man would upload his data on his way home via the companies wireless connection. While he didn't actually pay for it (and you could say the company was a fault for having it insecurely) the company did have to pay for that extra download - and as a result the individual was prosecuted.

What's the difference between house breaking and burglary? (apart from about 10 years?) it's the intent. Burglary means you intended to break into a property and steal, house breaking is just having an opportunity presented to you.

If you intentionally copy something that has a copyright you could be liable. As I've said before I would like to have PDF's of my own books but I'm not tearing them apart to make them.

Cbt

Indeed, the there is no question that distributing the copyrighted material is illegal. The debate is on wether it is ethical/moraly reprehensable. My arguments are for why I dont see it as a moraly bankrupt thing to do not that it is infact legal (because it very clearly is not) I think that this is a case where the law is too optamistic and definatly too vauge (on personal copying, not distrabution) I know this sounds wrong but just because something is illegal doesnt make it wrong.

I'm going to take a step out of my comfort zone and participate to this conversation. First of all, I mostly agree with Sleboda. Law is the law, copyright infringement is against the law. Though you shouldn't but persons guilty of different crimes on the same line, it's still a crime. On the other hand, I think you should be allowed to have digital copies of the books you own, and even some translated parts. I guess that having parts of a book with different translation from the one you own would diminish the gain of the people who make the translation, if they get provisions of each copy sold. Still, as it is not the whole book, but just parts for personal use, I think it should be allowed.

The problem with this mind set is that if you don't make a copy out of your own rulebook by yourself (a tedious job), you have to download it from an illegal source, and this is where you move in a really gray area, especially since different countries have different laws.

Secondly, I don't like people saying that the books are not the main income of GW. So, is it ok to go to a toy store, Toys 'R Us, for example, and take soda or candies from there just because sweets are not their main source of income? I know that some have said that it is different since with downloading, the sellers don't lose the product and so on, but that doesn't chance the fact that they still own full copyright even to products that are not the source of their main income or the products that are secondary to their business plan.

Finally, I think it would be awesome if GW started selling PDF versions of the rulebooks, even "stripped versions" i.e. only the rules, not fluff nor painting sections. We can always hope.

Those are my thoughts. Sorry if the text is hard to read, I'm really feeling the pressure of Monday today for some reason...

You are right here but there is a difference in my opinion. The candy at a Toys R Us is there so you buy it on your way out of the store. The books are there to sell models. Its the intention behind the product that makes it more ok in my opinion. The fact is if you download a book and then spend 600 dollars on the army then the book acomplished its goal even though the person didnt pay for it.

I see your point of view and, frankly, feel the same way, but it is a view where "the goal justifies the means". As Sleboda has pointed out, it doesn't matter what people think the books are for, if the company has published the books with a price then you cannot legally justify downloading the books and invest that money into models. I think that if GW would publish the rulebooks as free, it would help their sales, but I'm afraid they are far too old-fashioned a company to do that.

That is a massive issue though, and not just with GW. The film industry is still reluctant to move onto digital sales, video games downloads are still being charged at the same price as physical copies and the music industry is begrudgingly selling music online whilst still screaming about how "piracy will be the death of music!". You know, just like it died when cassettes came out.

The internet brings with it a very different market. Old fashioned companies can only last so long, they MUST change with the times or they'll be fighting piracy forever or just plain fading into obscurity. Like evolution, the most successful species (or in this case companies) aren't the fastest, biggest or strongest, it's the ones most adaptable to change.

Video games are the only medium to try and embrace this change, and even then they're still unwilling to let go of a few ideas, though this is mostly out of trying to have your cake and eat it too honestly.

And at the core of it, as Gabe Newell said: "Piracy is a service issue." If the pirates are giving you a better product, for free, why wouldn't you wanna get that product through them? Most people are happy to buy a product if it's dealt with on their terms. Many musicians have found that when releasing an album for free or for some money, their choice, they're usually their best sellers! Most even buy a physical copy! Why? Because it's obvious that they're in it for the music, and not to try and milk more money from consumers. They've earned that support.

So really, what have GW done lately to earn our support?
Was it making models out of a material that's cheaper than metal, but bumped up the price anyway?
Was it taking said material and rushing out to the shops resulting in many MANY sub par models?
Was it releasing a new codex or army book design to be the best army out there to get kids to buy it? (dunno what it's like in Fantasy but they sure as hell do it in 40K).
Or not really supporting an army until they decide they can make more money from it?

Yea. I'm not suggesting you pirate everything you can from them, but don't tell me they're poor innocent victims. There's a lot they could do to change, and if the suits in charge could see past profit margins (or their own money caused semis), they'd see they'd be more successful than ever.

Great summary Disc! All in all, various good points have been made throughout the topic. a summary plus nuance (everybody is right, yey!) of my own, for my own fun.

An important one is the identification of the current big companies as being 'old fashioned.' Indeed, musiclabel companies, game distribution and also our own GW are charging 40 euro's/dollars for a hardcopy-product that could also be conveyed in the form of a few hundred megabytes.
Also, often, from the artist's point of view the old fashioned way isn' even very effective anymore. A writer does not NEED an editor for the distribution of his books anymore. 20 years ago, the only way for him to reach his public was through the editor who had mass-printing fascilities at his disposal. subsequently, most of the 20 euro's you pay for a book goes to the editor. often: only 50 cents(!) per book reach the actual artist. were the artist to start an e-book store by himself, charging 1 euro for the document, he would be twice as rich.
If they have any brains, big companies know this, and this very practical point is probably a big instigator for the company-driven whitchhunt on piracy. They resist the change, and by focussing the attention on the fact that piracy is wrong, they are trying to divert the attention from the fact that e-books (or e-sales, in general) will destroy them to bankrupcy, once the public, the artists, and, most importantly, new entreprenneurs will realize this.

HOWEVER

let there be no mistake that Sleboda is completely and entirely right when he says there is no legal room for taking these matter sinto your own hands. It will be in the hands of the artist that decides or does not decide to circumvent the big editor-company.
Rigid as his reasoning might be, the question of the philosophical right- and wrongness of copyright law is by no means a justification of not following a law. It is an entire philosophical topic on it's own to decide if you have to adhere by laws you don't agree with. I for one think that in the past two milennia, the people of the western societies made a deal with eachother that they indeed WOULD follow all laws, also the ones they wouldn't agree with. It's the principle of what they started calling 'democracy' back in the time of ancient Greece.

SO

If you do not own a GW book,
and, on philosophical ground, decide you do not HAVE to pay them and download the PDF,
you also have to recognize that you just decided to steal. you decided to steal on philosphical grounds, but it was stealing nonetheless.
Therefore, if you try to assess if you want to pay for the book, your philosophical opinion on copyright law is NOT sufficient to make a balanced decision. Your philosophical opinion on law (or democracy for that matter) will have to play an equally important role in your weighings, and you even have to determine if you are prepared to face the legal concequences of stealing, which is a more practical consideration, but still important.

IS THERE NO ROOM FOR DISCUSSION?

I think there is. after all, we're in a transition period, and actually the laws aren't as rigid as you would think. CBT for instance makes a fair point when adressing owning th ebooks while putting them on your ipad. If he lives in canada, he could probably do so legally as per the 'fair use' regulations they have there, for instance. If in doubt, he could even write GW a letter to ask for permission, and I highly doubt they will not give it to him. (though not having any doubts is no reason for not asking). There are precedent law-cases all around.
And of course don't forget things will change. you have to adhere to the laws, but laws WILL change. But you have to wait, and vote for the parties that will advocate that change in your own country (Good luck USA :P). e-book stores WILL arise, and spotify allready provides you with free/cheap music. In concluding words: piracy will never be legal, but at some point will stop being piracy, and start being the new order of consumerism.

I agree downloading PDFs of copyrighted material is illegal. I am arguing that it is not necessarily immoral. I can disagree with laws and the politics behind them, I can choose to disobey those laws. Does that make what I am doing legal? No, but it does not necessarily make me a terrible human being. (I am not claiming you are calling me one by the way) I am arguing that I personally don’t find it an immoral choice for someone to download the PDF especially since they usually end up purchasing the book in the end. It is a matter of the ends justifies the means, not on a legal scale (as I said this would be illegal) but on an ethical scale.

Because it's legal.

=> I'm actually very glad you brought this up.

In the US, any law you break is a criminal act. Any. We differentiate between types of crime with things like misdemeanor vs felony. We even have levels within those. At the end of the day, though, they are all crimes so anyone proven to have committed them is a criminal.

Again, I'm glad you went there, because it might help us all remove some of the emotion if we are all speaking the same language, as it were.

=> I understand what you are saying, but once you broaden the scope/understanding behind a law, I find that it this is not true. I find that if something is illegal, it does make it wrong.

Sure, on a limited, isolated, narrow basis it can be very (almost too) easy to think of breaking a law as harmless. Take speeding, for instance. If I go over the limit, it is against the law. Sure, everyone else is doing it, or I was only a little over, or I was rushing my pet to the animal hospital. There are lots of reasons why one could, with an isolated view, say that a little bit of speeding is not wrong (or even right in some cases - I know I would speed and run over an old woman or two to get my cats to the hospital).

Broaden the view, though. Why is there a speed limit in place? Aren't we protecting a larger society with speeding laws? Aren't we ensuring the safety of the driver and others? By protecting the driver from himself, aren't we helping to keep him a productive, wage-earning member of his family?

It's these sorts of thoughts that let you see why the law is there.

Taking it back to our books, the law looks to me to be there to encourage innovation and to ensure that profits are made. Companies that make profits employee people. They pay taxes. Taxes and jobs work to keep economies going and families productive.

These laws that we might break only just a little here and there are in place, in the most general Spock-like sense, to benefit the needs of the many over the needs of the few or the one. Even the greed of a company that seems to overly benefit from these laws serves a purpose.

Really, when you break a law, even just for your own gain or when the only victim appears to be "the man, "you are harming society. And that's wrong.

=> That's a good example of what I was talking about. Someone gets paid to translate. Taking translated works of things you already own has the potential to harm the income of translators. Good one.

=> But who has the right to decide that? Hint: Not us.

Yeah, I'm on the same line. I know I'm breaking the law if I download something, but I don't feel guilty or dirty (uh, depending of course just WHAT I download...) or, most of the time, anything. It doesn't cross with my code of morality much, and I think that's how it is with many people who are under 30 and been living "the internet age" for most of their lives.

That's almost certainly true.

Try explaining why writing a physical letter carries such weight and impact to such a person...good luck getting most of them to understand it. Hell, most of them will outright chuckle and call you old.

The internet is pure sin.

Pretty much all I have to say. I did have more but I decided to condense all my frustration into this instead. But...

*You made ANOTHER sweeping statement, without even having the courtesy to back yourself up. (The reason may be balls to the wall insane as far as I'm concerned, but common, SOMETHING!)

*You have once again completely ignored the Humble Bundle issue. Is it too strong a case for the idea that piracy isn't always the worst option?

* You're clinging onto the legal side of the issue and ignoring the moral side of it. Seriously, if your views on morality are based on what's legal where you are, then this discussion is pointless.

So congratulations, you've won a free cartoon. It's a shame it was born of such concentrated frustration that I needed to channel it somewhere.

I've "backed it up" _repeatedly_, including later in the post that you said I didn't do it in. Dunno what to say, really.

My position is pretty clear.

=> I'll have to go back and read that. Not sure what the HB is. I've not ignored it on purpose.

=> No, I most certainly am not ignoring the moral side. In fact, in the most recent post (which you've skimmed, not read), I even outlined things I would do that are against the law, and said I would be wrong to do so. I explained why it's "wrong" (immoral) to break laws even when it seems like it's not. Seriously, check the post again.

=> Did you draw it? If so, can I assume by the statement above ("you've won a free cartoon") that it is now mine? If so, cool. I appreciate _you_ deciding to give _me_ a copy of your work. Thanks! :)



EDIT:
Just looked for your Humble Bundle thing. Is this it?

=> I can only assume your last question there at the end is the point you would like for me to address. If you have other questions, feel free to ask.

Why make them "suffer?"

Where to begin?

First off, you are putting your emotion onto others. Who says the 1p people want the indies to suffer? Maybe they just read the 'rules' of the product acquisition process and thought "Sweet! Cheap games! Thanks! I don't know why they would practically give this away, but they must have their reasons, so...thanks again!"

I don't _know_ that this is what people think, but you don't _know_ they are trying to make people suffer either.

Second, the indie folks determined how they wanted to market their goods. It's their choice, of course. One really must believe that these guys are not idiots. They know some people will take the 1p path - a path which they themselves have opened up for distribution. They don't need anyone to be their personal moral crusaders. THEY chose to allow for they option of a 1p level of payment.

A little story that feels like it has a parallel for me.
When I worked in GW customer service, we would get calls from people we could _prove_ were actually scamming us within the rules. One kid managed to put together an entire old metal carnifex by calling in for one "missing" part at a time.

I was really mad and wanted to refuse to service this "customer." The guy who was the head boss at the time told me (and also told my direct boss) to take care of it any way. We were perplexed! We were just trying to help the company by not giving away product to kids who were obviously scamming us.
He told us that when he made his replacement policy, he knew he could have set up more strict rules for getting replacements, but in the end decided that the good of having a liberal return/fix policy outweighed the bad. He chalked it up to marketing/PR costs. Sure, some kids got free stuff they shouldn't, but many, many, many more people learned that GW's customer service was amazing.

Sounds quite a lot like the bundle thing. Maybe they know that some people are going to take the 1p path, but figured the good outweighed that. I don't know, and frankly it doesn't matter since whatever they decided was, in the end, their choice, but it sure sounds to me like the humble bundle payment option risks could be easily seen and yet they opted to go with it anyway...by (their) choice.

... Now I may be wrong here but I recall you saying you dont belive in God Sleboda... Sin implies a religious sense I didnt expect to see from you. (sorry if I am mistaking you with someone else) Now on to the statement itself. No the internet is not "pure sin" fist of all the intenet is not a living entity and is therefor incapable of action, and there for sin. Now demonizing the internet just makes you look foolish. (not meaning to offend you here, but hear me out) The internet accompishes so much good in our world and is infact vital to our society. Now this is not to say that it cant be used for bad/illegal things. But that is far from being the manifestation of sin itself.
Now as to the meaning behind the statement, I would love for you to explain the reason you are moraly against downloading. I agree with you that it is illegal but as I have said before legal and moral can be two seperate things.
@disc10 please try to keep it civil. I realize you are getting frustrated but the goal of this thread is to discuss the issue responsibly. (the post is ok the image is a litte over the top in my opinion.) I would hate to have this thread shut down.
Thanks again everyone for participating in this conversation. :)

That was me being civil by using humour rather than words of raaaage. :P Yes, I have a blue sense of humour, if that's actually a major issue for most here then I may have to think about if I'm welcome here. Not that I'm trying to sound melodramatic, but I won't censor a core aspect of my person. I was more worried if people would find the image too big.

And honestly, I think Sleb was kidding too. :P (Of course if you're not one has to wonder what you're doing on it XD)

@Disc10 - my thoughts (not Sleb's) on Humble Bundle: this is not a service that I was familiar with before reading your post, but if I understand correctly this is a business where buyers are able to choose the price they pay for something, and your point is that unscrupulous buyers select a price that is basically free and rip off the sellers? Tell me if I got that wrong.

If I did get it right though, the remedy seems simple to me. Have the sellers set a "floor" on the price so they aren't loosing money. It was the seller's choice to sell at any price right? The buyer who buys for 1p may be taking advantage of the situation but at least they are following the rules set out by the seller. To my mind this is better than outright stealing, which is what piracy is.

Tekik -
Correct. I am an atheist.

It's an expression. I also say things like "God damn it!" and "Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, Stewart!" and "For the love of Mary!"

I don't believe in Santa either, but I put up stockings at Xmas.


I just happen to really hate a great majority of what the internet, and technology in general, makes possible. I use it (and abuse it!), but I don't have to like it! :)

I'm still never gonna join Facebook or use Twitter (unless I can profit as a result). I still think Army Builder should be wiped from the collective consciousness. I will still punch the creator of Napster in the face (figuratively!) if I ever meet him.

The internet is pure sin. It's the Mos Eisley spaceport of our world - a wretched hive of scum and villainy. Give me a choice to have what we have or reset computer technology to the days of 50baud modems and text based adventure games and I'll take regression anytime. I don't need sports scores as they happen. I can read a news paper the next day (though I do check them on my Toshiba Thrive now :) ). I don't have to read about a volcano going off in Iceland to know if my flight will be cancelled - the airliner can tell me. E-mail, voicemail, instant access...it's all overrated and leads to ADD culture and kids who can't write a damn letter or spell out "Oh my God!"



Get off my lawn.

Yep, you're absolutely right. The point of not setting a base limit (as most other people do now), is because it began as an experiment, but mostly to prove people will support indie devs doing what they love. But yep, people take advantage of this. And yet it's better to make them lose money rather than not make any? Because of a technicality?

Really? I don't know about you but if someone made me pay for their product, I'd be pretty angry. But kudos to them, they've kept to their principles. The most they've done if made an incentive for people to spend above the average. I for one wouldn't blame them for setting a base limit though.

On another note, I'm off. It's not this, nor any one thing. I just think of the forum and get ticked off now. This just pushed me over the edge I guess, I feel quite strongly about this and I get passionate about the things I really care about. Yeeeaaaaa.

Not that anyone'll care if I'm here or not mind, but don't expect me to stick around. If I feel like that I guess it's better I do leave than lower the tone, eh? :P

EDIT: Admins and mods, obviously feel free to clear out the little I've left as it were. :P

I agree that the internet has its faults. I still disagree that its this hive of villany and scum. There are many far worse things happening throughout the world then the stuff occuring on the internet.

I fully agree with you here. I dont see downloading a book for personal use as morally wrong but profiting off of other peoples work is different. I realize that you are paying for the service of the program as well which is his work but it is based arround exploiting another individals property for financial gain. That is where I draw the line. I will fully admit to using a free phone app called battle scribe that is a list builder but its a free download and it does not include any special rules in it. It just tells you the points cost (even then its often wrong and you still want to double check everything in the book) Unlike Army Builder it does not make to book unnececary nor is the creator making a profit. Its primary purpose for me is a digital way of logging list ideas.
@disc10 I am not trying to chase you away. I just dont want to see this thread closed. I asked Cbt and he said it didnt break any rules so I was just being overly cautious. (I may or may not have anxiety issues)

@Disc10

So long, and thanks for the cartoon.



(We'll be here to happily welcome you back when that TK urge gets too strong to resist!)

where's the line? no telivision either? can the weight put into a written letter be conveyed through telephone, and if not, scrap that network as well? there might be a few serious issues with internet. it's pretty easy to relate some serious estrangement-issues with facebook, twitter or world of warcraft addictions.
(In fact, the estrangement directly leads to the piracy: not being able to SEE the person you rip of, and with virtually no repressailes from the real world, it's actually very easy to forget that there is a moral issue involved)
One that I find more interesting, however, is the complete dependency on internet that has emerged, not on a personal but on world scale level. were the servers containing Gmail to crash, then a large majority of companies would lie on their asses, unable to communicate and loosing millions. I don't even want to know how the US army (and the world) would be screwed over when their servers would be hacked.

yet, it is positively unmaintainable to denny internet the boons and merrits it brought us. globilization would NOT be possible without it, and everybody sayig that the world has been for the worse since globilization needs a more thorough overview of history (sorry for that very bad argument). a similar lance can be broken for the role internet plays in freedom of speech, and the bridges it can lay on personal, or for instance scientific, level.

The problem with internet is that it was introduced while society was unprepared. parrents, simply too old fashioned too adapt, had no chance of properly educating their children to deal responsively with the WWW. internet for everybody, for the sake of internet, has been a product of the very naive (but effective) free market machinisms we all so value. It has been the same with the car. Why does everybody has the right to ride one? just go live in the same city as were you work allready, and tae public transport to see family. might save the environment while you're at it.
again, we are in a transition period, and in comming generations, I predict, we will be able to deal. the facebook bubble will pop anyway, when the Euro-crisis has been resolved (don't know if it will be before or after the gold-bubble).


all in all, sorry sleboda, the fact that USA kids can't spell has the same reason your kids are to damn fat: you guys suck at parenting, and let companies determine your lives to much. blaming the internet instead of facing these issues will only worsen their weight ;)

Good thing I don't have kids then, since, as an American I would suck at raising them it seems.

Perhaps we should start a new topic about if/why Americans blow at raising children? ;)

I'm still confused by the whole humble bundle argument - I'm not sure why paying the 1p the developer has agreed to sell something for is worse than paying nothing and stealing it. Since Disc10 has apparently taken his toys and gone home, can anyone else explain it to me? I feel like I must be missing something really obvious.

You are missing nothing.

No offense to the departed, but I really think his grasp of the situation is clouded by being a youthful, current-culture artist.

The issue with this is that you degrade the creators of the material. I would rather have someone go through the effort of stealing my stuff then say all my hard work is worth a penny... Thanks! Its legaly ok but moraly questionable. Its a statement on the quality of your work or how little they care about the effort you put in.

@ Sleboda, Yes you are. (see above) You tend to dismiss the things other people say with out really listening to them. Your reading what I type but you arent actualy thinking about where I am coming from or the legistics of my argument. Am I saying you need to agree with me? No truth be told I dont really want you to. I enjoy debating and I feel like this thread is more educational for the observer then the people participating as we are quite solid where we stand on the issue. I am saying that you need to consider why the people arguing against you are saying what they say so that you will do something other then repeat youself. Adressing the issues presented is the only way to keep this conversation moving forward.
Also please refrain from degrading other members of the forum, I realize that your comment was made in jest but it does not support the inclusive community we all enjoy.

Oh and the inability for American children to spell is because of spell check and a bad education system, not the internet. (I suck at spelling because I am dislexic) I will not disagree that American parenting is lackluster to say the least in my oppinion (and I say this as an american citizen) Also I think I got lost in your metaphore Krael, are you saying that Americans are fat because we let companys dictate our lives? I always thought it was the unhealthy food and absurd meal portions we indluge in mixed with our lack of excercise. Also I am not sure any of us can rant about companys ruleing our lives as we are here on a forum dedicated to a company we let rule a portion of our lives. This isnt to say that I dont think companies have to much power I am just saying this may be a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Hmm. Isn't that interesting? That's _exactly_ how I feel about select posters on various forums, including some in this very thread.

It's like they assume their projections and assumptions are the only possibility. So, I point this out in various ways, even giving examples of how thins could be viewed another way, and what's the result? I'm told I'm ignoring people. Ironic, to say the least. Frustrating, to be sure.

I also take note of an example of what I am talking about in your reply. You say that this system is degrading to the creators of the material. I already addressed how it is the creators themselves that set up the system, and provided an example of how they may be willing to accept certain flaws in the system as part of an over all marketing effort. Yet all you see is that people are "degrading" them. Have you never seen a good deal and acted on it? I know I have. I don't assume I know all the motivations behind a deal, and so, given a great deal, I just plain act on it if I am interested. Is a BOGO sale on cans of soup "degrading" to the lineworkers in the soup factory? Nope. The soup company has offered me a deal and I take it. End of story. I know it's not the same, but in the end they are both pricing breaks offered by a company (indie one-man job or otherwise) and I, as a consumer, take advantage. To assume they are degraded by this is a touch self-important on the part of someone who thinks they may be degrading the creator.

It's just as likely that I could think to myself "Heck, these guys are giving me a fantastic deal! That's awesome! I'll get their stuff, try it out, and pass on to others how great their software is if I like it. Thanks, indie, for letting me try your stuff for next to nothing! You guys are swell."

All you see, though, is a consumer degrading the creator.

There, that would be another example that I sincerely believe will be ignored for not fitting what was expected to be my falling-in-line response.

=> Agreed.

=> I'd prefer to not repeat myself as well, but when it is clear that what I have already said has been missed, I'm not sure how else to try to get it read again.

=> Agreed again. And I have. People just don't like what I say to address things, and thus I am told that I effectively have not addressed them. Again, very frustrating.

=> Where did I degrade anyone? Which comment do you think was in jest? I try to put smiley faces (or even direct comments like "that was an attempt at humor to keep this thread light") next to my jests.

EDIT: On the spelling thing. I actually believe that the internet (specifically texting) has a lot to do with bad spelling. That and an over-reliance on spellchecking software.

Sorry for not responding to this comment earlier, I was going over this thread with my little sister when she made a comment that I just had to share. Why not us? We demand change is this tansitionary time and we dont recive it. We vote for represenitives who then fail to represent us in favor of companies that line the politicians wallets. I am not defending it legaly but moraly. Legality and morality have often not coincided in the past and who is to say that it has to now? I realize that I am going with an extream example here but I find it is the easiest way to get my point across. It used to be LEGAL to own slaves. Was it ever MORAL to own them? Just because the law said you could treat people like property did that make it moraly ok? If you truly belive that morality is inadvertantly tied to the law then this must be the case for you. (I honestly doubt/hope this is not the case) Sorry if this seems overly agressive, once again it just seemed to be the easiest way to get the point across clearly.
moving on.

This system is currently an expirement and there is a difference between a "good deal" and ripping off someones hard work. The sysem is an attempt to sell a game to an audience with comparitivly little money. 5 dollars is not that hard to come up with. (and yes before you argue it. The 35 for a army book is I am a broke theater student I already forgo food for my plastic crack addiction)

I am not trying to say you are the only one guilty of this. I fully admit to doing this sometimes as well. (I try very hard not to) I am not saying that you are not explaining yourself well, you give very resonable examples and are usualy pretty clear about what you are trying to say. What I am challanging you on is that you seem unable to see the reason why people dont find it immoral and this prevents you from being able to participate fully. I can understand why you think its immoral, therefore I can see where you are comming from and its easier to see you points. I may still disagree with you but this helps keep the conversation invloved and clear.

This is the statement I was refering to. It is not inharently offensive by any means but it is a direct attack on another member of the forum.
I am glad that you are enjoying this debate. :)
Edit:

Texting and the internet are two very seperate things... And spellchecking softwere originated in text documents like microsoft office not the internet. I am sorry but you cant blame our poor spelling on the internet. Does it help? Gods no but its not the primary cause.