# photocopyed Codex = throwdown



## Swarmlord (Feb 19, 2011)

Had lunch with my xeno scum friends today. Word around the shop is that 2 vets had a battle set for today. Things went south fast when one guy pulled out a copyed Ork Codex. Rob, the other vet asked Steve the guy with the copyed dex if he ripped it off the net. Steve tells Rob, "yes". Rob tells Steve he will not play him if he has a illegal copy of the Ork codex. :rtfm:

This soon escalated.

Now think of 2 somewhat overweight 40 year olds about to throw down out in the parking lot...


What are your thoughts on illegal prints of GW books/codex and would you play another player with a illegal copy of a codex?

Would you also try to kick Steves' ass? :laugh:


----------



## Snake40000 (Jan 11, 2010)

If you play the army you must own there codex. But if you are just doing research on other armies who cares.....


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

I think these guys were just getting their nerd rage on. I mean grow up.... Would I personally rip a codex off the net for free, no. Just because GW charges a pretty penny for their product it is their work and their property, so I pay them to buy the book. But would I be childish enough to have a 'throw down' because some one else did.... no. As long as it was a legal current copy who really gives a fuck.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

My thoughts: Rob is a bit of a douche and Steve needs to stop being so cheap.

Would I do it? Rather than buys a SECOND copy of my wolf codex..... yes, I would.


----------



## Joshawa (Jul 15, 2010)

I think if you want to play with the codex you should have a legit copy, but I wouldn't refuse a game to someone who was using one. Also I really don't have a problem with people reading them on the net to check out a new army or maybe check out an army you play against regularly. 

Personally I am not going to be shelling out $30 for a codex that I am just going to page through and skim read like I would a Bass Pro Catalog.


----------



## broran (Feb 1, 2011)

i used a pdf to decide what army to play but as soon as i started buying models i bought the codex to go along with them and i would only play some one with a printed codex if i knew they had a legit one and were just using the printed one so they could bring the relevent pages cutting out the fluff


----------



## .Kevin. (Jan 10, 2011)

Do not care aslong as the dex isn;t modified why would I stop my game from going on because he printed paper? He did pay in a way just not as much due to 90 pages of white printer paper costing like 5 bucks lol.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Swarmlord said:


> Had lunch with my xeno scum friends today. Word around the shop is that 2 vets had a battle set for today. Things went south fast when one guy pulled out a copyed Ork Codex. Rob, the other vet asked Steve the guy with the copyed dex if he ripped it off the net. Steve tells Rob, "yes". Rob tells Steve he will not play him if he has a illegal copy of the Ork codex. :rtfm:
> 
> This soon escalated.
> 
> ...



I would play them. I have PDF copies of several codices, so I am familiar with the rules, and fluff. I also have copies of all the old books, and rulesets you can't buy. 

I also scan my own codices, too many issues with crappy production. 

Who cares if its a copy? You spend hundreds just getting your army, it isn't a big deal.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Moron should've lied like I used to before I turned legit, and said it was a photocopy of the original while he kept the original safe from dirty hands/wear and tear.

I'd have liked to have seen it.


----------



## Cyklown (Feb 8, 2010)

I've got no issue with it. I'll dl any dex, since the ones I do own are frequently not with me/a pain to carry around and look through, and ones I don't own... well, I want to know what the other guys have. I still buy dex's I want to read if I can get them used, but in the meantime it's nice knowing the options so I can know when to ask to see the other guy's dex when something isn't right no matter who I face.

I'd only play with a dex I own, but if other people want to save money that's fine. For me it's as much about the fact that reading something on paper is more pleasurable than reading on a screen as it is about my sense of right and wrong.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

I would not allow the player to play if it was in a game shop, as you should pay "rent" to FLGS by buying stuff there, and not "ripping" GW off. Now, if he was just trying out a new army, or forgot his legal codex, etc, Sure. I have computer reference copies of all my codexes, to use while making army lists.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Well really, this depends on the situation. If its at home, and you know its a legit copy and not one that someones altered, who cares? I've got .pdf versions I've used for research. If I decide to play the army, I buy a legit one. Really theres not much difference between that and browsing the store copies. 

If its in a store or gaming club, then Steve deserved to be told where to stick it. 

In store its obviously bad as you pretty much just said you've stolen GW products... In a gaming club, same situation. You don't want to get closed down if it gets around your allowing the use to stolen products.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

So what, if he wants to play competitively he's got to shell out cash for the codexes of all other armies? (_for the 15-20 pages you actually need to know_)?

Please. I need at least one kidney. GW has the other one as it is.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

With these upcoming hardcover codexes clocking in at over 30, you can damn well bet I'll be a scummy money grubber after having personally paid for 1/3 of GW's global Empire.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

It was all for the greater good dude.


----------



## Fallen (Oct 7, 2008)

i wouldnt care...as long as the person "copied" it from the codex he has @ home.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

I would refuse unless they can produce an original. The reason the codices cost so much is the jagoffs ripping them off. GW makes the money back by charging more.


----------



## GrizBe (May 12, 2010)

Son of mortarion said:


> I would refuse unless they can produce an original. The reason the codices cost so much is the jagoffs ripping them off. GW makes the money back by charging more.


And that unfortuantely is the paradox.... The army/codex books cost more as people rip them off. People rip them off as they cost too much. 

Someone will argue that if GW dropped the price of them to £5 tomorrow you'd suddenly have less piracy.... but by that same reasoning, you'd probably have more as then more could afford to buy every codex and make copies of them. 

Stuff won't get cheaper until pdf and photo copies are stamped out.... which wil never happen as as said, if your at home with them, who cares?


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

Why not release them for free PDF Downloads? Simple, piracy solved.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

Vaz said:


> Why not release them for free PDF Downloads? Simple, piracy solved.


They'd sure as hell sell more as 5$ downloads than 30$ hardcovers.

People who say that GW is hit hard by 15$ codex piracy seem to be disregarding the 400+$ of cheap pewter and plastic they have in their cupboard.


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

copies are cheap, do the same thing as the official, and are a big fuck you to GW...I like copies.

and getting the fake I doubt hurts GW, if I'm not willing to spend £20 on a book, I won't, so me getting a copy or not buying the official is losing GW the exact same amount of money and earning them the exact same.

£0


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> I would refuse unless they can produce an original. The reason the codices cost so much is the jagoffs ripping them off. GW makes the money back by charging more.


Do you have any evidence for this? Or is it just an opinion you have?

Next you'll be telling us the reason they charge £27 for 5 infantry models is because people are sculpting their own...

Regarding the actual topic: Does it have the rules in it? Yes. What is missing? The art and colour and fluff sections. Which of those two things do you need in order to play the game properly? Right.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Paying for the codex for your army is really the least you can do for your hobby, no one is expected to buy all the codex,but if your gonna play the game its really the bare minimum and first purchase you should be making, turning up to play an opponent in a store or club also shows a lack of respect for the people who have paid cash money for a GW book.
But getting into fisticuffs about it is folly, refusal to play and explaining that his mother had relations with men who were of questionable character would be enough.
Also thinking that a $5 downloadble pdf codex will solve piracy is madness,people dont download PDF codex to save money,they down load them because they are free.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I own a physical copy or 3 of every codex army I play. I have reference copies to look up rules on PDF. I also have ebook copies of my codexes so I can read them on my kindle.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Sethis said:


> Do you have any evidence for this? Or is it just an opinion you have?
> 
> Next you'll be telling us the reason they charge £27 for 5 infantry models is because people are sculpting their own...
> 
> Regarding the actual topic: Does it have the rules in it? Yes. What is missing? The art and colour and fluff sections. Which of those two things do you need in order to play the game properly? Right.


take an introductory economics class and then repeat your question.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

With my podcast I have to have some way of knowing about the different armies out there. So, naturally I manage to get hold of certain versions. 

However, I will not print these off if I were to actually do the army. I would buy one from GW. I mean come on, it's not really that expensive, it's cheaper than some of the models that GW do, and after all it's out hobby. 

But thats where I draw the line, at printing the copies off


----------



## Stella Cadente (Dec 25, 2006)

bitsandkits said:


> Paying for the codex for your army is really the least you can do for your hobby


I do...just not for GW games...only for games where the rulebook can be afforded without selling a child on the black market.


----------



## davidmumma66 (May 11, 2010)

I have a legit copy of codex DA and Chaos, the two that I play, I have a PDFs for every other army at some point, when they release one i just download it, read it then delete so i know whats in them, with out being to much of a pirate


----------



## KingOfCheese (Jan 4, 2010)

If i am testing an army, i print a copy.
If i am going to stick with the army long-term, then i buy the codex (i have the IG codex, going to be buying the Ork one too).
I do however have the rulebook printed, only because the book is too expensive and the small AoBR is a pain in the arse to read.


----------



## OIIIIIIO (Dec 16, 2009)

For the most part I really do not give a shit what other people do, but if I have a question about your codex and it is an unmodified copy ... does not bother me. If I question your codex and you provide one answer and I go over to the shelf and pick up the real codex and it says something different ... he he he that is when the fun begins. I would son of a bitch him and berate him until he did swing at me, lock him up and put him down. :threaten: More over the cheating part really.
You can not control what other people do, but you CAN provoke the shit out of them. :biggrin:


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Son of mortarion said:


> take an introductory economics class and then repeat your question.


LOLS, thats actually funny. I've never seen anything in my intro economics courses nor my intro economic textbooks that talks about the price of a luxury good rising due to people being able to get said luxury good for free online. That seems to be a more advanced topic of discussion as no one has been able to prove just how much a company loses to online Piracy, ever. 

Hell, music is now sold at around $1 a song on itunes, making a normal CD about $12-$15 but people still download them. No matter how much the price is lowered people will always take it for free if they are able.

Now if you're talking about the basic Law of Demand (As price goes up demand goes down, and as price goes down demand goes up) it doesn't work as well in this instance. Given the limited demand for warhammer in the global market (it's not a universally appealing product), it's not like lowering the price would cause a mass influx of customers into the game. Plus certain types of luxury goods don't lose as much demand to price increases as normal goods would, due to things like lack of substitutes (if you're playing 40k and don't want to spend $30 on a new codex you can't buy a knock off, there are none) and perceived utility.

As to the OP, I support the hobby by purchasing all the codices I want to use for my armies. I currently have SM, BA, SW, DH, 4th ed SM, and WoC for Fantasy. The other armies I find PDFs for so I an see whats in them. If I decide to purchase one of the new armies I downloaded I purchase the codices to go with it.

I would never not play against someone because they didn't have a legit print codex with them for a game. Thats just stupid. I will agree that the books are rather pricey, but they are not priced out of reach by any means. I bought my SM codex at release, which was 3 years ago if memory serves, $30 over 36 months is less then $1 per month. Not very expensive for how long it has lasted me.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> take an introductory economics class and then repeat your question.


I eagerly await your proof, GW publish all their figures you should be able to work out how much they are losing roughly. It has never been shown that every illegal download translates into a real world sale being lost in this case, not that increasing prices to offset these notional losses (they are purely notional as it's not an actual loss) would work. That is a purely counter intuitive argument that I gauntee you did not learn in economics class. 

I personally have a bunch of codexs because I like the fluff sections and I just like having the book. I also have downloads of all the codex's and i've played some games out of some of them to see how they play. I don't care where you get the rules from, paying for a book doesn't make your rules any more real or some how better. It's not disrespectful to use a copied book, it's just a game after all.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> take an introductory economics class and then repeat your question.


Or, you know, instead of me going to my LEA, paying over £100 for a nightclass, taking a lesson one night every week for 20 weeks, and then coming back here to disprove your point, you could just, you know, present some evidence? Seeing as it's you that's making the unfounded claim and all that.

Obviously if it's introductory economics then you should be able to explain it in a way that silly people like me can understand? 

Oh, and some actual numbers from GW's financial statement or their marketing department would be nice, rather than assumptions based on comparisons to other industries like the previously mentioned music. In the name of good solid evidence and things like that.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

piracy obviously hurts manufactures be it music,film or GW, maybe not to the extent they would like us to believe and maybe if they charged less in the first place people wouldn't do it as much,you dont need basic economics class to work that is causes some loss of revenue, but the companies would always want you to believe that every PDF codex is a lost sale to them.


----------



## Whitehorn (Dec 17, 2009)

I own every codex, but I like having a PDF copy for reference when I can't carry them all with me on person.


----------



## Death Shroud (Mar 1, 2008)

I would be really tempted to do the following......
1:- Get out your legit codex.
2:- Leave your army in the case.
3:- Cut pieces of paper into squares.
4:- Write initials for each model on said squares.
5:- Play the game against him using bits of paper rather than models.
6:- If he complains or has a hissy-fit tell him not to be a hypocrite.

If it's genuinely a photocopied "backup" copy fair enough but I doubt many people who own an original codex would need spend all that money on printer ink just to keep a codex in pristine condition.


----------



## orkz222 (Sep 28, 2010)

Dont care, I even played guys using paper cut outs as proxies... 
will I kick steve ass? no, but it will be fun to watch two overweight 40+yr old men duke it out. :aggressive:


----------



## LukeValantine (Dec 2, 2008)

Simple put I feel the following sums up 50% of what has already been said.

Testing a possible new army out = OK
Seeing what other armies are capable of doing = OK
Army is just starting out = OK

Has over 300 dollars of models relevant to the specific copied codex = Wrong
Has had the army for 1+ year, and fully intends to collect it = Wrong.

...Also as a jab to those that take the more restrictive view of all stealing is wrong I will present the following points. 

1) If you are simple reading the codex's in depth to get a fuller understanding of the game, purchasing all the relevant material will cost more then a new army which = idiocy.
2) Peaple that tend to have overly restrictive, black and white views on these kinds of matters typicall have vary authoritatian view points, and as such should be ignored do to the fact that they are ilogically sapporting an authority or rule simply because it is one.
3) Use common sense, and or don't be incredibly cheap and such argument will not be necessary.


----------



## The Sullen One (Nov 9, 2008)

LukeValantine said:


> Simple put I feel the following sums up 50% of what has already been said.
> 
> Testing a possible new army out = OK
> Seeing what other armies are capable of doing = OK
> ...


So anyone who likes owning all the codices is an idiot and anyone who believes stealing, in any form, is wrong, is prone to authoritarianism.

Well in that case, I'm a stupid fascist!

Alternatively I might just be someone who thinks stealing is wrong and likes owning all the codices in a way that doesn't suggest I'm a right-wing rulenut.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Hmm but is it stealing if no-one suffers material loss? Tis a quandary no doubt.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I freely admit to having downloaded nearly every codex GW releases. However if I decide I ant to collect that particular army then I buy the actual book. If I am interested in an army because it has cool models I don't want to spend £15+ on the book only to discover the army is not my cup of tea after all.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

I trump everyone here in that I both download and buy all the Codecies and have done so since the start of 4th edition. Team Katie wins!

Seriously though, I'd be totally fine with someone playing with a photocopied Codex. I really don't care if someone else decides they want to spend that $30 in a different place. I wouldn't defend them from the store owner if it was found out that he didn't have a legit copy of the Codex, though.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I own every codex. It`s just more convenient for me to kick back and read at my leisure than have to download and print shit off. 

Frankly, I think downloading is cheap but if you`re willing to accept that you`re a tightarse then I won`t judge you by my standards.  

Also, if you took offense to that then you`re taking me and probably yourself too seriously. :crazy:


----------



## Swarmlord (Feb 19, 2011)

I do have a copy of the Tyranid 5th ed. Codex and i do own a bought Nid dex. I like being able to have my copy with me where every i go and i would hate to trash my bought Codex from a damn drop on the floor. I will have both with me when i do go out for a battle. I had at one point PDF files of the 'Blood and Thunder' comics.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Hmm but is it stealing if no-one suffers material loss? Tis a quandary no doubt.


I believe that's what is called intellectual property. And the reason why there exists things such as plagiarism and patents. In according to the law, such types of theft do exist, regardless of what names they go by.

Nevertheless, the thought of 2 fat 40-year-olds wrestling around on the LGS seems hilarious. Tell me, did anyone make bets on who would win? I sure as hell would.

Slightly more on topic; Who gives a shit? If he likes to be cheap, let him be cheap. If the store manager gets pissy, thats their problem. Why even take a stand and throw a lecture on morality at people just because they prefer not to throw 20+ bucks on a wad of papers when they can get it for cheap? Logic is on their side after all. And they are likely speding just as much cash on the, as most would agree, ridiculously overpriced models they play with as yourself. 
So once again; who gives a shit (the store manager nonwithstanding)?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH said:


> I believe that's what is called intellectual property. And the reason why there exists things such as plagiarism and patents. In according to the law, such types of theft do exist, regardless of what names they go by.


Perhaps in Denmark, In the UK it's only theft if you intend to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it. So IP violation and Copyright violations are not theft as such, not in the UK. You're not stealing from the mouths of GW if you download a pdf.


----------



## AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH (Apr 17, 2009)

Semantics smemantics. My point was merely that no matter what you constitutes it as, in most countries it is treated as a type of theft and are punished as such (even though the usual types of penalties may be different). To quote John Travolta (mostly because it's fun): "It's like looking at yourself in the mirror, only not."

Point is: you say potato, I say french fries. Same fucking deal, if we leave out the technical differences. 

After all, I just wanted to point out why some people may take offense by the notion of copying and that most enforcers of the law would treat it as kind of stealing.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

AAAAAAAAARRRGGHH said:


> Semantics smemantics. My point was merely that no matter what you constitutes it as, in most countries it is treated as a type of theft and are punished as such (even though the usual types of penalties may be different). To quote John Travolta (mostly because it's fun): "It's like looking at yourself in the mirror, only not."
> 
> Point is: you say potato, I say french fries. Same fucking deal, if we leave out the technical differences.
> 
> After all, I just wanted to point out why some people may take offense by the notion of copying and that most enforcers of the law would treat it as kind of stealing.


But they don't, Download a bunch of stuff here and it's not illegal. Making it available is but obtaining it is not. One law firm has famously obtained money through menaces threatening to take people to court of downloading, they lost the only court case they've ever had.

It's why the advert makes no sense 'You wouldn't steal a car!', you're right no I wouldn't but as I'm demonstrably not stealing anything if I download something everything is cool. 

Making available copyrighted works and Theft are not analogous and should not be confused. Someone who downloads a codex is not a thief no matter how you try to pain it.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

I own a lot of legimate Codexes and I have a lot of PDFs, but I only own the PDFs that I have no intention of gaming with, or I already own a physical copy and I like having the easy reference on my laptop.

If someone wanted to play a game with me and pulled out a copied Codex/Rulebook I'd simply pack up my stuff and leave him to it as I don't want to play with someone who's willing to spunk £200+ on an army but won't pay the £12-18 for the bloody rules to said force.
I wouldn't threaten him though, nothing to get worked up about unless he starts getting in my face because I refuse to play him- up until then I'm absolutely fine with leaving the cheap fucker looking for someone else to play.


----------



## Ashkore08 (Feb 12, 2011)

Im 16, and i dont have a dedicated income. Ive already forked out enough money for 2000 points of BA since the year started. My only option is to sell my testicles to science( i have Balls of Steel xDl) and sell my kidneys to pay for continuing my hobby.
Yes, currently i have a .PDF of the new BA codex, and as soon as i get money, i do intend to buy it.

But i don't have problems with people having a.pdf codex. I just hope i don't have to see them whip it out in the FLGS, because that would be embarrassing.


----------



## asianavatar (Aug 20, 2007)

I know my friend has a photocopied codex of his army, he has the army book, but he likes the photocopies because it only has the stats and rules in without all the extra fluff he doesn't need when playing. Seriously, some of the books are laid out terrible. Takes flipping back and forth between 3 or 4 pages just to do actions for a squad.


----------



## mcmuffin (Mar 1, 2009)

I have all the codices and imperial armour books as pdf. Do i game with them? no. I just enjoy reading them and using them for reference for homebrew fluff and rules. I own Codex SW and Codex CSM (mind you, my sw codex has gone missing). in the case of my missing SW dex, i use a copied version just until i have enough time to find it. Anywho, gw make enough money as it is, and i dont see it as a problem when people use copied dexes.


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

I would not play a against a codex printed from the internet. Buy it, and I will.


----------



## Blueberrypop (Apr 27, 2010)

I've been playing for 12 years now and I've faced people with printed and retail copies. I don't care either way, I just want to play. I've never printed one off but I do use PDF for army building because I'm poor like that, but getting in a fight over what version of a book someone uses is just childish. I'm 20 and even I see it's a damn dumb thing to fight over, if you enjoy the game who gives a damn what book you use. If you get overly pissed about it then quit and go back to your basement and just do the modeling aspect of the game.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

I just remembered back to a tourney in December he had a folder that had a space marine codex in (clearly a photocopied one and it wasn't brilliantly done), so obviously he didn't play the army (he was borrowing models). So, whats the point in buying a codex for one day?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

It's interesting to see how many people are championing GW in this matter. So all of you are so high and mighty, much better than anyone who downloads a codex? Interesting, very interesting. I also find the whole "Well you spent $500 on your army, $30 isn't a big deal!" Yeah, except maybe I have a family, and bills, and groceries to pay for. So I don't want to spend $30 dollars on a codex. 

I'm a terrible person right? And your all better than me. Woe is me.


Like I said, I have a copy of every current codex (as I recall) in .pdf format, I also have 6 that I have bought, I spend hundreds on their models, so yeah a $30 book I don't need isn't high on my priority list.


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Kittyclaw said it all. With things like college expenses looming over me, I can barely allow myself to spend any money on plastic army men, let alone 30$ on a book telling me how I need to use them.

I mean, a required 150$ book on Astrology is just as -if maybe not slightly more- retarded, but the difference there is that I DO have to shell out the money here.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

Same as everyone else really: If i play the army I own the codex. If i'm just doing research, maybe I don't own the codex. 

I've brought most of the codices over the years though and now I only have historical codices on PDF, i.e Rogue Trader (until i can justify spending £20 on owning a real copy from ebay... i brought it once first time round, and am reluctant to buy it again...)


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> It's interesting to see how many people are championing GW in this matter. So all of you are so high and mighty, much better than anyone who downloads a codex? Interesting, very interesting. I also find the whole "Well you spent $500 on your army, $30 isn't a big deal!" Yeah, except maybe I have a family, and bills, and groceries to pay for. So I don't want to spend $30 dollars on a codex.
> 
> I'm a terrible person right? And your all better than me. Woe is me.
> 
> ...


Don't be a drama queen.

Most people haven't said that the owning of PDF is a terrible thing, some (myself included) have just said trying to use a copy in a game is not on.

If you've got bills to pay, family etc then you shouldn't be stupid enough to splash $500 on an army in the first place, you don't deserve sympathy as to why you haven't brought a $30 Codex. You deserve contempt and mockery for being such a stupid bastard that you'd spend so much on models when you have more important things to pay for.

The Codex is a part of the army, its cost should be incorporated into how much you're willing to pay in the first place- not whined about *after *you've spent hundreds of dollars/pounds on models.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

According to you Baron. So once again, your high and mighty opinion trumps everyone else's? My game, my money. I'll decide what I spend it on, and if your such an arrogant prick that you would't play based on whether or not I shelled out $30 for a crappily bound pile of papers, of which I need maybe half of the total number, then more power to you.

Also, incorporating the cost into the total cost? Really? Yes if you buy like that, more power to you. But it's YOU that buys like that. Just because it's how you do it Baron, doesn't mean anybody is deserving of contempt because you disagree.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

To be honest I am with the Baron on this one. I mean I always buy the codex of the army I want to use before getting anything else. It not only reduces the managers suspects about you downloading GW stuff if you buy the codex first but it also makes more sense. I am not high and mighty since I admit to downloading every book released by GW but if I want to collect that particular army then I BUY THE DAMN CODEX! Not that hard really.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> According to you Baron. So once again, your high and mighty opinion trumps everyone else's? My game, my money. I'll decide what I spend it on, and if your such an arrogant prick that you would't play based on whether or not I shelled out $30 for a crappily bound pile of papers, of which I need maybe half of the total number, then more power to you.
> 
> Also, incorporating the cost into the total cost? Really? Yes if you buy like that, more power to you. But it's YOU that buys like that. Just because it's how you do it Baron, doesn't mean anybody is deserving of contempt because you disagree.


Of course I think my opinion is superior, otherwise why would I hold that opinion if I didn't think so highly of it? 

It's not set in stone, I'm more than willing to change my mind if I see an argument that i consider superior to my own (as I have done in the past).

And actually I'm allowed to hold whomever I wish, and for whatever reason I wish, in contempt...do you not understand the concept of opinions? 

Example: I think Green Goblin Cider is the nicest tasting draught cider I've had in years, I think *my* opinion is correct- I couldn't give a fuck what someone else thinks.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

See, but you still have no reason, or compelling proof that there is a NEED to buy said codex. It's you saying they need too. Tell me why I should? I spend all the money I can afford to on models, so what need do I have for a codex? When I can get one free? 

Call me thief or what have you, I call GW thieves every time I buy something from them.

EDIT For Baron's Ninja'ing:

I do actually understand the concept of opinions, it appears to be you, and few others, who seem to believe your opinion is fact. Not just your opinion. Or that because it's your opinion, it's how everyone needs to play the game.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

How about the fact is against copyright law to use a photocopied codex and the fact you can either be fined by GW (Which going by model prices is going to be one ugly value) or even get a prison sentance.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> How about the fact is against copyright law to use a photocopied codex and the fact you can either be fined by GW (Which going by model prices is going to be one ugly value) or even get a prison sentance.


But we have already discussed this earlier. By Your countries laws, and by mine, I didn't break any laws. I don't make my codex's or other GW related materials available for illegal download, so I didn't break any IP or copyright laws.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> See, but you still have no reason, or compelling proof that there is a NEED to buy said codex. It's you saying they need too. Tell me why I should? I spend all the money I can afford to on models, so what need do I have for a codex? When I can get one free?
> 
> Call me thief or what have you, I call GW thieves every time I buy something from them.
> 
> ...


Why do I need proof? I'm not trying to convince you, I couldn't give a damn what you do really, just don't expect me to think much of you if you do use a copy because you couldn't be bothered to buy a codex.

No that's how you're taking my opinion- I don't care if you agree with me, just don't for a moment expect me to agree with you.

This...


Baron Spikey said:


> If you've got bills to pay, family etc then you shouldn't be stupid enough to splash $500 on an army in the first place, you don't deserve sympathy as to why you haven't brought a $30 Codex. You deserve contempt and mockery for being such a stupid bastard that you'd spend so much on models when you have more important things to pay for.


...is my opinion on the matter of people whining about not being able to afford a Codex after spending loads of money on models- you can read into the wording all you like but it won't change the fact that I'm voicing what I believe not what I think everybody should believe (though if everybody believed what I did I'd be a much happier person).


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Data must not be disclosed to other parties without the consent of the individual whom it is about, unless there is legislation or other overriding legitimate reason to share the information (for example, the prevention or detection of crime). It is an offence for Other Parties to obtain this personal data without authorisation.

Know where thats from? That is from the data protection act of 1998. Going by the wording here GW codexes cannot be disclosed to other people without the permission of GW. Now are they likely to say "Yeah you can use that why allow this person to add to our profits after all!" because I think they would say a HELL NO! Technically we shoul'nt be even downloading them in the first place but to then say it is OK to use them is just slapping icing on a very dangerous cake.

@Baron: Would have to disagree about best cider around becuase my vote goes to Cornish Rattler. Brill stuff.


----------



## Baron Spikey (Mar 26, 2008)

Stephen_Newman said:


> @Baron: Would have to disagree about best cider around becuase my vote goes to Cornish Rattler. Brill stuff.


Well see I've not tried that, maybe when I do my *opinion* will change. :laugh:


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

I haven't bought a codex since the hugely disappointing Chaos 4th ed 'dex. 

The models are expensive enough without me having to pay an arm and a leg for big book full of unnecessary crap. I'd rather just grab the 5-10 pages of rules from the internet and be done with it.

Some paper & cardboard, a printer, a hole punch and some ring bindy things and I have the greatest 'dex in the world.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> How about the fact is against copyright law to use a photocopied codex and the fact you can either be fined by GW (Which going by model prices is going to be one ugly value) or even get a prison sentance.


Erm, no it's not and neither of those things could happen. The person distributing said copyright material is naughty but otherwise you're cool.



> Know where thats from? That is from the data protection act of 1998. Going by the wording here GW codexes cannot be disclosed to other people without the permission of GW. Now are they likely to say "Yeah you can use that why allow this person to add to our profits after all!" because I think they would say a HELL NO! Technically we shoul'nt be even downloading them in the first place but to then say it is OK to use them is just slapping icing on a very dangerous cake.


This applies to the distributors of said data not the end users as you should know if you're quoting the Data Protection Act. Once the cat is out of the bag it not the end user job to put it back in.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Aramoro said:


> Erm, no it's not and neither of those things could happen. The person distributing said copyright material is naughty but otherwise you're cool.


Ah good. that saves my ass for downloading a bunch of them. However I am pretty sure it would be illegal to use something you downloaded rather than getting the real thing.

Like a drivers liscense. Instead of paying £50 I could download and get one made for a fraction of the cost. However it would be fraud and I would get sentanced.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Making available copyrighted works and Theft are not analogous and should not be confused. Someone who downloads a codex is not a thief no matter how you try to pain it.


Uh, yeah they are, actually. Sure it's easy to say big, bad, greedy GW has all the money but they pay people to write and playtest the codexes. People may have very little respect for IP rights because it's so easy to download free stuff on the internet, but your opinion would change greatly if you were on the other side and depending on sales of that IP as your job. 

I personally wouldn't care if somebody played a friendly game with a copied or scanned PDF codex, but that doesn't make it right. If I was playing in a GW-sanctioned competitive tournament I'd have them disqualified for it though and wouldn't feel bad for a second. 

I don't really have a problem with people using copies or scans of codexes they legitimately own though. The books say "you must own a copy of this book to use its contents" and if you do, it's cool. The GW legal section on their website says you shouldn't copy or scan a codex under any circumstances, but Fair Use law overrides that for legal purposes, at least in the USA. 

I think GW will eventually change its mind and move to a free-rules, pay-for-models business model eventually though. The DH and WH PDFs signaled the start of this, and demand is only going to increase. And once the PDFs are in the open, there's no real way to tell if it was legitimately purchased or pirated. Expect the price of models to increaee in response though.


----------



## Creon (Mar 5, 2009)

ChaosRed, I would consider, in my personal opinion, that you are stealing $30 (approx) each time you download a codex instead of buying it. You are taking it from distributors, local game shops, and GW corporate. 

I buy every codex I will use. I like to, it matches my moral outlook on this. Do I have PDFs for reference? Surely, that way my codexes reside in my car. Is it legal for me to have PDFs? As I understand the law, yes, since I do own limited rights through owning the codex for copies for personal use. Can I use them in a game? I wouldn't, but again, I think it's legal if you own the codex. If you don't, you're using the ideas and IP of GW, inc without their permission. You do gain their permission to use the IP when you buy a codex


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Stephen_Newman said:


> Ah good. that saves my ass for downloading a bunch of them. However I am pretty sure it would be illegal to use something you downloaded rather than getting the real thing.
> 
> Like a drivers liscense. Instead of paying £50 I could download and get one made for a fraction of the cost. However it would be fraud and I would get sentanced.


It's nothing like a driving licence, a driving licence is a legal document, a government issued one at that. Attempting to use that to drive would not be fraud but rather presenting false documents, You'd be driving without a licence (And an endorsement put on your licence strangely enough). Using that licence to obtain something which you were not entitled to would be fraud, but that crime is not intrinsic to the licence but rather that you're trying to commit fraud. 

But that is not the case here. A codex is just a book, it's not issued by the goverment , you are not attempting to defraud anyone. It's just a book and not illegal to use by any stretch. Illegal to distribute yes, but not use.




> Uh, yeah they are, actually. Sure it's easy to say big, bad, greedy GW has all the money but they pay people to write and playtest the codexes. People may have very little respect for IP rights because it's so easy to download free stuff on the internet, but your opinion would change greatly if you were on the other side and depending on sales of that IP as your job.


Read what I wrote again, downloading a codex is explicitly not theft. Distributing it is an infringement however. 
Calling it theft is incorrect. Perhaps Grand High Naughtiness, or Supreme Rapscalliousous behaviour but not theft.


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Read what I wrote again, downloading a codex is explicitly not theft. Distributing it is an infringement however.
> Calling it theft is incorrect. Perhaps Grand High Naughtiness, or Supreme Rapscalliousous behaviour but not theft.


Downloading a codex you own isn't theft, but downloading one you don't own is.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

ohiocat110 said:


> Downloading a codex you own isn't theft, but downloading one you don't own is.


Who are you deny access to their property? All you're doing is taking a copy of something and that in and of itself is not theft. What you've done there is been scurrilous and possibly even devious, but not a thief. The person you downloaded it from however has broken the IP and possibly copyright laws.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Aramoro said:


> Who are you deny access to their property? All you're doing is taking a copy of something and that in and of itself is not theft. What you've done there is been scurrilous and possibly even devious, but not a thief. The person you downloaded it from however has broken the IP and possibly copyright laws.


from what i just read, anyone in possession of copied copy written material is committing a criminal offence according to UK law if they have not been granted a licence by GW to reproduce the material or use reproduced material(thats why some pages in the books have a permission granted to photo copy for personal use), but the likely hood is that trading standards would only go after someone who is distributing the copied material or someone who is in possesion of large amounts of pirated copy written material.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Creon said:


> ChaosRed, I would consider, in my personal opinion, that you are stealing $30 (approx) each time you download a codex instead of buying it. You are taking it from distributors, local game shops, and GW corporate.


I would never buy the codices in the first place, so:

A) I don't have the codex. GW makes $0 from me.
B) I get a copied codex. GW makes $0 from me.

Either way GW doesn't make any money from me.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> I would never buy the codices in the first place, so:
> 
> A) I don't have the codex. GW makes $0 from me.
> B) I get a copied codex. GW makes $0 from me.
> ...


very good, but you ignored C

C)I have a pdf which i am using, so GW is $30 out of pocket


----------



## ohiocat110 (Sep 15, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> from what i just read, anyone in possession of copied copy written material is committing a criminal offence according to UK law if they have not been granted a licence by GW to reproduce the material or use reproduced material(thats why some pages in the books have a permission granted to photo copy for personal use), but the likely hood is that trading standards would only go after someone who is distributing the copied material or someone who is in possesion of large amounts of pirated copy written material.


The interesting part is that the GW legal page actually suggests that players "produce your own materials" immediately after they forbid making direct copies or scans of copyrighted material.

So playing with a scanned PDF would be bad, but if you created your own PDFs using stats and rules from the codex, would they consider that legal? 

Of course GW also says: "Please remember that Games Workshop does not produce its rule books or codices in electronic format - if you ever see any such material in electronic format, it is likely to be the product of criminal or infringing activity." Except GW themselves published DH and WH codices as PDFs. Oops.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> very good, but you ignored C
> 
> C)I have a pdf which i am using, so GW is $30 out of pocket


There is no C. I would never spend $50AUD, which is £31, on a book. 

So again either:
A) I don't own a PDF or a real copy. GW makes $0.
Or
B) I own a PDF, but not a real copy. GW makes $0.

When GW decides to charge reasonable prices for books, then I'll buy them. Until then I won't.



PS: And once again since this thread is about pricing I am obligated to throw in my usual: _"GW marks up there products buy 30-80% for all; Canadian, New Zealand and Australian customers for no real reason, other than to be complete assholes"_ statement.


----------



## TheReverend (Dec 2, 2007)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> See, but you still have no reason, or compelling proof that there is a NEED to buy said codex.


Here's a very good reason: it's illegal to steal someone's intellectual property, whomever that may be. 
So GW robbed you in the first place? It's only robbery if you didn't agree to it, and I don't think GW stole into your house after dark and emptied your wallet now did they?

I agree with the Barron here; you made the decision to collect, don't moan about it after, especially if you chose to spend your models on toy soldiers instead of bills/food/etc.

reading teh rest of teh posts, i just find myself not agreeing with those saying it's ok to download the pdfs just to avoid paying GW any money. You must like the hobby or you wouldn't be part of it. Why choose it in the first place if you have so much contempt for GW?


----------



## ShadowsandDust (Feb 11, 2011)

dl first if good still don't buy because GW can go to hell charging all that for a book.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

TheReverend said:


> You must like the hobby or you wouldn't be part of it. Why choose it in the first place if you have so much contempt for GW?


I like the hobby, that doesn't mean I have to like GW or there business plans.

I like having petrol in my car, that doesn't mean I need to like the oil companies or their business strategies.


----------



## Champion Alaric (Feb 17, 2011)

Ah I truly enjoy reading these forums, I always start at the beginning and read away and have a few chuckles at the opions, sometimes presented very well (Bitz guy for one) and others...not so much lol.

It seems the prevailing argument is kind of a "ends justify the means" as in: I downloaded it to check it out and fully intend on purchasing it...I did that for fantasy and don't regret it one bit. I was able to make an informed decision and went out and purchased what I need. Do I feel bad, not at all...GW still gets some dough from me. Is it right...hmmm..thats a solid NO. But we all do lots of illegal things, jaywalking, running red lights, mebbe taking the train for free sometimes. So I guess its as much as your conscience can take.

Only thing I have noticed is that most people are saying "You are ripping GW off 30 bucks!"...well not reeeely. Remember that most retailers buy wholesale for up to and sometimes more than 50 percent. So really you are ripping them off mebbe 15 bucks.. not defending but I figgered it should be said at least. Only reason our local store doesnt carry Forgeworld is that they don't sell wholesale so he would not be able to mark it up and thus, make some moolah off of it. 

All in all the opinions are varied and enjoyable to read. Id be curious to read opinions from 15 years ago and see if as many people thought it wasn't stealing..this new generation of kids steal EVERYTHING it seems like so I wonder if as many people would be ok with it..food for thought, u do the dishes


----------



## Blueberrypop (Apr 27, 2010)

For 40k I only use PDF to build my lists... after that all I need is the stat sheet. I don't buy the codices because I could care less about most of the fluff and I'm not paying $30 for mostly fluff and maybe 7-8 pages of useful content. 

@Everyone: Yes, your opinion is the best. 

Just a thought you aren't technically "stealing" from GW with a PDF codex because you aren't printing it to sell it so you aren't breaking copyright laws, kinda. 

I was happy when I was paying $15 for a codex when I started playing. Now that the book and the actual pieces you play with cost the same I'll take pieces over mostly useless writing.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

I'll just pop in to say that the only reason I bought the Necron codex is because it was on a discount (10$). Frankly that's the maximum realistic for a 68 page booklet.

Books akin to GW codices (in page number and paper quality) are by and large half that price. 

Also: the piracy = sales lost, is a very old argument that never made sense in the first place. You'd have to prove that the person would indeed buy the item if they didn't take the opportunity to pirate it. Good luck with that.

Finally: GW rips people off in every segment of their offerings. Model kits are generally cheaper (you can get a luxurious Tamiya kit for the price of some GW vehicles!), cheaper paints are available (Vallejo) not to mention the hobby accessories. Its a stone cold business trying to maximize profits by any means necessary. No one is obliged to play along with that.

I'll even play people with proxy armies. I'm in it for the game for fuck's sake.

THE GAME. You know, the thing you should be doing instead of worrying about GW's financial well being.

I'm pretty sure they have people for that. You know, who are paid and all.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> from what i just read, anyone in possession of copied copy written material is committing a criminal offence according to UK law if they have not been granted a licence by GW to reproduce the material or use reproduced material(thats why some pages in the books have a permission granted to photo copy for personal use), but the likely hood is that trading standards would only go after someone who is distributing the copied material or someone who is in possesion of large amounts of pirated copy written material.


It would not be a criminal offence but something that GW would have to take civil action over, and clauses like that are very much untested in law. The offense is copying and distributing the Copyright material which are are not doing. Once you have a copy, you can print it out but you cannot give it to someone else. You do no need a licence to reproduce it for personal use.


----------



## Inquisitor Varrius (Jul 3, 2008)

When I first started Warhammer, I saved my hard earned cash until I could buy the book. Then I saved so I could buy a codex. Then for paints. Then for brushes. Then for minis that were twice as expensive through GW stores. 

By this point, I realized I like my money more than the freedom of a mild conscience pang. I use other companies' minis for my army, brushes, and paint. Beyond the rules, I have no business with GW. And I haven't played in more than a year anyhow. I'm aware it's morally reprehensible to steal intellectual property, but I count myself as part of the proud tradition of youth getting crap for free. To me, it's no different than pirating music, jailbreaking a videogame system, or watching movies online. So I'll use PDFs for a while yet.

My 2 cents as part of the piracy generation.

Edit: And I'll back up ChaosRedCorsairLord. *Everything* costs more in Australia and Canada, even with the exchange rate.


----------



## GeneralSturnn (Feb 20, 2011)

I generally purchase codices for the armies I play, but just because else wanted to download it and print it won't stop be from playing with them, because well, only an idiot would refuse to play a printed codex, it's not like the guy is using stick figures for his army, lol.

Anyway, I'm generally OK with proxied models, I'm actually turning to other mini's to use in my armies aswell, the only thing I need is to make their their not bigger then the current ones I have, for paints, I don't use GW's because Walmart sells the same quality paints for the double of what GW sells for, same with paint brushes, it's not like buying GW's will make you a master painter, if it did, I would buy them, but it doesn't.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> When GW decides to charge reasonable prices for books, then I'll buy them. Until then I won't.


Personally, I think that this line is untrue for the general population. If people are downloading all codices for free currently, why would they pay any money at a later time if they dropped in price? I have a feeling that even if GW dropped prices down to $5 per codex people would be saying "I'm only costing them $5, it's no big deal."

It's the same thing with music, they can drop the price all they want but people will still download music because it's free.


----------



## Vaz (Mar 19, 2008)

ChaosRedCorsairLord said:


> I like the hobby, that doesn't mean I have to like GW or there business plans.
> 
> I like having petrol in my car, that doesn't mean I need to like the oil companies or their business strategies.


Does that mean you run out of the forecourt without paying?

You've made your bed, so lie in it.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Wusword77 said:


> ChaosRedCorsairLord said:
> 
> 
> > When GW decides to charge reasonable prices for books, then I'll buy them. Until then I won't.
> ...


I agree. If your line of right and wrong allows for the downloading of something for which you did not pay, then why would you ever pay anything when you could get it for free? 


*ChaosRedCorsairLord*, if you're wishing to teach GW a lesson out of righteous indignation for their pricing, it's a lesson they have yet to learn in the 35+ years since their inception in 1975. Perhaps you should try a different method of teaching them a lesson since this one doesn't appear to be affective... if indeed, that is the real reason you don't buy their codices.




*As to the original question...* 

If I were Rob, I would have went one step further and asked Steve if he had an actual copy of the ork dex somewhere. If not, and he wasn't using a copy of something he purchased to save wear and tear on the original, I would politely tell Steve that I wouldn't play him. 


Buying a dex and then making a copy of it to save wear and tear on the original is one thing. Getting a dex for free online without paying for it is akin to making molds of, casting, and then using forged GW models.




.


----------



## apidude (Nov 10, 2010)

It would take the edge off the fun of the game for me to play with someone who is stealing copyrighted materials. GW is an extreme niche business and thievery like this is a dollar less revenue for the company....besides being illegal. 

For those who say "So what, GW overcharges anyway." I'd like to point out that if you are going to the expense of designing models and getting them ready for production (salaries, machinery, shipping, yada yada yada....) and you have a very small population of consumers to spread that cost among those costs are going to make what you produce expensive.

If you take a look at GW's Annual Report on their sales growth and the challenges they face in their business you don't want anyone to steal their stuff. I'd just as soon pay the price to keep the business running..... after all, I'd like to be able to buy a new codex in 10-15 years rather than sit around remembering the days when the hobby was good before GW went bankrupt.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

A lot of you wanna be lawyers need to brush up on what the fuck you all are talking about...


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

djinn24 said:


> A lot of you wanna be lawyers need to brush up on what the fuck you all are talking about...


Educate us then, in your infinite wisdom.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I am not a wanna be lawyer but I am pretty sure owning stolen property is illegal in UK, Canada etc.

But hey maybe not.

And I am pretty sure someone posted the actual law instead of just randomly saying its not illegal.

In the Army we call these Barracks Lawyers and it a wonder how much trouble they causer.

And Katie, I never said anything about "infinite wisdom". Common sense prevails blind stupidity so please take your smart ass comments elsewhere.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

It isn't. Because I didn't steal it. The laws were already discussed, and one was even provided in fact. So perhaps it's you who needs to brush up on your facts.


----------



## gen.ahab (Dec 22, 2009)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> It isn't. Because I didn't steal it.


Well, possession of stolen property is actually a crime if you know the property is stolen. But this isn't why it is not a crime; it isn't a crime because you weren't the one actually breaking the IP by copying the codex and distributing it.

They didn't steal anything really though, or at least I don't consider it theft per say unless they stole the codex and broke the IP. IF it is considered a theft then oh well, I am not a pre-law.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> And Katie, I never said anything about "infinite wisdom". Common sense prevails blind stupidity so please take your smart ass comments elsewhere.


you of all people here should know how rarely common sense wins, especially against the good idea fairy....


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

> 354. (1) Every one commits an offence who has in his possession any property or thing or any proceeds of any property or thing knowing that all or part of the property or thing or of the proceeds was obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from
> 
> (a) the commission in Canada of an offence punishable by indictment; or
> 
> (b) an act or omission anywhere that, if it had occurred in Canada, would have constituted an offence punishable by indictment.


Sven you need to check your laws, I am sure I can find a few more codes it breaks. That was just a quick Google search on Canadian laws.



> *322* (2) A person commits theft when, with intent to steal anything, he moves it or causes it to move or to be moved, or begins to cause it to become movable


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Internet laws are differant than those above stated, if those laws were true, as you seem to understand them, do you think I would post that I have downloaded material on a website, where my location is displayed? And my IP address could be tracked? 

Would anyone? 

I am not a law student, but as I understand them (which is as far as any evidence I have seen, correct) That it is only illegal to distrubute material for downloading, not to do it yourself. Even then, it's a gray area. How do you think Limewire/Frostwire/Vuze, what have you, are able to run? If it is illegal. They would be shut down almost as soon as opened.


----------



## apidude (Nov 10, 2010)

Let's talk for a minute about what is right and what is wrong.

Item: If you look in the credits of any codex you see a list of what seems to be 50 or 60 people who had a hand in conceiving, writing, designing, painting, playtesting, editing, printing,...... the list goes on and on. Each of those individuals GW paid a salary...how much? I don't know and it doesn't really matter. Do the simple math, a salary of $30,000 (which I think is low for the skill sets being applied to enable us to enjoy or hobby) x 50 people.... $1.5M just in lowball salary.... and that doesn't even consider the office staff etc. If the retailer selling the codex is given a 30% discount for purchasing at wholesale then GW gets $30.00 x 70% = $21.00US / codex which also must cover the cost of printing (anyone checked into the price of glossy heavy printing recently? Let's just say it's not done cheaply). Lets knock off another $5.00 for printing costs and another $2.00 for shipping/packaging etc..... 

Now we are down to $17.00 revenue to GW. $1,500,000/$17.00 Net revenue per codex = about 89,000 codexes just to cover the salaries of the people who brought you the codex in the first place.

It is illegal to copy and distribute copyrighted works.

It is also wrong and a slap in the face to the people who worked so hard to create and bring the codex and the other materials that we enjoy in this hobby.

We have enough writers and creative types on these forums to understand the pain of having something that you've worked hard to create be stolen and then to have people attempt to justify the theft as somehow being right. 

It would be interesting to hear the discussion that would ensue if the creative team at GW were able to sit down and talk over this topic with those who illegally copy their work and see how it affects their attitude toward their work and us, their customers.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

djinn24 said:


> And Katie, I never said anything about "infinite wisdom". Common sense prevails blind stupidity so please take your smart ass comments elsewhere.


No, but you have a habit of making comments that make you come across as rather superior, so I'll stop being a smart ass if you stop being arrogant. Deal?


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

You do realize due to the flood gate argument, illegal downloading isn't actually illegal.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Necrosis said:


> You do realize due to the flood gate argument, illegal downloading isn't actually illegal.


Summed up what I was trying to say.


----------



## Wusword77 (Aug 11, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Internet laws are differant than those above stated, if those laws were true, as you seem to understand them, do you think I would post that I have downloaded material on a website, where my location is displayed? And my IP address could be tracked?
> 
> Would anyone?
> 
> I am not a law student, but as I understand them (which is as far as any evidence I have seen, correct) That it is only illegal to distrubute material for downloading, not to do it yourself. Even then, it's a gray area. How do you think Limewire/Frostwire/Vuze, what have you, are able to run? If it is illegal. They would be shut down almost as soon as opened.


it might not be illegal to download a pirated copy of something in Canada but if you used a p2p client to get the data you have distributed the stolen IP.

Limewire/Frostwire/Vuze are able to run as they are simply a program, they don't store the illegal data. Someone needs to put up the Illegal data to be downloaded.

That aside, based on the laws that Djinn linked while (the act of) downloading the Codex might be legal, having it in your possession would be illegal as it is a stolen work.

Regardless none of this actually matter as no one is going to take people to court over downloading a few $30 books.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Katie Drake said:


> No, but you have a habit of making comments that make you come across as rather superior, so I'll stop being a smart ass if you stop being arrogant. Deal?


Really, your the only one who has said that, while I have heard more then one comment on the way you talk to people. So I will continue to talk how I do, because what I say, I can back up. And if your talking about my comments in the painting section, a lot of the people I post on I also talk with on Skype quite often, so when I comment on their stuff I keep it brief.



> This echoes the not unfamiliar ?floodgates argument?, _which runs along the lines that the masses must be prevented for their own sake_ from having access to the courts to enforce environmental laws lest the ensuing torrent of vexatious litigation overloads the legal system and brings progress to a grinding halt. Such arguments are based on the premise that publicly motivated legal action should be the province only of those agencies entrusted with the authority of the state (and the taxpayers funds) to carry out that purpose. However, what happens when those with authority fail to take appropriate action, either because of inadequate resources, short-term political or practical expediency, corruption, self-interest or just plain apathy? In an ideal world, (or a utopian benevolent dictatorship) this would never happen, but we do not live in an ideal world and it does happen.


Last time I check GW isn't the masses, its a corporation who owns the IP and copyright of the book that is being downloaded and having an illegal copy, regardless of the reasons, is not granted and exception to Canada copyright law.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

I just want to be sure everyone understands what the flood gate argument is. The flood gate argument it that the court cannot trail a person for this crime or make it illegal due to the fact that they would have to trail every person who did it. Thus the courts would be flooded with cases and be unable to go through them all. Canadian laws also says that you are entitled to a quick and speedy trail. In fact this is actually used by murders in order to reduce there sentence by making a deal with the crown even though the crown has a ton of evidence on them. Now I could go on to more details but I don't want to turn this into a huge law argument.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> Really, your the only one who has said that, while I have heard more then one comment on the way you talk to people. So I will continue to talk how I do, because what I say, I can back up. And if your talking about my comments in the painting section, a lot of the people I post on I also talk with on Skype quite often, so when I comment on their stuff I keep it brief.


*agrees with Katie*
In fact here you are doing it again.

But instead of arguing about this, how about we all be civil and get back to the topic. Instead of trading insults at each other.



djinn24 said:


> Last time I check GW isn't the masses, its a corporation who owns the IP and copyright of the book that is being downloaded and having an illegal copy, regardless of the reasons, is not granted and exception to Canada copyright law.


You're telling me that, if the courts went after everyone who illegally downloaded something, the courts wouldn't grind to a halt? The courts already have a hard time getting through murder cases.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

How the hell is that "talking superior"? A 16 year old come here and says it ok to have illegal goods. A quick google search showed 3 laws it breaks. Just because the courts are not going to prosecute does not make it legal. 

I have witnessed barracks lawyers get people in massive trouble before, I was seriously stating check your facts, I really give two shits less about Canadian law. But common sense does prevail over blind stupidity. If GW can shut down a fan site, I am sure they could get a case pushed through court for IP and theft of copyrighted material if they wanted. 

So if that is talking superior to someone then holy shit. Point blank, if you don't like the way I talk and I hurt your feeling, there is an ignore function, feel free to use it.


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

djinn24 said:


> How the hell is that "talking superior"? A 16 year old come here and says it ok to have illegal goods. A quick google search showed 3 laws it breaks. Just because the courts are not going to prosecute does not make it legal.


It's not so much that, however much it "loses" gw money, people will carry on doing it. Until they get a letter through their door saying "Stop Illegal Downloading or we'll press charges". It's exactly the same as someone having a brake light out, they'll keep going until they get caught or get a new one. 

In the UK the ISPs just send a letter before they do anything, and generally nothing comes of it. It's part and parcel of being in the computer age.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Look folks I think this thread has degenerated well beyond the original question. I think it really comes down to your sense of right and wrong. If you think it is cool to take something that isn't yours without compensating the owner then good on ya. I disagree with you and it is apparent that others do as well. I am with Apidude though, I want to enjoy my hobby 15 years from now and I would love for them to still be doing what they are doing long enough for my son to really get involved in it. If I can do that by dropping $30 bucks on a codex that I am going to use for a couple of years then I will do that to keep the company generating revenue. If you don't think that it is important then don't get angry if the same thing ever happens to you. Pure and simple downloading and having stolen copyrighted material is illegal in the United States, I can't speak to the copyright laws in other countries, but I can't imagine that the spirit of the law is much different or else you wouldn't have them. Just because no one is ever going to do anything about it doesn't change the fact that it is wrong. Get over that fact... its wrong to do. Period.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Internet laws are differant than those above stated, if those laws were true, as you seem to understand them, do you think I would post that I have downloaded material on a website, where my location is displayed? And my IP address could be tracked?
> 
> Would anyone?
> 
> I am not a law student, but as I understand them (which is as far as any evidence I have seen, correct) That it is only illegal to distrubute material for downloading, not to do it yourself. Even then, it's a gray area. How do you think Limewire/Frostwire/Vuze, what have you, are able to run? If it is illegal. They would be shut down almost as soon as opened.


I am not a law student either. It would be nice if a copyright lawyer was on hand to answer this question, but until then... 

Every single dex has this phrase in it:


> _...comprehensive list of what's in codex followed by_ ...and all associated marks, logos, names, places, characters, creatures, races and race insignia, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe are either (R), TM and/or (C) Games Workshop Ltd 2000-2008, _(dates might be different depending on what codex you're reading from)_ variably registered in the UK and other countries around the world. All Rights Reserved.



A quick check for the definition of the phrase "All Rights Reserved" yields the following...


> "All rights reserved" is a phrase that originated in copyright law as part of copyright notices. It indicates that the copyright holder reserves, or holds for their own use, all the rights provided by copyright law, such as distribution, performance, and creation of derivative works; that is, they have not waived any such right.



A quick check for the definition of the word "distribution" gets you this...


> 1 a : the act or process of distributing



A quick check of "distributing..."


> v. dis·trib·ut·ed, dis·trib·ut·ing, dis·trib·utes
> v.tr.
> 1. To divide and dispense in portions.
> 2. a. To supply (goods) to retailers.
> ...



Wouldn't you say that what people are doing by copying and then delivering, passing out, spreading, or diffusing a GW dex over the internet goes against GW's copyright that they alone "reserve the right" to distribute these codices?

Furthermore, wouldn't you say to violate copyright law (or at least as it appears to me) would be illegal?

And then wouldn't you say, anyone participating in downloading and receiving that illegally distributed material would be participating in illegal activity?



...besides, does it really make something ok if it's someone else doing the violating? Would it make it anymore right if I wasn't the one who broke into a store to steal DVD's, but I knowingly accepted those DVD's from the one who stole them? 


Lastly, looking up the definition of "steal" we get this...


> steal (stl)
> v. stole (stl), sto·len (stln), steal·ing, steals
> v.tr.
> 1. To take (the property of another) without right or permission.


If GW reserves all rights, do you really believe we have their permission to take their intellectual and physical property without purchasing it? I have a really hard time thinking anyone would say yes to this question and really, truly, believe that.




This is why I wouldn't play Steve. I believe he took, without permission, something from GW that another, without permission, distributed over the net.




.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Oh I know that GW will probably not do anything, its the argument that because they won't it makes legal.

Say a person had EVERY codex ever made on their machine. Theft now goes from 30 dollars to thousands of dollars. Now instead of simple theft, it is felony theft (at least in the US). 

Hell from what I read of Canadian law the act of making the PDF in itself is illegal.

Also many moons ago I was a pre-law major before I changed to a computer science major, so while I will never say I know all the laws (god it is a boring major) I have a basic understanding of how to interrupt laws, not that it makes my interruptation correct, its all about who can make the judge believe theirs the best.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Uber Ork, your argument doesn't apply to Steve. Steve did not distribute, deliver, hand out or do anything else you stated, the person he got it from did. It's like if you buy an item from a theif, did you steal it no? And its not like Steve paid the person to steal it. So thus you cannot connect him to that person.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

djinn24 said:


> Oh I know that GW will probably not do anything, its the argument that because they won't it makes legal.
> 
> Say a person had EVERY codex ever made on their machine. Theft now goes from 30 dollars to thousands of dollars. Now instead of simple theft, it is felony theft (at least in the US).


Is that law cumulative items or for a single item only?


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

> What is the offence of possession of property obtained by crime?
> The offence of property obtained by crime is made up of two parts. First, a person charged with this offence must be in possession of property that was (or was partly) gained by theft, fraud, or any other crime. Second, the person must have known that the property was stolen or gained by fraud. Also, if the Crown can show that it was obvious that a reasonable person would have thought the property was stolen and the accused failed to investigate whether it was stolen or not, he can be found guilty of possession of stolen property.
> 
> If a person is found in possession of something that has recently been stolen, they may have to provide an explanation for why they had the object to avoid guilt.
> ...


Once again canadian law.




Necrosis said:


> Is that law cumulative items or for a single item only?



Hmmm That is a good question to be honest. Looking back under code 322 they do seem to imply item and not items so it would be multiple counts of simple theft possibly.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Our argument here puts doubts on the 2nd condition, the fact that people see downloading as a gray area means that law doesn't apply.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

I think that regardless of what I post or show you will believe what you will. Once again we get into how a person interprets the law and I read it one way you another. 


His royal majesty :so_happy: is going to bed. :biggrin:


----------



## unixknight (Jul 26, 2010)

I dunno what I'd do in that situation. I'd probably play the game but I'd also let it be known how cheesy I think it is to show up with a photocopied 'dex. 

That said, I can't imagine it escalating into a physical confrontation. Good grief...


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Necrosis said:


> Uber Ork, your argument doesn't apply to Steve. Steve did not distribute, deliver, hand out or do anything else you stated, the person he got it from did. It's like if you buy an item from a theif, did you steal it no? And its not like Steve paid the person to steal it. So thus you cannot connect him to that person.


This is what I said...



> I believe he took, without permission, something from GW that another, without permission, distributed over the net.


In other words did GW give him permission to download a PDF of the codex? If not, then according to the definition of stealing, he stole it.

If you buy an item that has been stolen are you not in possession of stolen goods? In the US anyway (where Swarmlord the originator of this thread is from -- and presumably where Rob and Steve are from) the definition of being in possession of stolen goods is as follows...



> Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods some other way.


Since GW doesn't provide PDF's of their codices how else would Steve have obtained it but by someone who did not have permission to distribute something GW has reserved all rights to, i.e. the codex in question?

To that end, what you can't prove is that Steve made the original PDF, but what you can prove (according to the story) is that Steve was in possession of a codex PDF which we know GW does not give permission to distribute. 

This is why I said in my earlier post, I would ask if the PDF codex was a copy of something Steve had purchased, and IF he said no, would have not played with him. Why? Because that means he would have acquired it without permission from someone who made a copy of it without permission.


Possession of stolen goods... stealing the goods... both are illegal in the U.S.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Uber Ork said:


> In other words did GW give him permission to download a PDF of the codex? If not, then according to the definition of stealing, he stole it.
> 
> If you buy an item that has been stolen are you not in possession of stolen goods? In the US anyway (where Swarmlord the originator of this thread is from -- and presumably where Rob and Steve are from) the definition of being in possession of stolen goods is as follows...
> 
> ...


If you buy something, then I buy it off you, and then someone buys that item from me but doesn't have your permission is it stolen? No, that's the argument that is being made. Or using that logic, some random guy can come and give me an item. Now since I possess that item, I am now guilty of stealing? Also you only took a small fragment of that law. I would like to see the entire section in order to make a valid argument.

Edit: I would also like to make the argument that gw does not own the paper that the guy has. Thus he is not in possession of stolen goods. As I challenge he whole took without permissions. The guy bought a codex, he changed it into software, which violates the copyright and then distributed the software, which gw does not own but violates there copyright.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Necrosis said:


> If you buy something, then I buy it off you, and then someone buys that item from me but doesn't have your permission is it stolen? No, that's the argument that is being made. Or using that logic, some random guy can come and give me an item. Now since I possess that item, I am now guilty of stealing? Also you only took a small fragment of that law. I would like to see the entire section in order to make a valid argument.
> 
> Edit: I would also like to make the argument that gw does not own the paper that the guy has. Thus he is not in possession of stolen goods. As I challenge he whole took without permissions. The guy bought a codex, he changed it into software, which violates the copyright and then distributed the software, which gw does not own but violates there copyright.


That is one of the silliest things I have ever heard...... I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US it doesn't matter how many hands it passes through, it is still stolen, and if you have knowledge that it is stolen you are guilty of being in possession of stolen property


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Midge913 said:


> That is one of the silliest things I have ever heard...... I don't know how it works in Canada, but in the US it doesn't matter how many hands it passes through, it is still stolen, and if you have knowledge that it is stolen you are guilty of being in possession of stolen property


Okay, you still have yet to disprove my 2nd argument. Copy right does not equal theft.



> Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.


Thus the whole stolen good argument is now invalid.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Now you are just arguing semantics...... The whole point is that you are taking and benefiting from somebody's property without providing them appropriate compensation for the use of that property. You are using word games to justify an immoral action.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Midge913 said:


> Now you are just arguing semantics...... The whole point is that you are taking and benefiting from somebody's property without providing them appropriate compensation for the use of that property. You are using word games to justify an immoral action.


Illegal, not immoral. Two very different things.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

I think that is totally dependent on your point of view... I equate one with the other. Legality is a social norm that defines morality, its basic anthropology. Since the beginning of human history we have used one form of legal code or another to define what is moral and what is immoral.


----------



## Katie Drake (Nov 28, 2007)

Midge913 said:


> I think that is totally dependent on your point of view...


It absolutely is. It's just sort of difficult to use morals as an argument when they aren't universal is all I'm getting at.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Midge913 said:


> Now you are just arguing semantics...... The whole point is that you are taking and benefiting from somebody's property without providing them appropriate compensation for the use of that property. You are using word games to justify an immoral action.


Welcome to law. Main point, copy right infringement does not equal thief as stated above. The thing is, I'm using a copy of there property. Hence why this is "Copy Right" violation and not thief. That's what the Laws and courts say. And who are you to judge what is moral and immoral.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

I judge for myself. As I said from the very beginning I think it is wrong, as does the law. I leave it to you to decide for yourself. But don't get offended if someone calls you on the carpet for it. You all are getting all offended because several folks have told you it is a shitty thing to do, and you are hiding behind semantics and your own view of morality. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. It just so happens that I have the law on my side.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Midge913 said:


> I judge for myself. As I said from the very beginning I think it is wrong, as does the law. I leave it to you to decide for yourself. But don't get offended if someone calls you on the carpet for it. You all are getting all offended because several folks have told you it is a shitty thing to do, and you are hiding behind semantics and your own view of morality. I think you are wrong, you think I am wrong. It just so happens that I have the law on my side.


But I just prove that the law does not say it's wrong, I just reference it. Your argument has basically come down to "Cause I say so."


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

No it doesn't come down to "Because I said so." There is a world wide group of legislative bodies that say it. The reason there is a law is because it is wrong. If it wasn't wrong there wouldn't be a law. Copyright infringement is illegal no matter how you slice it. I also fail to see how you have proven that the law doesn't say it is wrong. You have merely proven that there is a distinction between theft and copyright infringement.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Midge913 said:


> No it doesn't come down to "Because I said so." There is a world wide group of legislative bodies that say it. The reason there is a law is because it is wrong. If it wasn't wrong there wouldn't be a law. Copyright infringement is illegal no matter how you slice it. I also fail to see how you have proven that the law doesn't say it is wrong. You have merely proven that their is a distinction between theft and copyright infringement.


Cause Steve is not the one who violated the law, the guy who scanned it and gave it to everyone did. Your guys counter argument was that possessing stolen good still counts as thief but copy right infringement does not count as stolen goods. Here is an example, let's say katie owns a knife company and copy rights her knife so no one can make the same type of knife, Now let's say I decide to make the same knife as katie and thus violate copy right laws. Now if I sell the knife to you (midge). Have you broken any laws. This does not brake copy right laws, since you did not violate the copy right.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Yes. If I have knowledge that the property was obtained illegally then yes I am complicit. United States law covers that. I am not sure about Canadian law.


----------



## Necrosis (Nov 1, 2008)

Midge913 said:


> Yes. If I have knowledge that the property was obtained illegally then yes I am complicit. United States law covers that. I am not sure about Canadian law.


Please reference your statement, so I know your not making stuff up.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Well you know what.... I am going to have to eat my words here. Criminal infringement only covers distribution of a copyrighted work, however, the original owner of the copyrighted work could seek civil suit against someone who possesses the illegally distributed material. Learn something new everyday.

Sorry, Criminal Infringement is covered under Section 506 of the United States code of criminal law. 

That still doesn't change my position on the issue, and I still don't press my view on you. As I said before you are going to need to make your own choice, do or don't. I just disagree with it.


----------



## Blueberrypop (Apr 27, 2010)

Law is not fair, it's a corporation just like the rest of the world. You can't be arrested if you don't know the item is stolen, the police can confiscate the item but I don't think the police are going to go door to door and ask if you have any downloaded GW codices. Plus if you want to stop the down loading you have to shut down the internet and we all know how hard it would be to plug up all those tubes.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Blueberrypop said:


> Law is not fair, it's a corporation just like the rest of the world. You can't be arrested if you don't know the item is stolen, the police can confiscate the item but I don't think the police are going to go door to door and ask if you have any downloaded GW codices. Plus if you want to stop the down loading you have to shut down the internet and we all know how hard it would be to plug up all those tubes.


Yes and no. There is a financial aspect to the law. Solely designed to generate revenue yes, some traffic laws for example. Further, you are absolutely correct in saying that the FBI isn't going to come knock down your door to prosecute you for downloading a codex. It all comes down to a choice as whether or not you are going to obey the law or not. The law as written is intrinsically unbiased and fair, it is the variety of human interpretation that leads to unfair or biased practice.


----------



## Blueberrypop (Apr 27, 2010)

The law as written is not necessarily unbiased anymore, yes interpretation does play a major role but all laws were written with a goal in mind and usually that goal goes against someone in some way. If law weren't a corporation people like O.J. Simpson would be in jail, but it is. If you can pay enough you win, in most cases. Also lawyers would work for free.


----------



## Mursaat (Sep 20, 2010)

my plan was to photocopy the reference page and any relevant other pages for my army, i own the codex and take it to matches with me but thanks to GW quality of the "Warriors of chaos" latest codex, ive had 3 friends with them and all 3 of the codex's spines have split and pages have fallen out, from repeated opening and closing.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

Blueberrypop said:


> The law as written is not necessarily unbiased anymore, yes interpretation does play a major role but all laws were written with a goal in mind and usually that goal goes against someone in some way. If law weren't a corporation people like O.J. Simpson would be in jail, but it is. If you can pay enough you win, in most cases. Also lawyers would work for free.


Well yes that is the point of laws. To single out people who have done something in direct opposition to those laws. People like OJ get off because Juries comprised of normal everyday people don't want to send football icons to prison. It wasn't the law that failed in the OJ case but the host of people involved in the trial. 

As far as winning if you can pay enough there is some truth to that, but on the whole that comes to pre-trial stuff and getting better deals. When it comes to trial it is all down to that jury and what they think. 

As to your last statement there are a host of lawyers that work for public defenders offices and are on Pro Bono lists.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Necrosis said:


> Edit: I would also like to make the argument that gw does not own the paper that the guy has.


But they own the intellectual property that's printed on that paper right? The...


> names and insignia and all associated marks, logos, names, places, characters, creatures, races and race insignia, illustrations and images from the Warhammer 40,000 universe


 The ones that are either (R), TM and/or (C) Games Workshop Ltd?





Necrosis said:


> > Copyright holders frequently refer to copyright infringement as "theft". In law copyright infringement does not refer to actual theft, but an instance where a person exercises one of the exclusive rights of the copyright holder without authorization.[5] Courts have distinguished between copyright infringement and theft, holding, for instance, in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "...interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright... 'an infringer of the copyright.'" In the case of copyright infringement the province guaranteed to the copyright holder by copyright law is invaded, i.e. exclusive rights, but no control, physical or otherwise, is taken over the copyright, nor is the copyright holder wholly deprived of using the copyrighted work or exercising the exclusive rights held.
> 
> 
> 
> Thus the whole stolen good argument is now invalid.


While this sheds some light on the difference from "theft" and "copyright infringement," it in no way says that one who "misappropriates a copyright" or who practices "copyright infringement" is doing so legally. It's simply stating that in the case of copyright infringement the copyright is "invaded" by the person who is doing the infringement.






Necrosis said:


> Welcome to law. Main point, copy right infringement does not equal thief as stated above. The thing is, I'm using a copy of there property. Hence why this is "Copy Right" violation and not thief.


Ok, I can accept that, but it still doesn't make copyright infringement legal. 

I should ask you this. Is piracy in the US illegal? Pirating movies? Pirating music? Pirating software? Pirating books?

Piracy...


> v. pi·rat·ed, pi·rat·ing, pi·rates
> v.tr.
> 1. To attack and rob (a ship at sea).
> 2. To take (something) by piracy.
> 3. To make use of or reproduce (another's work) without authorization.


By the way, here's a couple of links to the "Collections of Information Antipiracy Act (H.R. 2652)"
http://www.copyright.gov/docs/hr2652.html
and
http://www.techlawjournal.com/congress/h2652data/h2652eh.htm


I realize this is U.S. law and not applicable in Canada, but I'll tell you what... let's e-mail GW and ask them if it's ok to make/download PDF (or any other) copies of their codices and see what they say? Let's take it one step further and ask them for the appropriate copyright law and to show us if it's illegal or not?

Just out of curiosity... what do you think they would get back to us with?






Midge913 said:


> Now you are just arguing semantics...... The whole point is that you are taking and benefiting from somebody's property without providing them appropriate compensation for the use of that property. You are using word games to justify an immoral action.


Agreed.






Katie Drake said:


> Illegal, not immoral. Two very different things.


True... often genocide when perpetrated by a government would be legal (as the government in question would make it so), but most of us would agree it's still immoral.

However, here I think all Midge is saying is that when talking about immoral and moral action in general, it _*most of the time*_, lies along the same path as the law.

Again not always... but where things like murder, rape, molestation, theft, destruction of property, physical abuse, etc. is concerned the law and what most would consider to be moral/immoral line up. I think most people, having worked hard to author a book to make a living off of, would consider it immoral to both have someone copy and then illegally distribute their book for free. The author worked hard, and should be compensated for his/her work... and more importantly, be able to feed their families. 


In any case... what is mainly being discussed here is whether Steve and/or the people who originally copied the codex/made it available for PDF download, were involved in illegal activity. It is easy to feel bad for the little guy and daemonize a large corporation, saying they make enough money and to justify our action, but it's still copyright infringement and/or piracy whether it's the small guy or the big guy.




.


----------



## Midge913 (Oct 21, 2010)

:goodpost: Nicely put mate.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

So we are all agreed that all donkeys must die ?


----------



## Swarmlord (Feb 19, 2011)

bitsandkits said:


> So we are all agreed that all donkeys must die ?


 
I thought we where going for ice cream?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Just a clarification for UK residents, You cannot steal information in the UK that's just a fact proven through the courts (trade secrets etc). Theft only relates to property or intangible assets which have a worth, such as a concert ticket has a value before the concert but not after it. 

So downloading a Codex is not theft, but neither is it anything else either. It's the person who distributed it who is at fault and once it's out there, then there is little to copyright/IP holder can do about that. It is possible that if you use a peer to peer file sharing network you are distributing copyrighted works and that is a criminal act. But if like most people you download it from you're friendly document website then it's cool. The person who uploaded it said they had the right to distribute it, when you download the information it's yours to use but you cannot pass it on.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

ohiocat110 said:


> The interesting part is that the GW legal page actually suggests that players "produce your own materials" immediately after they forbid making direct copies or scans of copyrighted material.
> 
> So playing with a scanned PDF would be bad, but if you created your own PDFs using stats and rules from the codex, would they consider that legal?
> 
> Of course GW also says: "Please remember that Games Workshop does not produce its rule books or codices in electronic format - if you ever see any such material in electronic format, it is likely to be the product of criminal or infringing activity." Except GW themselves published DH and WH codices as PDFs. Oops.


By producing your own material, you are essentially participating in one aspect of the hobby. They encourage creativity, coming up with your own custom rules and such is a farcry from illegally copying theirs. 

And if GW puts out a PDF then that`s their deal, it does not make it okay to make that choice for yourself on any of their IP. 



Blueberrypop said:


> For 40k I only use PDF to build my lists... after that all I need is the stat sheet. I don't buy the codices because I could care less about most of the fluff and I'm not paying $30 for mostly fluff and maybe 7-8 pages of useful content.
> 
> @Everyone: Yes, your opinion is the best.
> 
> ...


Copying the stat sheet is fine, they actually give permission to copy that page. But using a downloaded codex that isn`t published by GW is still wrong. You may not be selling it yourself, but you`re still depriving the company of what should have been their sale. 



Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Internet laws are differant than those above stated, if those laws were true, as you seem to understand them, do you think I would post that I have downloaded material on a website, where my location is displayed? And my IP address could be tracked?
> 
> Would anyone?
> 
> I am not a law student, but as I understand them (which is as far as any evidence I have seen, correct) That it is only illegal to distrubute material for downloading, not to do it yourself. Even then, it's a gray area. How do you think Limewire/Frostwire/Vuze, what have you, are able to run? If it is illegal. They would be shut down almost as soon as opened.


There are no grey areas. Something is either right or wrong. 

eg: I think GW are wrong to charge unjust prices for their codexes. 

BUT

I also think it is wrong to steal, or to receive (willingly) stolen property. 



Necrosis said:


> You're telling me that, if the courts went after everyone who illegally downloaded something, the courts wouldn't grind to a halt? The courts already have a hard time getting through murder cases.


The Floodgate thing does not justify something. It just means you escape punishment. 

I will in no way endorse illegally downloading something, be it music, PDF`s or whatever. Of those that do, I will keep my opinions to myself.



bitsandkits said:


> So we are all agreed that all donkeys must die ?


Absolutely. Hairy bastards do nothing but stink up the place.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> It's the person who distributed it who is at fault and once it's out there, then there is little to copyright/IP holder can do about that.


Are you saying as long as someone else illegally uploads a PDF file to the net, they're the guilty ones, and so you're ok to grab what they illegally distributed?






Aramoro said:


> It is possible that if you use a peer to peer file sharing network you are distributing copyrighted works and that is a criminal act. But if like most people you download it from you're friendly document website then it's cool. The person who uploaded it said they had the right to distribute it


But wouldn't we know the person lied about having "the right to distribute it" since we know GW holds exclusive rights (a.k.a. "all rights reserved") to distribute their codices?


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> Are you saying as long as someone else illegally uploads a PDF file to the net, they're the guilty ones, and so you're ok to grab what they illegally distributed?


Pretty much. In the UK no one has ever been prosecuted for downloading material because they're not breaching the copyright. GW may potentially be able to take a civil action against someone but again it has never worked before. See the case of ACS: Law etc as they attempt to sue file sharers (After failing to obtain money through menaces). 




Uber Ork said:


> But wouldn't we know the person lied about having "the right to distribute it" since we know GW holds exclusive rights (a.k.a. "all rights reserved") to distribute their codices?


We potently know that they do not have the rights to distribute the Codex, but they might have, they certinaly said they did. It's more to cover the site which lets you download them.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Sorry but Aramoro is misleading here, the act of not paying for copy written material and being in possession of it in any medium, is still a criminal act, the extent of what the courts *could *do to you is based on what you are doing with that material, possession of illegal obtained material carries a lesser penalty than distribution of it and it would in theory also be based on amount you have in your possession ,but at the moment the reason down loaders are not prosecuted is because the law has not decided how to implement a way of securing an accurate conviction. Several downloaders have been to the UK courts but the charges have been quashed because its impossible to determine that the person downloading the file is the same person sitting in the dock. Also a few uk record companies have gained information about people who have downloaded music illegally and are attempting to recoup money from them(no out come so far)

Just because someone hasnt been fined or gone to prison yet does not mean it will never happen, Im sure people were pretty certain no one would get prosecuted for uploading until in 2008 that woman got a £16K fine for sharing a pin ball game.

At the moment we are in a grey time, the act of downloading is illegal but the likely hood of prosecution is minuscule,and as others have said the sheer number of people they would need to fine makes it impossible to do so.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Something being Copyright does not mean you have to pay for it, lots of freely available material is copyrighted. Possessing Copyright material is not illegal, as the name suggests copying it is. 

All actions taken against the downloaders are civil suits not criminal prosecutions. The confusion comes from the fact people are largely branded as downloaders in the media when using P2P program. But they are also sharing Copyrighted materials and making them available. That is when they get prosecuted for copyright infringement (Very rarely happens but it does sometimes). So far , as far as I am aware, no one has been successfully sued or prosecuted for simply downloading. 

That pinball game you refered to Bits was a US company suing uploaders, again a Civil action against the individual not a criminal prosecution. You should not be misleading people with incorrect information like that Bits.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

in the UK being in possession of copy written material without permission from the coryright owner is illegal, how you get permission in the case of a codex is by paying for it, if you have not paid for it (assuming it wasn't given,found or borrowed etc) you have illegally obtained it.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> in the UK being in possession of copy written material without permission from the coryright owner is illegal, how you get permission in the case of a codex is by paying for it, if you have not paid for it (assuming it wasn't given,found or borrowed etc) you have illegally obtained it.


Not true, you are allowed to copy without licence copyrighted works for personal study and research as long as there is no commercial connection to your copy and you do no intend to republish the works.

If you're interested check out Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, Section 107. Load and loads of stuff is illegal. Including owning a legal copy of a book if you know it's going to be used to make make copies in course of a business. But possessing a copy NOT in the course of a business is not illegal.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

I have emailed my solicitor and asked him to clarify it as my understanding is you can copy part of a work for study and review etc but thats a different kettle of fish to downloading an entire work in the place of an original.

i will post what he has to say when he replies.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

As far as I'm aware the Copyright act covers making copies and possessing copies in the course of a business, or distributing copies to the commercial detriment of the copyright holder. 

Bizzarley I've had to deal with this recently as someone made a copy of our software, which is curious as we're a tiny company. That is where we stood with regards to the copyright on the material that was copied.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Well that sucks Aramoro,If that is indeed the case and owning a copy is not illegal it begs the question why the fuck do we pay for anything? but i have to say all my research upto press has indicated that the being in possession of a pirated item is illegal but not as much as distributing it, and giving it away for free is not as bad as selling a copy in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Our case was really odd because we write basically bespoke systems leverging a process we designed. Getting a patent on a process, especially a software one is very hard so copyright and IP laws are all we have to an extent. The best bit about the whole thing was we only know someone copied what we did because they phoned us and asked for help with something. 

As far as I know, which is not extensive by any means. Everything to do with copying something is illegal, for commercial or non-commercial end. Using a copy for commercial ends is illegal. Giving a copy to anyone else for any reason is illegal. But there's that spot of having something but using it in the course of a business which doesn't seem to be covered. The crux seems to be that the violation has to be prejudicial to the operation of the copyright holder. 

I am very interested to hear what your solicitor has to say mind you.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

so am i,but i just remembered that its Friday afternoon so the likely hood is im not gonna get an answer till Tuesday as my guy seems to have "meetings" on friday and then is never available on Monday's because hes catching up on Fridays work that he missed because of his "meetings".


----------



## Imperators Warden (Nov 15, 2010)

*Not in China!*

Have the nerd who photocopied the dex move to China. The Reds don't really care about IP and Copyright laws. :victory:


----------



## Marneus Calgar (Dec 5, 2007)

Katie Drake said:


> Illegal, not immoral. Two very different things.


Yep, exactly. People have lots of different morals, for some people downloading is just another part of the day. Some other people wouldn't do it even if they had to... Which is kind of what a I was basing my opinion on, people are going to download, because they can and know that they probably won't get caught. If you don't feel guilty, you're gonna do it a lot...


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

C'Tan Chimera
"I mean, a required 150$ book on Astrology is just as -if maybe not slightly more- retarded, but the difference there is that I DO have to shell out the money here."

Erm... Why don't you practice what you preach and just download it?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Pssyche said:


> C'Tan Chimera
> "I mean, a required 150$ book on Astrology is just as -if maybe not slightly more- retarded, but the difference there is that I DO have to shell out the money here."
> 
> Erm... Why don't you practice what you preach and just download it?


I don't think universtiy textbooks are available for download. Or I know a lot of people who could have saved a tonne of money.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

Well everybody tries to be Warhammer boy

But well my country have restrictions to get dollars and for international trade, playing warhammer here is kind of smuggling and you need to make some tricks to get your army, somepeople here dont spend money in a original codex, but have their "illegal" copy or in the laptop, because you prefer to spend money in a landspeeder or a devastator than in the codex itself. 

using a copy is not so tragical, if my counterpart have its army complete i wont complain.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

bitsandkits said:


> I have emailed my solicitor and asked him to clarify it as my understanding is you can copy part of a work for study and review etc but thats a different kettle of fish to downloading an entire work in the place of an original.
> 
> i will post what he has to say when he replies.


Ok I have consulted a lawyer at great personal expense 

Possession of a copy written material that you have obtained without permission is a civil offence which means you can be taken to court by the copyright owner and sued for the cost of the materials and costs and damages.

Distributing copy written material which you do not have permission to distribute is a criminal offence and can carry a jail sentence and fines etc

Many people who use file sharing sites and torrents are distributing copy written material so are committing a criminal offence (with out knowing it in some cases) which was why my reasearch returned as the act of owning was criminal, but in fact Aramoro was right and i was wrong.:blush:

My lawyer also mentioned that its not viable for most companies to chase people who download as the amount of money they could retrieve is far less than they would need to spend to recover it, thats why they go after the sources such as the sites hosting like pirate bay,limewire etc, but the software and host sites are not illegal only the people who distribute the stuff.Also people who copy and distribute and receive payment for the copys are the ones most likely targeted because they are also misleading the public and profiting from other peoples works.

But that does not make it right and does not justify the practice, you can still be summoned to appear in front of a judge for possessing and forced to hand over money but the likely hood negligible.But its down to personal choice.

What i found interesting is that a fact i have thought was the gospel truth for 20 plus years was in fact wrong and that really if your not making money from other peoples copy or giving it to other people you can download anything fairly safe in the knowledge nothings going to happen, quite worrying when you think how damaging this could be to anyone wanting to make money from a medium that can be easily copied.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Unless they have their torrent program auto set to not upload then yes they are infact distributing it, even if just for a second and not as a whole.


----------



## Pssyche (Mar 21, 2009)

As a matter of interest, re: the guy with the pirated Codex, was his army painted?


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Pssyche said:


> As a matter of interest, re: the guy with the pirated Codex, was his army painted?


:laugh:






bitsandkits said:


> Ok I have consulted a lawyer at great personal expense


Thanks bitsandkits! I really appreciate you doing that. It's nice to finally get some solid answers from a professional legal perspective. Maybe this should be re-written, compiled with the info on GW's legal page, and then made to be a sticky somewhere as these conversations get brought up every once and a while...




bitsandkits said:


> Possession of a copy written material that you have obtained without permission is a civil offence which means you can be taken to court by the copyright owner and sued for the cost of the materials and costs and damages.


Just to be clear... it is illegal then to have a PDF copy of a codex for which you did not pay, as GW did not give you permission to have that copy? So in this case, if Steve did not purchase an ork codex, but had a PDF download of it instead, he was breaking the law. Do I have that right?




bitsandkits said:


> Distributing copy written material which you do not have permission to distribute is a criminal offence and can carry a jail sentence and fines etc


Again... just for clarities sake... it is illegal for anyone to make a copy of a codex and upload it to the internet for distibution as GW has not given permission to do so. So in this case, the individual who uploaded the PDF copy of the ork codex to the net (presuming he obtained it that way) would be breaking the law. Again, just want to make sure I have it right.




bitsandkits said:


> Many people who use file sharing sites and torrents are distributing copy written material so are committing a criminal offence (with out knowing it in some cases) which was why my reasearch returned as the act of owning was criminal, but in fact Aramoro was right and i was wrong.:blush:


So it is illegal to use a file sharing site to both distribute and to obtain copyrighted material as well then. So how were you wrong? Did I miss something. I thought you had been saying it was wrong all along for people to use file sharing sites to this end?




bitsandkits said:


> My lawyer also mentioned that its not viable for most companies to chase people who download as the amount of money they could retrieve is far less than they would need to spend to recover it,


 Over the years, this is what it seems to come down to. People don't feel it's wrong because they will most likely not be prosecuted. 

This begs the question, so if I don't get caught/wont be prosecuted for it because the expense is too high is what I'm doing wrong? I emphatically say yes, and that it is morally and ethically wrong. Others say no, and that I nor anyone have a right to judge them/define morality.

I guess it comes down to if you can get away with something you're not criminal, but if you can't you are? :dunno: This kind of thinking leads to a scary place if you plot it's course out, and if as as a world society we were to no longer teach a universal morality of some form.

The UN would no longer be able to tell a nation committing genocide or civil rights violations that they were wrong. What right would we have to judge them, or to define morality for them? The same would be the case on an individual level. 




bitsandkits said:


> thats why they go after the sources such as the sites hosting like pirate bay,limewire etc, but the software and host sites are not illegal only the people who distribute the stuff.


This is interesting. In the US anyway, a pawn shop is liable for any stolen goods that might come through their shop if the proper procedures and documentation are not followed. I wonder if in the years to come as the legal systems of the world continue to address this issue if they'll work to make these sites be more accountable to the items made available there. For instance, since you know GW has not given permission for codices (even ones that are out of print -- according to their legal page) you know none of those things should be made available on your site. 





bitsandkits said:


> Also people who copy and distribute and receive payment for the copys are the ones most likely targeted because they are also misleading the public and profiting from other peoples works.
> 
> But that does not make it right and does not justify the practice, you can still be summoned to appear in front of a judge for possessing and forced to hand over money but the likely hood negligible.But its down to personal choice.


Agreed. It doesn't make it right. It's still illegal, whether they'll hunt you down or only focus on the bigger fish that need frying. 

We've had our premises broken into a number of times and had several thousand dollars worth of equipment stolen each time, and each time law enforcement showed up they all but told us we'd never see the stuff again, that they simply don't have the resources to follow all these thefts up, and that the people doing the stealing know this.

So, like Aramoro's company, we're left holding the bag while someone else just laughs and since they weren't caught and probably never will be (they know how long they have for smash and grab jobs before the police arrive for the silent alarm -- which BTW are useless in these cases), and since they wont be caught or really followed up on, they're not doing anything wrong. I mean, who am I to say they're doing anything wrong, right? :wink:





bitsandkits said:


> What i found interesting is that a fact i have thought was the gospel truth for 20 plus years was in fact wrong and that really if your not making money from other peoples copy or giving it to other people you can download anything fairly safe in the knowledge nothings going to happen, quite worrying when you think how damaging this could be to anyone wanting to make money from a medium that can be easily copied.


I know... it's truly frustrating. As long as you're not the biggest fish that needs frying, you're pretty safe. It doesn't make it right though, and I truly appreciate your efforts to track this down from a legal perspective.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

@ UBER ORK

My lawyer(solicitor) explained that it is a crime to be in possession of a copy written material without permission but, the crime is dependent on state of mind when come into possession of the pdf(noodle burner coming up). So if someone hands you a printed PDF codex and says "here you go" then you have not committed a crime because your intention was not to gain possession without paying, but if you searched online for "free pdf codex" and downloaded it/printed/burned on to cd then its a crime because your intention was to obtain it without permission, and permission in the case of a codex/book/cd/dvd is granted by paying money. 

He described it as "virtual shoplifting" as in most cases of shoplifting in the UK its the shop owners that take the person to court and not the crown, and in some ways there as similar parallels as many shop lifters are never taken to court because its really not worth the time money and effort to do it, most shop lifters are kids or drug addicts, kids generally dont get into trouble and drug addicts have no money which is why they turn to petty crime to feed the habit,so they are cut loose after an hour because fining them would be pointless and if they were caught with the goods no loss has occurred.

The difference here to actual theft is that GW have not lost stock, they have lost a potential sale at most and as many have said if they couldnt get them for free they wouldnt buy the codex if they didnt collect the army,which i think is part of the reason that companies in general dont pursue down loaders.

File sharing site users are mostly likely not aware that how they use the site would in theory determine what they could be charged with should they be unlucky enough to find themselves infront of a judge in the UK, like me they would most likely assume that just the practice of downloading would be a criminal offense but in fact the distribution by seeding is the more serious offense which is part and parcel of how those sites work. 

As for who was right and wrong ,Aramoro stated that possessing without permission was a civil offense which means that the owner of the copy has to summon you to answer for the crime, i said it was a criminal offence by which i meant it was the crown that would summon you to court and charge you. He was correct,but both can land you in trouble but the extent of the trouble would be different.

On a related note i discovered a singer called Clare Maguire yesterday, shes just about to release here debut album, she has a great voice and she didnt come through xfactor so thats a bonus, anyway i discovered her via you tube which i use as a radio to listen to music without adverts(well used to have no adverts). anyway i have decided im going to download her album from amazon on monday and make her my first online album purchase, now i could just wait and rip her album from a torrent site but this girls music is worth paying £7 or whatever for.
Music industry sales have shrunk by 25% from its peak in the 90's, but that aside has also meant that we are fed alot more manufactured crap and the UK chart seems stagnant and full of carbon copy acts or Xfactor winners, but on the flip side i think the movie industry is in a serious golden age, hollywood pumps out multiple blockbusters and movies are racking up serious amounts of cash at the cinema and then in dvd sales and all that in the face of the huge piracy, Movies i really cant see the point of downloading or not owning the originals, i can pick up a movie in the supermarket for less than i can rent one from blockbuster these days.

time for a morning coffee i think.


----------



## Weapon (Mar 5, 2009)

I wouldn't mind someone using a crappy printed codex.
Personally, I'm just not cheap enough to bother printing a codex out as opposed to buying...
I'd simply look down on the cheapskate.


----------



## Azkaellon (Jun 23, 2009)

Swarmlord said:


> Had lunch with my xeno scum friends today. Word around the shop is that 2 vets had a battle set for today. Things went south fast when one guy pulled out a copyed Ork Codex. Rob, the other vet asked Steve the guy with the copyed dex if he ripped it off the net. Steve tells Rob, "yes". Rob tells Steve he will not play him if he has a illegal copy of the Ork codex. :rtfm:
> 
> This soon escalated.
> 
> ...


The fact there 40 years old and fighting over this means there both idiots.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

bitsandkits said:


> As for who was right and wrong ,Aramoro stated that possessing without permission was a civil offense which means that the owner of the copy has to summon you to answer for the crime, i said it was a criminal offence by which i meant it was the crown that would summon you to court and charge you. He was correct,but both can land you in trouble but the extent of the trouble would be different.


Ok, I got it. I'm not sure how I missed that before. 

There's no doubt this is a hard crime for the courts to follow up on. One, it's much easier to go after the big fish (websites doing the distributing) than it is the considerable number of smaller fish downloading the illegal copies. 

I imagine it would be very hard to prove the intent of the individual doing the down loading. My father in law had once lent his car to someone who then got a ticket via a portable automated radar/camera station. He didn't know anything about it until he got a letter in the mail from the city informing him of his fine. Since he wasn't driving, he simply took the photo in, showed them in wasn't him driving, and they immediately dropped the charges. It would have been nearly impossible for the city to find out who was in the picture. In the end it wasn't worth their time.



As to the movie/music industry. I think the major difference is movies watched/obtained over the internet are of much poorer quality verses movies do to the size of the files. My wife and I have netflix, and the quality of movies watched via that or youtube are of considerably poorer quality verses those that are on DVD or Blueray. 

And a 25% loss??? Wow. That sad part is, I doubt the big corporate execs and CEO's are the ones who take the pay cut. It's the hard working artists that most likely feel it the most.


I have had something taken from me illegally several times now, and for anyone sitting on the unfortunate having something taken from you wrongfully whilst the law is powerless to do anything about it or to stop it side... it's a pretty big bummer.

It's really the principle of it all that would have kept me from wanting to play Steve (if indeed he had never purchased a real copy of the ork dex)...


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

Uber Ork said:


> As to the movie/music industry. I think the major difference is movies watched/obtained over the internet are of much poorer quality verses movies do to the size of the files. My wife and I have netflix, and the quality of movies watched via that or youtube are of considerably poorer quality verses those that are on DVD or Blueray.


BR rips abound on the nets.

Only the full BR is superior and not much so (on a large PC screen). 

Just sayin'.


----------



## legion of the lost (Feb 25, 2011)

i personally only use genuine codex's be that new or second hand. but as for what my opponant uses thats up to them wether its genuine, dl and printed or even tattooed on the back of his grannys head i dont care. im more interested in getting the game played


----------



## wwwZugZugorc (Feb 22, 2011)

djinn24 said:


> I own a physical copy or 3 of every codex army I play. I have reference copies to look up rules on PDF. I also have ebook copies of my codexes so I can read them on my kindle.


Did you just transfer the pdfs to your kindle? cause i'm loving this idea.

On a side note, had I not read all the pdf codexs and been forced to buy, or spend hours sitting in a store reading them before i made my army choice i would have never gotten into the game, and yes i do i own a physical copy of my chosen army.


----------



## Ellis Dee (Feb 26, 2009)

Swarmlord said:


> Had lunch with my xeno scum friends today. Word around the shop is that 2 vets had a battle set for today. Things went south fast when one guy pulled out a copyed Ork Codex. Rob, the other vet asked Steve the guy with the copyed dex if he ripped it off the net. Steve tells Rob, "yes". Rob tells Steve he will not play him if he has a illegal copy of the Ork codex. :rtfm:
> 
> This soon escalated.
> 
> ...


First of all they probably wouldn't fight because they're both pussies.
Secondly if they did, it would probably be a disgusting waste of time.
Overweight 40 year olds aren't exactly UFC. *cringe*
In the case of the books, I think if you wanna play the game tabletop, you should have the codex. Especially so at a GW. 
I mean, I wouldnt refuse to play, more over take it outside thats just retarded. 

Ironically 40 year old grown up nerds need to grow the hell up, sheesh.


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

You can leave them as PDF but I convert them to RTF using Calibre and removes the 10 ton of crap they add to the dex leaving just the core rules lay out like the old 3rd ed dexes (each model having one entry, not 2 separate).

But I only do this to codexes I own.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Arm1tage said:


> BR rips abound on the nets.
> 
> Only the full BR is superior and not much so (on a large PC screen).
> 
> Just sayin'.


I've never ripped, nor seen a ripped, blue ray movie so I guess I can't speak to that. I just know that the quality of what you see on netflix and youtube is of poorer quality than watching a movie directly from a DVD or blue ray. 





legion of the lost said:


> tattooed on the back of his grannys head


Well now... _*that *_ would be interesting. :laugh:


----------



## xXdeadstarXx (Feb 27, 2011)

First thought here is kinda off-topic, but congrats, OP, I've been lurking on this forum for about two years, and your topic finally convinced me to create an account, because it's pretty damn amusing.

Anyhow, back on-topic.

First off, I think they're both idiots. 

If you can afford to spend hundreds of dollars on models, I don't see why the guy with the printed-off codex can't afford the extra thirty bucks to purchase an actual codex.

On the flip side, the game is about strategy, dice-rolling, and having a good time with current friends, and meeting new ones. Whether or not Steve's opponent as an actual, physical, official copy of a codex really shouldn't affect Steve's ability to enjoy the game. If it does, he probably needs to be on some sort of medication.

Would I play someone with a "fake" codex? Sure, I do so all the time, whether at one of my local game stores, at my house, or at a buddies' house. Makes no difference to me.

Would I use one myself - probably not, as it's kind of a hassle, especially if it's not printed out, but rather on a smart phone or laptop.

As for the last question - no, why would I try to beat someone's ass over a printed-off codex? That's probably one of the most childish things I've ever heard of in my life.

Oh, and lastly - if I were a looker-on in this situation, I'd probably stand up for the guy without the codex - not for his sake, really, but rather to ask self-righteous Steve an important question - has he ever stolen anything? Ever downloaded a movie, song, game, whatever, without paying for it? Ever slipped a candy bar in his pocket at the gas station? Cheated on his taxes?

If he hasn't, then sure, condemn away - but if he has, then my advice would be that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw rocks.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

xXdeadstarXx said:


> If you can afford to spend hundreds of dollars on models, I don't see why the guy with the printed-off codex can't afford the extra thirty bucks to purchase an actual codex.


The question is not whether he can, but should he?

Warhammer is priced like branded clothes where a quarter of the price is related to the real value of the product and other three quarters are the intangible and somewhat misty concept of "brand value".

Its still a cotton shirt, even if it says Nike on it. Likewise, its still a booger sized ball of plastic even if it has "boltgun" written underneath. 

When you look at it like that I can hardly blame people for trying to cheat the system and cut costs.


----------



## Son of mortarion (Apr 24, 2008)

Arm1tage said:


> The question is not whether he can, but should he?
> 
> Warhammer is priced like branded clothes where a quarter of the price is related to the real value of the product and other three quarters are the intangible and somewhat misty concept of "brand value".
> 
> ...


if that's what you think, you need to learn more about economics.

Those cheating the system still create a cost for GW, the price of the codices, of which people will need only one per army they play, is based upon cost to produce divided by the amount they expect to sell, plus a markup for profit. since people are downloading a pirated copy of the codices, sales are less than expected.

This has one of three results: Either the codex is no longer supported, the price of all codices goes up further, or the game stops being supported.

The analogy to clothing is flawed, as there are no generic codices available, and therefore there is no "brand association" possible in the product. you cannot go to Walmart and get a "best value" space marine codex.

Likewise, the models are priced _*less*_ than the equivalent model you would find in a model shop, plus they are of a better quality.

This adds up to a greater utility for your money.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

Son of mortarion said:


> if that's what you think, you need to learn more about economics.
> 
> Those cheating the system still create a cost for GW, the price of the codices, of which people will need only one per army they play, is based upon cost to produce divided by the amount they expect to sell, plus a markup for profit. since people are downloading a pirated copy of the codices, sales are less than expected.
> 
> ...


Why do you assume that the codex is somehow separate from general sales for an army? Codices aren't GW's business, plastic soldiers are. If an army is popular, the cost of their sales more than makes up for a lousy book. 
Besides, if they weren't selling well in the first place GW's wouldn't have made the ludicrous step of bumping their price up and going hardcover.
Now that might come back and bite them in the ass, with reduced sales and all, but I somehow doubt even that, because they know how many copies they sell and its obviously an attempt to make even more money.

Yet in the world of wargames and minis, GW is indisputably a brand name of some recognition. If you think their insane prices aren't an attempt to capitalize on that, but merely giving in to market forces - I think you're wrong.

Priced less? Coming from a modelling background I can tell you that for the price of GW's vehicle kits you can, by and large get two equivalent kits from the likes of Revell and Airfix. The plastic might not be as good but its not two times worse, that's for sure.


Personally, I think the rules from a codex (and rulebook) should be a free PDF, while the fluff can be sold in fancy and interesting books for those of us who care.
Selling the rules in a rulebook and separate pamphlets (codices) after the already huge amount of money you have to dump in this hobby - is tantamount to a slap in the face.


----------



## ChaosRedCorsairLord (Apr 17, 2009)

Arm1tage said:


> Personally, I think the rules from a codex (and rulebook) should be a free PDF, while the fluff can be sold in fancy and interesting books for those of us who care.
> Selling the rules in a rulebook and separate pamphlets (codices) after the already huge amount of money you have to dump in this hobby - is tantamount to a slap in the face.


I find the whole codex system to be crap. I'd much rather a single rulebook with all the rules and main armies in it, with an occasional campaign/expansion book. But that will never happen.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Son of mortarion said:


> if that's what you think, you need to learn more about economics.
> 
> Those cheating the system still create a cost for GW, the price of the codices, of which people will need only one per army they play, is based upon cost to produce divided by the amount they expect to sell, plus a markup for profit. since people are downloading a pirated copy of the codices, sales are less than expected.
> 
> This has one of three results: Either the codex is no longer supported, the price of all codices goes up further, or the game stops being supported.


Your analogy is flawed because the Codex is not core to the business, you also assume that every downloaded codex amounts to the sale of a codex which is not true. 

Perhaps most interestingly Games Workshop do little to prevent piracy. If you go to Document Website That Must Not Be Named and type in just about any GW book of the last 20 years you'll find a copy. Now Document Website That Must Not Be Named has a strict policy and GW have applied to have them removed from there. But you can still get all the current Codices, Army Books and Imperial armour books there. You cannot say GW does not know that Document Website That Must Not Be Named has copies of all of these because they do. If piracy was killing them so badly an Intern could browse that site for a day and take down dozens upon dozens of copies of their work. 

But GW's largest profit comes from Models, not books, and you need the books to use the models. The Codices essentially sell citadel miniatures. I'm not saying GW condone it, but they don't try very hard to stop it. 

It reminds me a lot of the Office 97/2000 thing.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Arm1tage said:


> Why do you assume that the codex is somehow separate from general sales for an army? Codices aren't GW's business, plastic soldiers are.


I think you mean to say _"Codices aren't GW's main business, plastic soldiers are"_ right? Because if Codices weren't part of their business they wouldn't sell them, but they do sell them, so they _are_ part of their business.





Arm1tage said:


> they know how many copies they sell and its obviously an attempt to make even more money.


I know. I will never understand why a business would want to make more money. It's outrageous really. :wink: 





Arm1tage said:


> Personally, I think the rules from a codex (and rulebook) should be a free PDF, while the fluff can be sold in fancy and interesting books for those of us who care.


I'm just trying to understand. So are you saying that because you personally think the rules from a codex should be free, it's ok for Steve or anyone to acquire them that way? I'm not saying that you're saying that... I'm asking...





Arm1tage said:


> Selling the rules in a rulebook and separate pamphlets (codices) after the already huge amount of money you have to dump in this hobby - is tantamount to a slap in the face.


Do you feel that any business that raises the prices for its goods or services is a slap in the face? If not, what would be an acceptable time for a company to raise prices, and when would it not be ok? 



@ Aramoro: This is a respectful question. Are you more explaining why pirating codices happen, or are you saying it's ok to download codex PDF's because GW could be doing way more to stop it (i.e. if it's not as big a deal to them than it shouldn't be that big a deal for us to download a PDF)?


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Business is business, but there is also a degree where 'business' becomes 'scalping' .

I spent 22$ on my Tau codex and it started falling apart after week one and has never stopped since. You can say "That's what the increase in price is for", to increase quality, but that whole if A is B then B will Q thing falls apart the minute you walk into any bookstore and see books thrice the size for the same price. Books that don't rot apart at the spine, I might add. Granted everything is going to be over inflated to some degree, but it does get ridiculous after a point.

That's just my 2 cents, though. If I have to spend an unholy amount of money clearly disproportionate to the book in question, it's going to be on college textbooks.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

C'Tan Chimera said:


> I spent 22$ on my Tau codex and it started falling apart after week one and has never stopped since. You can say "That's what the increase in price is for", to increase quality, but that whole if A is B then B will Q thing falls apart the minute you walk into any bookstore and see books thrice the size for the same price. Granted everything is going to be over inflated to some degree, but it does get ridiculous after a point.


Exactly how I see it.

I just started playing Warmachine, and the rulebook is $50 dollars less, and is larger, and better quality.

The Faction books are also cheaper, and larger. 

They are also a "niche" market. Yet they can afford to be well..affordable. Why can't GW?


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

I play against a guy in my club who downloads his codices all the time.

He knows his army's rules.
His armies are painted and painted very well. He probably has a few more units in his army by choosing to spend his money on models not rules.

I'd rather play against someone who knows their rules and has a painted army than some of the kids who DO have the actual codex but still don't bother reading it and neither do they bother painting (or in some cases, assembling) their models.

GW are a miniatures company first and a company that produces a rather shoddy and patchwork set of rules second.

Even many tournaments over here no longer care where the players have sourced their rules from. GW don't provide ANY tourney support in oz, so they can file their restrictions where the sun doesn't shine. Even GD this year has had to poach players from a local tourney on that weekend JUST to get players in the door.

(The players are getting "free" entry into GD for the day as part of their tourney registration fee, instead of paying $75 or so to get in. For this privilege, they get to play the tourney over two days in TWO different venues separated by a fair chunk of Sydney (it's around 40mins drive between venues with good traffic - you can drive across Sydney in an hour and a half). And they get to queue up to buy GW stuff at retail prices and look at some FW stuff that they've already seen pics of on the net.)


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Uber Ork said:


> @ Aramoro: This is a respectful question. Are you more explaining why pirating codices happen, or are you saying it's ok to download codex PDF's because GW could be doing way more to stop it (i.e. if it's not as big a deal to them than it shouldn't be that big a deal for us to download a PDF)?


Just saying that it does happen, I'm not saying it's ok. I mean yes I have all the current Codices and Army Books and some Imperial Armour downloaded. But I do own every book I use. 

I was just pointing out that if it was such a big deal to GW that they would have to double the price of the codex or go out of business they could easily go to Document Website That Must Not Be Named and ask them to remove the dozens of books they have there. But they don't


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Exactly how I see it.
> 
> I just started playing Warmachine, and the rulebook is $50 dollars less, and is larger, and better quality.
> 
> ...


Weird i get it at £5 less and 70 pages shorter

warmachine £0.12 per page
warhammer 40k £0.109 per page 

_*based on manufactures RRP_

Dust tactics is were my money is going, just noticed wayland have the dust tactics starter set!!


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

How much is your 40k rulebook? Mine is 70 canadian dollars, I paid with tax, If I remember right, 32 something for the warmachine rulebook. 

And what is this dust tactics? Link perhaps?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> How much is your 40k rulebook? Mine is 70 canadian dollars, I paid with tax, If I remember right, 32 something for the warmachine rulebook.
> 
> And what is this dust tactics? Link perhaps?


warmachine rules rrp uk is £30 250 pages
warhammer 40k rro uk £35 320 pages

there is a thread in news and rumours about dust-tactics, its ww2 but with mechs
http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82975


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

ah, see, I blame Canadian markup for that. Odd that GW would be around the same, but warmachine is waaay cheaper.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

Uber Ork said:


> I think you mean to say _"Codices aren't GW's main business, plastic soldiers are"_ right? Because if Codices weren't part of their business they wouldn't sell them, but they do sell them, so they _are_ part of their business.
> 
> I know. I will never understand why a business would want to make more money. It's outrageous really. :wink:
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is that they (GW) are free to try and make more money (rip people off) and likewise people aren't obliged to go by the book in just about every segment of the hobby. I'm not saying its "right", I'm just saying I can see the logic behind it and considering how loyal the Warhammer fan base is they most likely spent the 30$ on more figurines - so who cares?

Yeah GW is a business, but their policy in this segment is bad and they are (presumably) paying for it. (Although I still think they're making good money overall, or they wouldn't pimp the codices even more).

I have this vague idea that one day I'd like to be competitive in this game. That means I'll have to know all the codices well. Does that mean that I should spend 300$ all the codices for the 20 pages of rules I need in each of them?
Does that sound_ sane_ to you?


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Arm1tage said:


> I have this vague idea that one day I'd like to be competitive in this game. That means I'll have to know all the codices well. Does that mean that I should spend 300$ all the codices for the 20 pages of rules I need in each of them?
> Does that sound_ sane_ to you?


Nothing about this hobby is sane. We pay large amounts of cash for bits of plastic to play a game using plastic cubes to decide if a particular piece of plastics is dead or not 

Personally I always like it if I ever get a complete set of codexex for any particular edition or cycle of dex's. Perhaps I'm just mad.


----------



## Arm1tage (Feb 10, 2011)

I can understand that but for the rest of us that have a tight budget, what do you think I should choose: 10 flimsy books or almost an entire army?


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> ah, see, I blame Canadian markup for that. Odd that GW would be around the same, but warmachine is waaay cheaper.


Well the RRP on the warmachine is $44.99 US which comes in at about £27-£30 UK depending on exchange rate and $43.65 Canadian.

Anyway page for page 40k is better value for money in my country based on the asking price.


----------



## LTDEAD (Dec 12, 2010)

2 40 year old guys fighting over paper... isnt the world great? :suicide:


----------



## C'Tan Chimera (Aug 16, 2008)

Arm1tage said:


> I have this vague idea that one day I'd like to be competitive in this game. That means I'll have to know all the codices well. Does that mean that I should spend 300$ all the codices for the 20 pages of rules I need in each of them?
> Does that sound_ sane_ to you?


The frightening part is I've had the misfortune to know one kid who has to at most be 12 who has already done that. 

I mean, I've read a huge chunk of codices in my time, but this was usually whenever the boss gave me a break between various tasks and I'd just pick one off the rack and skim through it.


----------



## DeathKlokk (Jun 9, 2008)

These threads are always fun. Seeing how people justify their theft is so entertaining.


----------



## humakt (Jan 2, 2008)

Arm1tage said:


> I can understand that but for the rest of us that have a tight budget, what do you think I should choose: 10 flimsy books or almost an entire army?


It is a tough choice, and I'd go for the army. But as a rule book cost less than a unit you could build up your codex as they come out and the cost would be less than 3 boxsets a year. In fact that would be less than filling my car with petrol.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Wonder how many people would shop lift the books if they couldnt down load them?


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> Wonder how many people would shop lift the books if they couldnt down load them?


Probably almost none, like has been said, downloading is a almost completely risk free crime. Shoplifting...not so much.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Probably almost none, like has been said, downloading is a almost completely risk free crime. Shoplifting...not so much.


true but at least you would have genuine copy, plus you could call those with photo copies "cheap bitches" lol


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> true but at least you would have genuine copy, plus you could call those with photo copies "cheap bitches" lol


good point. But, I had a guy at my Local (when it was a GW) and I don't know about most, but outside the battle bunkers, all the GWs I have seen, have been the size of a closet, and he would steal all the time. Like when the store was busy, so he could slip a blister into his coat, and shit like that. A bunch of us told the manager, but it was our word against his, it became incredibly akward whenever he was around, but he still came in. 

One day, he must have been feeling particularly ambitious, he tried to steal a Chaos Marine Battleforce, suffice to say its a lot harder to fit inside your jacket then a handful of blisters..

Mall security got called, and we didn't see him anymore.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> Mall security got called, and we didn't see him anymore.


maybe they killed him


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

DeathKlokk said:


> These threads are always fun. Seeing how people justify their theft is so entertaining.


Pfft copyright violation please, not theft. At least get the crime correct.


----------



## Uber Ork (Aug 23, 2010)

Aramoro said:


> Just saying that it does happen, I'm not saying it's ok. I mean yes I have all the current Codices and Army Books and some Imperial Armour downloaded. But I do own every book I use.
> 
> I was just pointing out that if it was such a big deal to GW that they would have to double the price of the codex or go out of business they could easily go to Document Website That Must Not Be Named and ask them to remove the dozens of books they have there. But they don't


Ok, that's what I thought, just wanted to make sure. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that making a copy of something you rightfully purchased so as to avoid wear and tear on the original is very different than downloading and using something you didn't purchase (i.e. Steve who downloaded and used a copied ork codex verses actually purchasing one). Presumably he hadn't bought one, made a copy, and was using the copy or he and Rob was it? wouldn't have gone as far as they did. He would have simply said I own one, and use a copy etc.





bitsandkits said:


> Wonder how many people would shop lift the books if they couldnt down load them?


:goodpost: Well, in a sense it's still downloading. Download the dex into your your backpack. Download it into your overcoat. Download it into your over sized pants. Etc...





DeathKlokk said:


> These threads are always fun. Seeing how people justify their theft is so entertaining.


Isn't it?


----------



## Scathainn (Feb 21, 2010)

I've only ever paid for one codex, and yet I own all of them, including every IA book (with the exception of IA10...still searching).

Come at me bro.


----------



## Lord Sven Kittyclaw (Mar 23, 2009)

Scathainn said:


> I've only ever paid for one codex, and yet I own all of them, including every IA book (with the exception of IA10...still searching).
> 
> Come at me bro.


This. This to a T


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

bitsandkits said:


> maybe they killed him


He is not a donkey, so probably not.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

Arm1tage said:


> What I'm saying is that they (GW) are free to try and make more money (rip people off) and likewise people aren't obliged to go by the book in just about every segment of the hobby. I'm not saying its "right", I'm just saying I can see the logic behind it and considering how loyal the Warhammer fan base is they most likely spent the 30$ on more figurines - so who cares?
> 
> Yeah GW is a business, but their policy in this segment is bad and they are (presumably) paying for it. (Although I still think they're making good money overall, or they wouldn't pimp the codices even more).
> 
> ...


Sanity is for the weak. I will also take this oppurtunity to point out that I own every codex and play with a third of 40k`s total armies. I play Necron, Nids, Eldar and toyed briefly with tau and daemons. 

The reason I bought _all_ those codexes is because I support the hobby as a whole. I know what each and every army is capable of, but more importantly (to me anyway) I now have a much better grasp of the lore of 40k and I enjoy the hobby all the more because of it. 



Scathainn said:


> I've only ever paid for one codex, and yet I own all of them, including every IA book (with the exception of IA10...still searching).
> 
> Come at me bro.





Lord Sven Kittyclaw said:


> This. This to a T


Congrats to you both.


----------



## a_bad_curry (Mar 10, 2011)

yes. I do as well. Only because i dont have the money. Once u spend that much on ur army, it becomes a struggle choosing between another squad and a stupid book, that uve mostly read in a previous edition. Think about it


----------



## Tezdal (Dec 6, 2010)

Well I only play chaos, but I own quite a few Codexes but I have pirated some older books, Realm of Chaos etc... to browse the old fluff.


----------



## hells (Mar 11, 2011)

as long as the copys legitimate in rules terms no major worry to me, as for me yeah i brought my codex, which is now free... frak you GW :angry:


----------

