Is illegal. Talking about doing it on a place of business who has something to lose by you doing so is considered in poor taste.
Please defend your positions if you think it is not.
BG survives because of its community, not any one Game company. When a game company decides to rip off its customer base, why should the community not discuss alternatives, legal or otherwise? The only way BG loses, is if we specifically order items and then don't pay for them (Dave Goss).
BG definitely relies on the support of its community. Contrary to what people might think (because we must also be a business), the primary goal of Battleground is community building. We want to build a place where people go to play the games they love and be with other people who want the same. We want to see friendships created and flourish. It's what we want to do. It's our "belief." [ that last part is for you, Chase
]
Intellectual property theft is a separate issue, I think. Obviously, we don't want people heralding that they pirated this or that item, that BG sells, on our forums and explain to others how they can or should do likewise. Illegally acquiring something which is intended for sale because you think it costs too much money seems wrong to me. Games Workshop products are indeed expensive when compared to other companies doing similar things for far less retail cost, but I don't equate this to ripping people off. I reserve that label for companies that don't give you what you think you're purchasing, or organizations that promise lies in order to get money from you. If I purchased a model from GW and it didn't contain the parts it was supposed to, and after seeking recourse GW told me to go pound sand, that would be ripping me off.
A person can choose NOT to purchase an item if they feel it's too expensive. Saying, "I want this item, but because it is too expensive I will find a way to get it without paying for it," is theft, whether it
feels like it or not. There are loads of ways to justify it, and an equal amount of ways to weigh it against other kinds of theft, but it doesn't erase it as theft.
The ambiguity of this kind of theft is that another person isn't deprived of a physical object. For example, if I want a Lamborghini, but feel as though the car manufacturer is ripping me off by charging too much, and I choose to steal one, someone else is now missing a Lamborghini. If I find a pdf version of a rulebook that I feel a company is charging too much money for, nobody will be waking up to a missing pdf in the morning. In this way, it sort of seems like a "lesser theft." Theoretically, all you've done is deprive someone of a potential sale for a product that you obviously
want.
If we're grading crimes, it's better than stealing a Lamborghini, but worse than a starving kid stealing an apple. You don't
need the item. You just
want it, but don't want to pay for it.
I am using the word "you" figuratively in this post, not directing it at anyone, and I'm arguing only because I love to argue.
