# Torrent throwdown on the Wizards board



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1037302

Quite an argument, what do you guys think?


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 29, 2008)

I would assume that WotC likely put digital watermarks into certain pages (functioning as a way to track what was printed where). Digital watermarks are imperceptable to the eye and can be hidden in images or even the background of a page. 

That will lead to the culprit.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Moniker said:
			
		

> I would assume that WotC likely put digital watermarks into certain pages (functioning as a way to track what was printed where). Digital watermarks are imperceptable to the eye and can be hidden in images or even the background of a page.
> 
> That will lead to the culprit.




I would hope so.

And also, because of your avatar I have to say.
COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBRA!


----------



## Xsjado (May 29, 2008)

I think that anyone who would cancel an order because they've found a digital copy is shooting themselves in the foot. I (and a lot of people) find reading huge blocks of text on a computer screen difficult and what happens when you actually need to play? Are you going to print out the entire document because that costs you more in paper and ink than just buying it would. Not to mention, a legit book is going to be a lot higher quality than something coming off your home inkjet printer.

EDIT: Digital watermarks mean nothing in this case. These aren't scans they are OEF files so even if they contain watermarking data it won't lead to anything more narrow than a company or department. In that case you may never find the person who is actually responsible because there'll be a large number of people with access.


----------



## Blacksmithking (May 29, 2008)

I think people are tilting at a windmill. I don't think PDF versions of the books will hurt WotC's sales.


----------



## FickleGM (May 29, 2008)

Blacksmithking said:
			
		

> I think people are tilting at a windmill. I don't think PDF versions of the books will hurt WotC's sales.



 Personally, I don't care about the sales.  I'm tilting at thieves.


----------



## jc_madden (May 29, 2008)

Xsjado said:
			
		

> I think that anyone who would cancel an order because they've found a digital copy is shooting themselves in the foot.




Totally agree, nothing cooler than OWNing something and being able to see it on your book shelf.  Also very cool to support the industry, for without our $$ they would go away and I would be a sad panda.



			
				Xsjado said:
			
		

> I (and a lot of people) find reading huge blocks of text on a computer screen difficult and what happens when you actually need to play?




I disagree with you there, however.  My friends and I (who have purchased quite literally a ton of books, mind you) find using sites like d20srd.org invaluable during play.  Keeping books off the table adds to the immersion in the game.  We still have to take out splat books for info that's not on that site, but we put them away when we are done with them.



			
				Xsjado said:
			
		

> Not to mention, a legit book is going to be a lot higher quality than something coming off your home inkjet printer.




Not if KotS's printing quality is any indication of what to expect.  It was utter crap.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2008)

I think anyone who would cancel an order because of a digital copy and then say so on WotC's board is helping to ensure that WotC won't ever put out legal PDFs again.


----------



## Xsjado (May 29, 2008)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> I think anyone who would cancel an order because of a digital copy and then say so on WotC's board is helping to ensure that WotC won't ever put out legal PDFs again.



Did they ever put out legal pdfs in the first place?


----------



## Raduin711 (May 29, 2008)

jc_madden said:
			
		

> Not if KotS's printing quality is any indication of what to expect.  It was utter crap.




A little hyperbolic...


----------



## Celebrim (May 29, 2008)

pdfs suck as game books.  At best, you can preview a book with an illege pdf before ordering it online, but pdfs suck as game books and I can't imagine using one.

Even if you steal a book by getting an illegal pdf, you are in practice still going to have to pay for making an inferior print out of the pdf and binding it in something before its really going to be useful for thumbing through, serious reading, or anything else.

For that matter, this is the reason I don't buy legal pdf's.  Some of the material out there looks really great, but as a media for a rule book, digital copies just suck.

If you are planning on playing 4e, I can't imagine why you wouldn't want the rule books.  I can't imagine from any perspective, ethical, practical, or anything else why you'd be happy with a stolen copy.


----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1037302
> 
> Quite an argument, what do you guys think?




That nothing good will come from this.  

The topic has been thrashed out pretty well here (as evinced by the number of closed threads on the topic).


----------



## jc_madden (May 29, 2008)

Raduin711 said:
			
		

> A little hyperbolic...




Is it?  Did you pay $30 for one and have your finger prints come off the front cover and then unbeknownst to you smudge most of the book as you parused it?  Did you find the paper to be abnormally thin?  Did you find that the book didn't stay open and "feel" like a book?  Were your saddened by the lack of a descent cover rather than a simple paper one, identical in grade and quality to the rest of the book?  Did you feel like this was less of a collectible, something that would last for a long time in your library, or more like a throwaway wad of tissue?  I sure did.

Not hyberbolic at all, really.


----------



## Harr (May 29, 2008)

Honestly, I dont think anyone who would cancel an order because they found a pdf online would have even placed an order in the first place, since there was never any doubt that pdf copies would be easily available almost immediately after the print books came out.

That said, I find discussions on piracy are ultimately fruitless, as evidenced by that thread. Lots of thought flying around everywhere and for what? People will do what they will do.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Nyarlathotep said:
			
		

> That nothing good will come from this.
> 
> The topic has been thrashed out pretty well here (as evinced by the number of closed threads on the topic).




If i have woken the dragon, pun intended, I do apologize.


----------



## Byronic (May 29, 2008)

Good Lord, one person believes that people should be severely beaten for downloading the PDF and another one says that no one should be physically harmed but they should serve jail time.

Personally if I did something and they gave me a choice I'd choose the beating. That'll be over in five min, jail time is significantly longer then that and they give out more beatings.


----------



## Harr (May 29, 2008)

Now that you mention it, I wouldn't begrudge anyone who after buying KotS decided to download it, print it and bind it for themselves. I'd sure like to  But the core books won't be like that. I hope.


----------



## Xsjado (May 29, 2008)

jc_madden said:
			
		

> Is it?  Did you pay $30 for one and have your finger prints come off the front cover and then unbeknownst to you smudge mose of the book as you parused it?  Did you find the paper to be abnormally thin?  Did you find that the book didn't stay open and "feel" like a book?  Were your saddened by the lack of a descent cover rather than a simple paper one, identical in grade and quality to the rest of the book?  Did you feel like this was less of a collectible, something that would last for a long time in your library, or more like a throwaway wad of tissue?  I sure did.
> 
> Not hyberbolic at all, really.



That paragraph reads like a definition of hyperbole.

I wasn't that disappointed by it myself. I think it was overpriced but the quality of the printing is pretty much what I expected for that type of module. I'm going to re-iterate that it was a clear case of price gouging so you don't jump down my throat again.

Regardless of the print quality it is still going to be better than what you would get by printing at home which was the original comparison. Changing the goal posts just turns your point into a straw man.

As we've seen from the leaked copies, they are full colour and that requires a higher quality print process and paper than we saw in the preview module.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

I'm not worried about some people getting free .pdf files, as I suspect that most fans will still buy the books.

The old paradigm of the RPG business was that people would share books. They knew that people would access their information without having themselves paid for that information. They knew that X number of books sold would mean X + Y number of players would have that information. This was always okay as long as X books were sold.

It's the same today. WotC is not selling information. Information cannot be controlled. In fact, they made great strides to open that information to other companies to sell for profit . . . with the assumption that if Y people have the information, they will now sell X books. The 4e GSL is even more blatant about this.

People will buy the books, even if they have the PDFs. The physical ownership of products is ingrained in our psyche, which could be argued is a _manufactured_ desire. Regardless, we LIKE having STUFF.

Not everybody will buy the books, but again, not every player in the 70's bought their own copy of D&D. The game is meant to be shared. If the current method of sharing cuts down on the number of books sold, then the company must find other ways to increase revenue, or provide extra incentive to buying the books:

DDI. Rules Database. Game Table. Virtual Minis. Micro-transactions. Doesn't everyone see that this is where the business is going? Yes, they want to sell books, but the books are a catalyst to other revenue streams. For every dollar that this "information age" is costing WotC in "piracy", they will attempt to make back two-fold through other Internet offers that cannot so easily be shared.

I look forward to playing, and owning the physical books I've purchased,  but don't tell me that it's wrong to get information (knowledge) that wasn't paid for. That is a dangerous idea and always has been.


----------



## FickleGM (May 29, 2008)

It's wrong.


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

Xsjado said:
			
		

> Regardless of the print quality it is still going to be better than what you would get by printing at home which was the original comparison. Changing the goal posts just turns your point into a straw man.



I dunno.  My B/W laser does make a nice print.  A color laser with built in duplexing would start to come close.


----------



## Weregrognard (May 29, 2008)




----------



## Nyarlathotep (May 29, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> I dunno.  My B/W laser does make a nice print.  A color laser with built in duplexing would start to come close.




The problem is that the toner is expensive for color lasers. I've got a Samsung CLP-510 (does duplexing and color) and the toner cartridges are more expensive than the entire printer was (generally 2 - 3 times as much). Plus it seems like every printer made nowadays has a page counter that determines when your cartridge is empty and opposed to just letting you run out of toner....

Ahhhh... technology.


----------



## SteveC (May 29, 2008)

I just wanted to post here to say that I was wrong. Many months ago, this subject first came up (for 4E, anyway) and I said that the core books would be scanned and available through downloads within 48 hours. It seems that the pirates beat the street dates!

...and that goes to show you that *you can't stop piracy*. I don't endorse it at all (I believe ENWorld still lets you see PDF purchases, and if you look at mine you'll see I've purchased hundreds of dollars worth), but it's real, and a company needs to figure out a way to deal with it.

Spending time trying to get torrents pulled down is a complete waste of time. A particularly well known site keeps a log of all of the legal threats they get, and if they ignore the RIAA, Microsoft and Apple (not to mention publicly insulting the people who send the letters) WotC is going to do nothing to stop it. Seriously!

So should we just ignore it and pretend it doesn't happen? No way! WotC (and RPG publishers in general) need to come up with a way to market PDFs in such a manner that they're attractive to consumers. That way they can make money off of the legitimate customers, and encourage those who are on the fence to be legal and behave properly. One way to do that is through a company like RPGNow, but is that the be-all-end-all of electronic PDF publishing? In it's current form, certainly not...but it's a start!

Sell me PDFs of the D&D books for a reasonable price and I'll buy 'em. Sell them to me for cover price and I won't, it's just that simple, which is why I don't have any WotC PDFs other than what they released for free RPG day.

Make money off of electronic downloads and don't waste time telling people that illegal downloading is wrong. Why? Because everyone knows it's wrong, and the ones who do it just don't care.

As I'm writing this, it occurs to me that it may come off as a bit confrontational. That's not my intention, and mods can feel free to modify it or even delete it.

--Steve


----------



## doseyclwn (May 29, 2008)

*re: folks that have books*

Dunno 'bout the pdf. I work for a game retailer. We got a call from WOTC today. Evidently buy.com has sent some books out. From what WOTC said in the phone call, somebody is gettin' sued.


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

Is it worth pointing out that WotC was planning on releasing something similar to the pdfs anyway?  Well, pdfs with some sort of authorization and security.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

First of all, no matter how much RIAA would like for you to believe  a download of a copy written work equals a lost sale, it dosn't.

Secondly PDF books make my eyes bleed after a while I don't know how anyone uses them.  Also considering how much toner I would use to print all 3 book onto paper and the price of the books on Amazon its probably a wash.

Even for the person talking about his laser printer.  You're seriously going to print 750 pages, with lots of full color photos?  How much do you laser jet cartridges cost?  I can't imagine that your actually doing yourself any favors.


----------



## Voss (May 29, 2008)

jc_madden said:
			
		

> Is it?  Did you pay $30 for one and have your finger prints come off the front cover and then unbeknownst to you smudge most of the book as you parused it?  Did you find the paper to be abnormally thin?  Did you find that the book didn't stay open and "feel" like a book?  Were your saddened by the lack of a descent cover rather than a simple paper one, identical in grade and quality to the rest of the book?  Did you feel like this was less of a collectible, something that would last for a long time in your library, or more like a throwaway wad of tissue?  I sure did.
> 
> Not hyberbolic at all, really.




I agree.  The paper quality of KotS was really subpar.  People don't even print magazine on paper that poor anymore.  One readthrough and the cover was smudged in multiple places (rather bad since the final encounter carries over to the back 'cover' and the paper was curling. 

Coupled with all the editing mistakes (and there were a lot, I caught over 20 on the first read-through), from flavor text, rules text and descriptive problems (the burial site is decidedly not southwest of town, for example) and just writing errors (the townsfolk don't go near the keep and won't even speak its name, yet one picks flowers there), even at a significant discount, it looks like a $10 product with a printing error where the price should be.  Its definitely a sad lead-in to the new edition.


----------



## gscholt (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> I look forward to playing, and owning the physical books I've purchased,  but don't tell me that it's wrong to get information (knowledge) that wasn't paid for. That is a dangerous idea and always has been.



Hear hear.

What my party always did was buy the books we used. Everyone had their PHP, there was a DMG and (a couple of different) MMs. But all the other nice 'expansion' books (Complete *, Races of *), _one_ bought. The others just downloaded a PDF, so you can look through it at home. Basically the same as borrowing a book.

You'll never get a print from a home printer that matches a nicely bound book, and digital copies at the play table? So, imo, it's a bit of a moot point. I want the books to use, so the PDF will not deter me from buying them.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> ...and that goes to show you that *you can't stop piracy*.




Can't stop murder, either, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (May 29, 2008)

Truly, the best way to combat financial losses due to file sharing is to allow users to peruse the ENTIRE book online, just as users can browse books in a book store. There isn't enough evidence beyond hearsay to state that piracy effects book sales negatively. If that were the case, WotC would be recording record losses every year and would not be able to churn out the same number of SPLAT books they publish month after month.


----------



## Mr Jack (May 29, 2008)

I write computer games for a living. Everything I produce gets pirated. Data from various game releases shows that an early, or pre-release, pirate will reduce first month sales by 5-20%. Now, D&D is likely to suffer less due to the superiority of the print product but I'd still expect them to lose a non-trivial number of sales, and a non-trivial amount of money over this. Yes, there would have been scans up within hours, but the pre-release nature of these leak will be more harmful.

As for taking down torrents, and the like, yeah, you can't beat them but if you do nothing the problem gets worse and you lose more sales.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2008)

I don't think we'll ever have good data on "lost" sales vs. "free advertising / loss leader" generated sales. The issue is just too charged.

Which is odd, since the exact entities who are claiming the biggest losses -- and are doing a lot of the divisive issue-charging -- are supposed to be faceless, emotionless, analytical profit-seekers.

Oh well, -- N


----------



## jc_madden (May 29, 2008)

Xsjado said:
			
		

> That paragraph reads like a definition of hyperbole.




We must be using conflicting definitions of the word.  AFAIK, it means an exaggeration.  I'm not exaggerating here.  My experiences are not unique; I've seen many of the same complaints.  Anecdotal?  Yes.  Hyperbole?  No.



			
				Xsjado said:
			
		

> I'm going to re-iterate that it was a clear case of price gouging so you don't jump down my throat again.




I wasn't aware of jumping down your throat a first time.  If I came of as such, I apologize it wasn't my intention.  I'm vehement about the subject but I'm not trying to be rude.



			
				Xsjado said:
			
		

> Regardless of the print quality it is still going to be better than what you would get by printing at home which was the original comparison.




Strongly disagree.  We're using a self-printed copy of the PrRC at our game now and it looks and feels great.



			
				Xsjado said:
			
		

> Changing the goal posts just turns your point into a straw man.




It's not a straw man, I'm not intentionally steering the argument to a subject I feel I can win.  To add additional weight to my argument, I stated that if the print quality of KotS was any indication of the level of quality we can expect from future products, digital media may be a better solution.  I would pay more money for a better quality book.  If the quality of the books are lacking, I would print it myself if I could buy a PDF from WotC. 



			
				Xsjado said:
			
		

> As we've seen from the leaked copies, they are full colour and that requires a higher quality print process and paper than we saw in the preview module.




Perhaps I don't understand what you mean by "full color,” I have KotS, it appears to be full color.  The ink smudges horribly and the paper is too thin.


----------



## SteveC (May 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Can't stop murder, either, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try.



...and your point is entirely irrelevant here.

First of all, as someone who has lost a good friend to murder, even if it was many years ago, the comparison of software piracy to murder is simply outrageous.

Second, you're wrong: to a large degree, a society that wants to stop murders from occurring can do so. That discussion is for another board entirely, however, as it comes down to politics.

Third, I stand by my statement: if WotC put everyone in the company on stopping the piracy of game products, they would not be able to curtail the process one bit. They would effectively do so, however, because they wouldn't be producing any new products for the pirates to torrent. That would be great, up until they went entirely out of business from lack of sales.

So I'll just say it clearly (and, remember, this is just my opinion, mkay?) every dollar a company like WotC spends trying to root out and stop piracy is one dollar they don't spend creating and marketing their products, and that's a waste.

Nothing that WotC does on this matter will make any difference, and it will only be a waste of their time. 

What wouldn't be a waste of time would be for them to come up with a marketing and distribution strategy for the products so that we can legally get them electronically at a reasonable price. I'd buy them (and I'm not alone) and they would be making money off of it. That's the promise of the DDI, so I hope that will actually work out and we can all be happy. It seems to work pretty well for Apple and  ITunes, after all.

I don't mean to be a jerk, and I don't support piracy (I've had the books on preorder since February!) but nothing we do here is going to affect the situation in the slightest.

--Steve


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

This post seems most to the point to me. From the wizards board.  
Quote:
Originally Posted by GameJunkieJim  
Right, but that doesn't include people like me who live probably 85 miles from the nearest urban center, and does their shopping online, or on a rare occasion makes a 2 hour trek to the nearest game store. 

Yes, I DLed them. I DL anything like this before I buy it. Sometimes I buy, sometimes I don't. Rarely do the PDFs stick on the computer. Most of the PDFs I do have are either freely availiable (some from WotC own site, as well as a ton of old TSR Marvel stuff) or stuff I have in storage that I like to look at occasionally but don't want to dig out each time (AD&D 1E Players Handbook, some old Rolemaster supplements from the 80's, Gamma World, etc.)

If I don't own it, or if it's not a 'free' product, I delete it after I've perused it. I'm not saying it's OK to use something if you haven't paid for it, but in this day and age, it should be our right to make sure it's worth what we spend. Caveat emptor right?? 

which was responded to by. 
As I said were not going to agree. I do feel for your perdicament. I grew up in a town like this. But I dont think that it necessarily entitles you to anything special. I can understand why you do it, but I dont feel it justifies it is a better way to put it. I have pdfs. A lot. But I buy them. Old editions of BECMI D&D, Stuff from Monte Cook. And a heck of a lot of freebies. But I simply dont feel that someone is entitled to something that isnt thiers. If WOTC allowed it it is one thing. But the fact that you rationalize it in this way only shows that you HAVE to rationalize it. If someone buys something, they never have to rationalize it. Cept maybe to the wife who didnt want you to spend the money.... but thats a different issue. If your doing what you know is right, you really never need to rationalize your actions. 

Again, maybe I'm just jaded. And As I said, we may not agree. But I'd still play a game with ya.


----------



## frankthedm (May 29, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I just wanted to post here to say that I was wrong. Many months ago, this subject first came up (for 4E, anyway) and I said that the core books would be scanned and available through downloads within 48 hours. It seems that the pirates beat the street dates!



Arrr, matey, don't be so quick to blame the pirates for _scanning_ them. Some say they look more like an insider uploaded them.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Arrr, matey, don't be so quick to blame the pirates for _scanning_ them. Some of them looked more like an insider uploaded them.



Dosent that make him a pirate too?


----------



## frankthedm (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> Dosent that make him a pirate too?



Mayhap, but it means beating street date was far less an accomplishment. It is like saying someone  robbed a bank after the vaults contents were thrown on the sidewalk.


----------



## SteveC (May 29, 2008)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> Arrr, matey, don't be so quick to blame the pirates for _scanning_ them. Some say they look more like an insider uploaded them.



Oh, to be sure. But doesn't that make it even worse in some ways? Controlling the people you employ or contract for service is one thing, but stopping someone who's willing to ruin the book by cutting it up and scanning it?

No matter what, though, this is going to be a huge launch, and this whole thing has probably given WotC a fair bit of extra publicity, so we'll never know how it really affected things.

--Steve


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> ...and your point is entirely irrelevant here.




Not really. Your post basically states "We shouldn't really spend the time, money, and energy to prevent something that we can't prevent." I disagree with that statement.



> First of all, as someone who has lost a good friend to murder, even if it was many years ago, the comparison of software piracy to murder is simply outrageous.




You want a medal for having lost a friend to murder? Get me two while you're at it. The point remains the same: just because things can't be prevented doesn't mean we shouldn't try.



> Second, you're wrong: to a large degree, a society that wants to stop murders from occurring can do so. That discussion is for another board entirely, however, as it comes down to politics.




I'll believe that when I see a society that is free of murder.



> Third, I stand by my statement: if WotC put everyone in the company on stopping the piracy of game products, they would not be able to curtail the process one bit.




Why would they put everyone in the company on it? Why would game designers be put on a piracy prevention taskforce?

They wouldn't. They'd hire people who do this kind of thing for a living. Just like I don't go and try to prevent the piracy of my company's computer games, but we do have lawyers that do that kind of thing.



> So I'll just say it clearly (and, remember, this is just my opinion, mkay?) every dollar a company like WotC spends trying to root out and stop piracy is one dollar they don't spend creating and marketing their products, and that's a waste.




It's a waste to you. Working for a company that rigorously protects it's IP, I can tell you that it is money well spent in many cases.



> I don't mean to be a jerk, and I don't support piracy (I've had the books on preorder since February!) but *nothing we do here is going to affect the situation in the slightest.*




The number one problem with trying to solve problems with our society? This exact attitude.


----------



## greatn (May 29, 2008)

Now I've already bought and paid for 4e. I even bought it in a local gaming store at full price, $100 for all three books.

So would it be wrong for me to sneak a peek? My money has already gone through to the people who deserve it, and there's no way I'm canceling my reserve.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

I can think of a few ways that WotC could make the physical products (or official PDFs) more attractive.

One, since they are combining physical products with an online service, why not print books with a unique serial code that can then be used to get additional online services/goods.

For instance, what if each DMG had a unique keycode to unlock the online Encounter Builder? What if each PHB had a unique code to unlock the Character Generator? What if each MM had a unique code that would (gasp!) unlock monster tokens of (double-gasp!) free virtual minis for the Game Table?

By putting all these services behind a password protected User Account (DDI), WotC can tie the keycodes to that account. Any pirated or borrowed books would not allow those users to access that online service b/c the keycode will have already been activated by a DDI subscriber.

Yes, people will still pirate the books, but there will be ADDED incentive NOT to.

The problem with this model is that it's hard to charge a customer TWICE for something: 1) for purchasing the book, 2) monthly subscription to use DDI tools.

They could fix this by still requiring a registered DDI account to activate the now "free" services that come with purchasing a book, but still having an "advanced" DDI with extra features for a monthly fee.


----------



## FickleGM (May 29, 2008)

greatn said:
			
		

> Now I've already bought and paid for 4e. I even bought it in a local gaming store at full price, $100 for all three books.
> 
> So would it be wrong for me to sneak a peek? My money has already gone through to the people who deserve it, and there's no way I'm canceling my reserve.



 Yes, it would be wrong.


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> Even for the person talking about his laser printer.  You're seriously going to print 750 pages, with lots of full color photos?  How much do you laser jet cartridges cost?  I can't imagine that your actually doing yourself any favors.



As I said, mine is B/W but a cartridge is about 1 cent per page.  With big graphics, it'll be worse, but still not too bad.  Good paper is about 2 cents a sheet, so about 1 per page.  So for a B/W copy, probably around 7.50 on paper, maybe 15 on toner, then a few bucks on binders.   So probably around 25 total.  Of course, that's the price for B/W binder copies.


----------



## greatn (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> I can think of a few ways that WotC could make the physical products (or official PDFs) more attractive.
> 
> One, since they are combining physical products with an online service, why not print books with a unique serial code that can then be used to get additional online services/goods.
> 
> ...




You could just walk into a store, open the book and memorize or copy down or put the code in your cell phone.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

I'm sure clever packaging could at least reduce that to an acceptable number. I've found a few packs of D&D miniatures cut open and the rare removed, but so far only 1 or 2 packs out of many dozens that I've seen on shelves.

Physical theft (or tampering) has always been a concern.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

I said it there and I'll say it here. It doesn't matter whether it equates to lost sales or not. 

Distributing content from a work you don't own the rights to is copyright infringement. And it's illegal.

Acquiring a copy of something illegally is equivalent under the law to buying stolen property or even actually stealing. It's exactly the same as people who steal, for example, cable television.

I own a cable company. We have to deal with signal theft all the time. And we've learned the fix. Scott Rouse, if you're listening, pay attention:

Go after the perpetrators. Yes, that means everyone who obtains an illegal copy. Prosecute _them._ Start with the people who brag about it on internet message boards.  Stop worrying about alienating your customers, because _people stealing your product are *not* your customers_. 

Get the names of the distributors, and go after them too. Make them financially liable for reimbursing the company for every single copy they illegally distributed, or just set a reasonable minimum estimate of, say, 1000 copies.

Would people still do this if they faced a potential $40,000 fine? I doubt it. Heck, I doubt most people would risk it if the fine was a measily $4,000.

Would anyone be on the high moral crusade for free information if there were actually consequences for their actions? I seriously doubt it. However, if anyone kept going, I'd actually respect them.

Civil disobedience is only truly civil disobedience if you're willing to suffer the repercussions of it.


----------



## FickleGM (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I said it there and I'll say it here. It doesn't matter whether it equates to lost sales or not.
> 
> Distributing content from a work you don't own the rights to is copyright infringement. And it's illegal.
> 
> ...



 This.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Distributing content from a work you don't own the rights to is copyright infringement. And it's illegal.




What does "distributing content" actually mean, though? Where is the line drawn. Obviously, the answer to this is going to be very different for different industries.

You can't "share" cable with your neighbor. But are we not allowed to "share" our D&D books with our players? What does distribution mean? Verbatim recitation? Temporary visual access? What happens when someone looks at a book they didn't buy, and memorizes the information therein? Isn't that distribution of content?

I seriously think that this is a fuzzy area of morality and I think publishers across all industries have been very successful in defining the publics thoughts by means of lobbying and legislation. I think there is a valid argument to be held for copyright laws regarding "information" and "product".

But I will admit that this is not necessarily the forum to have that argument.


----------



## Alkiera (May 29, 2008)

SteveC, Mourn...

<OT>No society can prevent murder.  In fact, if you haven't noticed, no society tries.  We teach people that murder is bad, and we try to catch and punish those who commit murder, but we do not try to prevent murder... because it's not possible.  Some governments take away guns, so the murders kill with knives, or bats(see the UK).  Take away all sharp or heavy objects, and people will beat each other to death with fists.  The only way to prevent murder among humans is to completely separate them; at which point you have a bunch of individuals, and no society. 
</OT>

Similarly to the above, piracy can't be prevented; and I'd argue that the amount of money spent on lawyers and investigators to try to prevent it often outweighs the cost of the piracy.  The vast majority of people who illegally download materials either never would have paid for it in the first place (Adobe Photoshop, anyone?), people who can't pay for it because it's no longer for sale(abandonware) or are using the download as a preview and end up buying a legit copy in the end.  Neither can be counted as a 'lost sale'.

The money would be better spent keeping employees and contractors happy so they don't leak your products ahead of time.  Also, keeping an eye on business 'partners' who'd do the same.

And Mourn, nothing anyone says on ENWorld is going to solve society's problems.  Respect for life, people and their property needs to be learned as a child; and many in our society aren't learning, because few are teaching it.


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I said it there and I'll say it here. It doesn't matter whether it equates to lost sales or not.
> 
> Distributing content from a work you don't own the rights to is copyright infringement. And it's illegal.
> 
> ...



A few comment, not that I expect this thread to last much longer.

In terms of going after end users, the war on drugs, copyright violations, etc, show that targeting the end users doesn't work.

Next, copyright violation is just that, copyright violation.  Its not theft of service, shoplifting, etc.  Heck, the primary court to handle it is civil, not criminal.

Finally, in this case, as opposed to cable theft, its likely that WotC's customers are the ones downloading.  Or at least a very large fraction.  I haven't heard too many people say that they've canceled their preorders.  And the news seemed to be coupled with the books shooting up at buy.com.  So its pretty likely that the downloaders are actually the customers, in the sense that they'll exchange money for products with WotC, both in the past and future.


----------



## mlund (May 29, 2008)

For my own part, I'm not concerned with people who have paid for their copy of the I.P. viewing it on their computer through personal scanning or file transfer. They've picked no one's pocket.

I am, however, bothered by people making use of the I.P. without a purchase involved. Lending out books is one thing. Copying books and distributing those copies is another.

With that in mind, I fully endorse making the distributors of these files suffer. Punishment should be meted out to the initial leaking parties as well as anyone who uploads or seeds the files.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Ulthwithian (May 29, 2008)

In a related instance, anyone who is active online with Magic the Gathering and was around, say, a year before Time Spiral came out knows that a certain website gained access to beta versions of some cards from Time Spiral.  Due to their nature, WotC sued the person who released the information on the 'Net.  They did so not to punish him, necessarily, but to follow the data trail to find the original leak.

A few years later, here we are, and you know what?  Premature leaking of card information on new Magic sets is way down.

This is anecdotal evidence, for me, that in this industry, we can combat this.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> What does "distributing content" actually mean, though? Where is the line drawn. Obviously, the answer to this is going to be very different for different industries.
> 
> You can't "share" cable with your neighbor. But are we not allowed to "share" our D&D books with our players? What does distribution mean? Verbatim recitation? Temporary visual access? What happens when someone looks at a book they didn't buy, and memorizes the information therein? Isn't that distribution of content?
> 
> ...




Sorry, but the morality involved is not "fuzzy" in the slightest. Your argument that it's "different for different industries" is sophistry.

Distribution is: "turning something you own over to others."

Using something yourself that you have paid for is legal. Loaning, giving, or selling your physical copy to your friend (or a total stranger) is legal. Copying a couple of pages so your friend can borrow them is legal. Copying it wholesale (whether by scanning or typing it out) and giving your friend a copy is ILLEGAL, but isn't worth the cost of prosecution.

Similarly, the number of people capable of memorizing the document from a single readthrough is a benefit those people obtain. They still can't legally distribute it in whole to other people.

There's no two ways about it. Making that digital copy available online for hundreds or thousands of people (or more) to use is not just illegal, it might even be worth prosecuting.

So it isn't that scanning your book and giving a digital copy to your friend is _legal,_ it's that, like going 2 miles an hour over the speed limit, you can probably get away with it. But you're still _breaking the law._


----------



## Lizard (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I said it there and I'll say it here. It doesn't matter whether it equates to lost sales or not.
> 
> Distributing content from a work you don't own the rights to is copyright infringement. And it's illegal.
> 
> ...




QFT.

We're not talking about people who are, say, blogging against a repressive dictatorship, leaking documents showing corporate or political malfeasance, revealing important news the authorities (in whatever nation) don't want revealed. We're talking about people who can't *wait a week* to *play a game*. Wrapping yourself in the flag of civil disobedience, putting yourself on the same platform at those who faced firehoses, dogs, tanks, and lynch mobs in America and elsewhere over the years, is not just factually incorrect, it's a moral obscenity. You're not fighting censorship or sticking it to the man, you're just sneaking into the movie theatre, without even the risk of the local rent-a-cop catching you and calling your Mom.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (May 29, 2008)

*well*

I doubt that WoTC will lose very much money from downloading of the core books.  

In my opinion, a publisher is much less likely to lose a sale to a PDF when the material in question is going to be used again and again.  And we're talking about the core books here, the books that get used the most.

Where they may lose money is in PDF sales.  I own quite a few WoTC PDFs and the DRM on them makes them much more difficult to read for some reason -- I have a couple where my computer freezes up for 10 seconds every time I try to page them.  I have sent emails to DriveThruRPG customer service about this issue, but to my knowledge it hasn't been resolved.  If in the future I am faced with the choice of a download that is easy to use, or a bought PDF that is a nightmare, that fact will not work to WOTC's advantage.

As far as downloading being illegal, well it is a matter of civil law, not criminal law, in the USA.  In some other jurisdictions it's completely legal.  

And as for the morality.. well, I would say that the people who develop RPGs deserve to  be paid.  If you download a copy of a WOTC publication, and you haven't bought the physical copy as well, you aren't doing your part to provide for those who make our hobby possible.

Ken


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Next, copyright violation is just that, copyright violation.  Its not theft of service, shoplifting, etc.  Heck, the primary court to handle it is civil, not criminal.
> 
> ...


----------



## theredrobedwizard (May 29, 2008)

jc_madden said:
			
		

> Is it?  Did you pay $30 for one and have your finger prints come off the front cover and then unbeknownst to you smudge most of the book as you parused it?  Did you find the paper to be abnormally thin?  Did you find that the book didn't stay open and "feel" like a book?  Were your saddened by the lack of a descent cover rather than a simple paper one, identical in grade and quality to the rest of the book?  Did you feel like this was less of a collectible, something that would last for a long time in your library, or more like a throwaway wad of tissue?  I sure did.
> 
> Not hyberbolic at all, really.




Yes, it is.  I paid $30 and not once has any ink smudged.  Adventure modules have never felt like books; they feel like little 32 page magazines.  As such, they don't stay open or feel like a book.  They stay open like a magazine.

I feel like it's not really a collectible, but then again I bought it because it's an adventure module - not as a collectible. It will last for a long time in your library, so long as you don't read it with sweaty hands in a hot/humid environment.  I've read it five times now to get a good grasp of the content.  I haven't had one smudge, because I read in the shade.

-----------------------------------

Back to the OT, interesting discussion.  I'll have to watch how this plays out.

-TRRW


----------



## Zimri (May 29, 2008)

And just to muddy the waters slightly Copyright applies to things that are "fixed" ie finished and complete. No doubt all three books will have errata and WOTC will revamp them meaning they were not "finished" when they were released.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (May 29, 2008)

This is a digital age, it's no longer the 19th century, copyright laws are a joke for digital information...we're beaming everytting constantly out into space, for goodness sake! LOL.

Financial theft (selling things, that is), claiming to be creators when you are not, should be stomped on, but you aren't going to stop piracy...
You can be stupid, like the RIAA, who've spat on, and ridiculed their customers and artists for years and then took a HUGE dump on the customers with thier insane Mp3 witch hunt...and then they wonder why their record sales are going down the tubes?! lol.

Here's an idea for D&D:
The DDI subscriber thing, why not have an additional service, say $5 a month,for free pdfs of ANY D&D product. Think about it...how many folk would sign up for that...how much revenue would it engender!


There's two ways to defeat an enemy: 
a) be an idiot and die out by futile war of attrition (in which case they are no longer a threat as your gone, hehe)

b) Don't out fight them, _out think them first_.

Rather than antagonize customers, like the RIAA has done., WOTC needs to entice them.

*What do customers want?*
Good quality PDFs that don't have malware/vrisues as a possible kick in the pants.

*Why do customers want them? * 
To save money and to have a simple, light reference on a game table, NOT to totally replace the actual books.

Books are way too damned heavy for me nowadays, so I only take the three core books and my toolbooks of minis/dice, and frankly that's too much. I'd LOVE to be able to get pdfs, put them on a laptop for me, as DM, to check rules. if WOTC put out printable pdfs of combat sites (like in KOTS), that would rule.

I'm very very happy to pay for D&D *points to D&D filled bookcase and room*, but I'm NOT going ot pay full price for flipping PDFs!!! D&D books are fun to read, that's part of their charm, they are works of art. PDFs are just like a thesaurus or monkey wrench.


----------



## Vorhaart (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Sorry, but the morality involved is not "fuzzy" in the slightest. Your argument that it's "different for different industries" is sophistry.
> 
> Distribution is: "turning something you own over to others."
> 
> ...




What about in this case? I, like many others, have preordered the books. The company has already taken my money, but has not yet provided the product. Legally, I own the product now; am I not allowed to view the material I have already paid for?

Yes, I agree making it available to anyone who wants it regardless of whether they actually own it or not is wrong, both morally and legally. However, unless/until corporations began to realize that yes, there is a demand for this product, yes, the old rules of business are becoming obsolete and yes, unless you provide what customers want you will lose sales, there is no impetus for them to change.


----------



## Lizard (May 29, 2008)

Alkiera said:
			
		

> Similarly to the above, piracy can't be prevented; and I'd argue that the amount of money spent on lawyers and investigators to try to prevent it often outweighs the cost of the piracy.  The vast majority of people who illegally download materials either never would have paid for it in the first place (Adobe Photoshop, anyone?), people who can't pay for it because it's no longer for sale(abandonware) or are using the download as a preview and end up buying a legit copy in the end.  Neither can be counted as a 'lost sale'.




Ever hear of the broken window theory of law enforcement?

It states, in effect, that if you ignore trivial crimes, like broken windows, you set a social expectation that the law doesn't matter -- and thus increase the incidence of serious crimes. Communities which vigorously pursue and punish minor crimes -- skipping subway tolls, graffitti, etc -- have far fewer serious crimes, in part because there's just some people who will break the law and some who won't, and arresting them when they commit a small crime keeps them from committing larger ones, and in part because when you set a social expectation that you WILL be punished if you're caught keeps people from committing any crime. 

Many places hosting stolen RPG materials are run without any secrecy at all -- you can trivially get the names and addresses of the people hosting them. They either don't have a clue that "sharing" files with their "friends" is wrong, or they don't give a damn. One phone call from the local cops would scare them into taking down their sites, and once news got around, so would most of the others. 



> The money would be better spent keeping employees and contractors happy so they don't leak your products ahead of time.  Also, keeping an eye on business 'partners' who'd do the same.




There's always going to be one person who'll do it "just 'cause", if he knows he'll suffer no consequences.



> And Mourn, nothing anyone says on ENWorld is going to solve society's problems.  Respect for life, people and their property needs to be learned as a child; and many in our society aren't learning, because few are teaching it.




So why not teach it here?

People who come online and brag about having stolen/downloaded books don't know they've done anything wrong. When their peer community -- their fellow gamers -- tells them, flat out, "You done messed up big time," then, they're hearing something they've never heard before.

I've had no problem telling people who "offer" me CDs full of "free" gaming material that "I write those books. I get paid for it. If enough of them don't sell, companies stop making them and I lose work. I know people who feed their families from their writing. They aren't corporate fat-cats, they're people who have to choose between doing what they love so long as they can -- just barely -- survive on it, or leaving the industry for jobs that pay a lot better when they can't." This is something they've rarely been told. Most people view it as "uncool" to tell someone they're a crook when they were "just being friendly". 

Sorry, offering me stolen goods isn't a sign of friendship. Especially when some of the stolen goods belonged to me to begin with. (Or at least have my name on the credits...)


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> A few comment, not that I expect this thread to last much longer.
> 
> In terms of going after end users, the war on drugs, copyright violations, etc, show that targeting the end users doesn't work.
> 
> ...




Sorry, the war on drugs is a bad example, because there's no way to obtain the items in question legally. If drugs could be legally obtained, going after those who obtained them illegally would cut down on illegal distribution.

As far as copyright violation, no company has actually tried to press the case _because they're afraid of the repercussions._ The cable industry spent _years_ being afraid to prosecute those who stole signal. We punished the distributors, but it didn't stop. By contrast, companies that have gone after the end-user have seen success. Not at putting those people in jail, mind you, but at _turning them into paying customers,_ or at least preventing them from stealing our signal.

Copyright violation ends up in "civil court" because the owner has to assert their "ownership rights" for a crime to have occurred. (By the way, cable theft cases are usually settled in "civil court" as well). "Fair use" is all about what you can do without prompting the owner to take that step.

This issue is still in the process of being settled. Companies need to force the issue, or the very notion of intellectual property might get tossed out the window.

And on the issue of the downloaders being "customers," I just disagree. There are plenty of people bragging about how they'll never pay for the hardcopies, how it's "cheaper to print them at Kinko's," how they played 3e with just the free online SRD, and so forth...

People engaging in those activities are NOT, by definition, customers.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Vorhaart said:
			
		

> What about in this case? I, like many others, have preordered the books. The company has already taken my money, but has not yet provided the product. Legally, I own the product now; am I not allowed to view the material I have already paid for?
> 
> Yes, I agree making it available to anyone who wants it regardless of whether they actually own it or not is wrong, both morally and legally. However, unless/until corporations began to realize that yes, there is a demand for this product, yes, the old rules of business are becoming obsolete and yes, unless you provide what customers want you will lose sales, there is no impetus for them to change.




The key phrase here is PREordered. It hasnt officially been released. Therefore, no, noone was really supposed to see it before the 6th. Just be patient.


----------



## Lizard (May 29, 2008)

Vorhaart said:
			
		

> What about in this case? I, like many others, have preordered the books. The company has already taken my money, but has not yet provided the product. Legally, I own the product now; am I not allowed to view the material I have already paid for?




Actually, no, you don't.

Legally, the company you paid for has an obligation to ship you the product by a given date; if they fail to meet that obligation, you have the legal right to demand your money back. There's no law I know of which states, "If you pre-order a book, the minute you pay you're entitled to aquire it by any means." Please remember, the people you bought the book from aren't the copyright holders. You may have bought the books from Amazon, but when you download them, you violate the copyrights held by WOTC. How does your purchase from Amazon give you legal authority to violate WOTC's copyrights? 

Perhaps I am ignorant of current jurisprudence on this matter. Links to relevant legal citations? I eagerly await the appropriate documentation for your interpretation of the law. 

Meanwhile, I'll have to put this in the same category as the "My lousy boss doesn't pay me enough, so it's alright to shoplift" legal theory. (A close cousin to "They have insurance, so, it's not really hurting anyone" and "Those big companies have more money than they need, anyway.")


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

To steal means you take something away from someone. If I steal a car, the owner doesn't have it. If I download a song, the owner still has full powers over it. Don't forget that stealing has a profit intention (selling a car, in example). Downloading has no economical profit (if you do, then it's illegal). Downloading doesn't equal stealing. 

Harvard studies, among others, reached this conclussion :



> Downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero



*

You know what that means? That people who download stuff wouldn't have paid for it anyways. And the people who download and buy the same product don't count for "stadistics".
If right now I download 25 D&D books that I do not own, I'm causing zero economical harm to WotC, since I wouldn't have bought them anyways. Oh, and I am not breaking my nation's law.


*If you want to read the full source : 

The Effect of File Sharing on Record Sales
An Empirical Analysis
Felix Oberholzer-Gee
Harvard University
Koleman Strumpf
University of Kansas


PS : Comparing piracy and murder to downloading stuff screams "brainwashing" and "lack of any valid point" like no other thing.

Piratecat, I would gladly have a conversation with you, by e-mail, about the subject.


----------



## Gargoyle (May 29, 2008)

People rationalize it by saying "I've got the hard copies on pre-order" or "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so they haven't lost a customer".  

I believe that it's still wrong to download illegal PDFs for two reasons:

1.  It's against the law.

2. I don't agree that the "ends justify the means".  In other words, I don't care what the outcome is in a discussion on ethics, I believe that wrong behavior is still wrong, no matter if "no one is hurt" or the "outcome is for the best".  That said, I know that's my opinion, and that why society has laws...see #1.


----------



## Joshua Randall (May 29, 2008)

Vorhaart said:
			
		

> I, like many others, have preordered the books. The company has already taken my money, but has not yet provided the product. Legally, I own the product now



Bull. Crap.

But keep up the good work of attempting to justify your theft and parasitism.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

Mr Jack said:
			
		

> I write computer games for a living. Everything I produce gets pirated. Data from various game releases shows that an early, or pre-release, pirate will reduce first month sales by 5-20%. Now, D&D is likely to suffer less due to the superiority of the print product but I'd still expect them to lose a non-trivial number of sales, and a non-trivial amount of money over this. Yes, there would have been scans up within hours, but the pre-release nature of these leak will be more harmful.
> 
> As for taking down torrents, and the like, yeah, you can't beat them but if you do nothing the problem gets worse and you lose more sales.




Where are you getting this information is my question I have yet to see any even close to reliable data that piracy hurts sales by anywhere even approaching 20%.

In fact software wise for games I'd like to give an example.  I own a copy of Heroes of might and Magic V but I used a downloaded (cracked) copy of the Exe so I can play the game without the CD in the drive.  I did in fact purchase the game and I downloaded a "copy" of something I already owned.   That download did not cause anyone a lost sale.  It just caused me to waste time and bandwith because of retarded anti-piracy meaures.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> To steal means you take something away from someone. If I steal a car, the owner doesn't have it. If I download a song, the owner still has full powers over it. Don't forget that stealing has a profit intention (selling a car, in example). Downloading has no economical profit (if you do, then it's illegal). Downloading doesn't equal stealing.
> 
> Harvard studies, among others, reached this conclussion :
> 
> ...




Well, one problem with quoting anyone in academia is youll find just as many desenters. but despite anything they might say about such nonsense, the basic fact is this. If a company also sells pdfs of their products, and wotc does, i believe, than the fact the those illegal pdfs are out there means that they were not paid for, resulting in a loss. This is ridiculously simple, if a company charges x bucks for a pdf, then y amount of people dont pay for it...Guess what!!! That means X times y is the amount of money that the company should have gotten but dosent. Simple math seems very simple indeed.


----------



## Jack99 (May 29, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> QFT.
> 
> We're not talking about people who are, say, blogging against a repressive dictatorship, leaking documents showing corporate or political malfeasance, revealing important news the authorities (in whatever nation) don't want revealed. We're talking about people who can't *wait a week* to *play a game*. Wrapping yourself in the flag of civil disobedience, putting yourself on the same platform at those who faced firehoses, dogs, tanks, and lynch mobs in America and elsewhere over the years, is not just factually incorrect, it's a moral obscenity. You're not fighting censorship or sticking it to the man, you're just sneaking into the movie theatre, without even the risk of the local rent-a-cop catching you and calling your Mom.




Very funny, and yet oh so true.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Piratecat, I would gladly have a conversation with you, by e-mail, about the subject.



In that case, you should shoot him an e-mail, a PM or post on Meta. It's probably very hard to catch him in such a rapidly moving thread.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Nifft (May 29, 2008)

Vorhaart said:
			
		

> What about in this case? I, like many others, have preordered the books. The company has already taken my money, but has not yet provided the product. Legally, I own the product now; am I not allowed to view the material I have already paid for?



 I wonder if the time-shifting clause of fair use stipulates the direction in time.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Using something yourself that you have paid for is legal. Loaning, giving, or selling your physical copy to your friend (or a total stranger) is legal. Copying a couple of pages so your friend can borrow them is legal. Copying it wholesale (whether by scanning or typing it out) and giving your friend a copy is ILLEGAL, but isn't worth the cost of prosecution.




Your examples confuse me. It's "okay" to buy a PHB and give it away for free. But what if THAT person then gives it away for free? The second person didn't buy it, but has distributed it.

You say it's "okay" to copy a couple of pages. Why? Copying a few pages or the whole book is a matter of scale. You're still "distributing" content. What if a group of roommates buy 1 PHB and any of them can access at any given time? Is this okay because they either all have to be viewing the book at the same time, or they have to take turns viewing it separately?

What if the roommates didn't buy the book, but it was given to them by someone who DID buy it? Now you have a whole group of people accessing material that none of them paid for. Would we call these people thieves? Are they wrong?

So what if one of these room mates photocopies some pages (or the whole book)? What if one of the room mates uses a typewriter to transcribe the whole dang book... from memory? Is someone not allowed to produce information that they have stored in their own head?!

That may sound ridiculous, but it's possible. What's MORE possible is that someone could memorize sections and write it sections at a time. They could memorize information only as long as it takes to read it and then type it out again.

Once again, it's an argument of scale, and it IS fuzzy.

I will admit that making a digital copy of anything SEEMS wrong . . . but I argue only because it's against the law . . . laws which were created for the benefit of profit, not morality.


----------



## SteveC (May 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> You want a medal for having lost a friend to murder? Get me two while you're at it. The point remains the same: just because things can't be prevented doesn't mean we shouldn't try.



No medals, thank you, just a little less hyperbole and a little understanding. I'm sorry that you've lost friends to murder, and I'm even sadder to hear that having that happen to you twice does not make you realize that using hyperbole in this manner does not strengthen your argument, and simply upsets people.





> I'll believe that when I see a society that is free of murder.



There are many societies that are as near to being free of murder as any society made up of human beings can be. Once again, this is a political argument, and has no place on ENWorld.



> Why would they put everyone in the company on it? Why would game designers be put on a piracy prevention taskforce?
> 
> They wouldn't. They'd hire people who do this kind of thing for a living. Just like I don't go and try to prevent the piracy of my company's computer games, but we do have lawyers that do that kind of thing.




...and those people manage to accomplish what, exactly? I don't know which company you work for, but I would find it extremely likely that torrents of all of their products exist despite your lawyers best efforts. If you work for any major software house, you're also in a position to have one or more orders of magnitude more resources available to you than WotC does.




> It's a waste to you. Working for a company that rigorously protects it's IP, I can tell you that it is money well spent in many cases.




Stopping software piracy is not synonymous with defending your IP. It is part of a much larger whole that is extremely important, but it is not the same thing. Again, I seriously doubt that your company has managed to stop their products from being made available on the Internet. If they have, they should consider talking to the RIAA about it, since they could teach them something about it. 



> The number one problem with trying to solve problems with our society? This exact attitude.




I am not going to get into a debate on my efforts to solve society's problems, but I will put my works to advance the public good up against anyone, anytime. I am simply stating that the money that WotC puts into this practice could be far better spent on initiatives like the DDI. If the DDI does what they hope it will, piracy of books will not be a major concern for them at all, because they will have turned the game into a service that they control, and one that can't be pirated.

--Steve


----------



## Oompa (May 29, 2008)

Well, downloading here isnt illegal.. but i think people who download are doubting if they would like 4th edition, and i hope who download 4th, will also by the books..


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> Well, one problem with quoting anyone in academia is youll find just as many desenters. but despite anything they might say about such nonsense, the basic fact is this. If a company also sells pdfs of their products, and wotc does, i believe, than the fact the those illegal pdfs are out there means that they were not paid for, resulting in a loss. This is ridiculously simple, if a company charges x bucks for a pdf, then y amount of people dont pay for it...Guess what!!! That means X times y is the amount of money that the company should have gotten but dosent. Simple math seems very simple indeed.




Sorry, that's not a fact. It's not even close to a true statement. It's a point so easy to take down that if I download the same copy 500 times, according to you, I have caused the loss of 500 potentially sold books.

That's false.

I will use the example I used above. If anyone, right now, downloads 30, 50, 200 D&D books, are they causing an economical harm to WotC? Nope, because that person wouldn't have bought those 30, 50 or 200 books anyways.

I know it's a hard concept, but it's the truth. If I grab any random hard drive, out of anyone, mine, my brother, my friends, a lawyer, a teacher, a member of the Senate, a Government worker, I will find an amount of downloaded stuff, be it 1gb, be it 1 tb. The amount of money that would have been spent on that stuff if the download was not available would be close to zero.


----------



## Rykion (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> I look forward to playing, and owning the physical books I've purchased,  but don't tell me that it's wrong to get information (knowledge) that wasn't paid for. That is a dangerous idea and always has been.



We live in an information age.  Many people's livelihoods are completely based on being paid to create and/or spread information.  This group includes teachers, authors, artists, musicians, doctors, accountants, programmers, analysts, and other specialists.  Obviously, they shouldn't be paid because knowledge should be free.


----------



## Family (May 29, 2008)

But this could be the flashpoint! PirateCat HIMSELF was recently heard saying...and I quote: "My tolerance for people defending piracy? Zero."

My theory? NinjaCat! Now just hear me out, I know it sounds "silly" but what better way to hide a Ninja but as a Pirate  It all fits I tell ya...all of it. Now if you'll excuse me I have a tinfoil hat to make.


-Book: "I brought you some supper but if you'd prefer a lecture, I've a few very catchy ones prepped...sin and hellfire... one has lepers."


----------



## Geek-Zilla (May 29, 2008)

Having read this thread and the one linked by the OP...I thought I might chime in with my two cents worth.

We currently live in a society that has a generation of youth that has grown up with the internet as a significant fixture in their lives.  There is a common perception with that generation that information on the internet is and should be free.  Now, this is not to say that this perception is right or wrong...it's just the way that it is.  Also, let me be clear that this attitude is not limited to todays youth...many today, regardless of their age/generation, share this attitude.  With that being said, if you ask the average person "Should people get paid for their work/effort?"  The general answer is going to be yes.

So how in this day and age, do you get content to the consumer and money to the producer?  That really is the million dollar question.  Some would argue that DRM is the solution, but with the Sony Rootkit debacle people have a general distrust of DRM.  In fact, DRM free music for download (through a pay service) is a value added benefit for consumers and marketed as such.  There is the RIAA/MPAA approach by going after the end-user, but this also has it's problems.  It just doesn't work. It alienates your consumer base, is bad PR, it's costly, and actually makes the people "smarter" in terms of how not to get caught.  Case in point...I work in the IT field, and I know that a person who would never download a pirated DVD/MP3 from home, because it can be traced to their IP address, will download that content from a free public WiFi hotspot without a second thought.

So what is the optimal solution?  I really don't know....if I did I'd probably be rich.  But just off the top of my head this a possible option that could work (or not):  A content provider publishes a work in two forms, one being the book for purchase at a B&M store for let's say $30, the other being a purchased legal download PDF from their site for $30.  Along with that PDF there is a coupon/certificate that the person could take, say to a Kinkos, where they could have it printed and bound.

To be honest I know nothing about the printing business....just kinda of thinking out load.

Anyway....just some thoughts about this....and really looking forward to get my hands on the books!!!


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> We live in an information age.  Many people's livelihoods are completely based on being paid to create and/or spread information.  This group includes teachers, authors, artists, musicians, doctors, accountants, programmers, analysts, and other specialists.  Obviously, they shouldn't be paid because knowledge should be free.




Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.

The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (May 29, 2008)

Xsjado said:
			
		

> I (and a lot of people) find reading huge blocks of text on a computer screen difficult and what happens when you actually need to play?




I am in the minority that actually PREFERS to read on the computer screen vs a book, assuming the copy is a good one.  I can spend hours reading websites and pdfs, whereas I get bored reading books after about an hour.

However, I will say this.  I find it a lot easier to reference stuff from a book than on a pdf.  If I know what page it is on or near, it's easier to flip through the book for me...


----------



## Dire Bare (May 29, 2008)

Silverblade The Ench said:
			
		

> Here's an idea for D&D:
> The DDI subscriber thing, why not have an additional service, say $5 a month,for free pdfs of ANY D&D product. Think about it...how many folk would sign up for that...how much revenue would it engender!



Marvel Comics has already done something similar to this.  For, I think, $10 a month you can view all of Marvel's digital titles unlimited.  They don't have all of their comics "scanned" into the system yet, but they have an impressive list of both new and old titles, and it grows daily.  I'd have signed up if I weren't a DC man myself.  The titles are viewed over the web, and can't be downloaded (unless some enterprising  hacker has already gotten past this).  I wonder how well this is working for Marvel?  I would LOVE to see something similar integrated into the D&D Insider package, it would rock!


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> As far as copyright violation, no company has actually tried to press the case _because they're afraid of the repercussions._ The cable industry spent _years_ being afraid to prosecute those who stole signal. We punished the distributors, but it didn't stop. By contrast, companies that have gone after the end-user have seen success. Not at putting those people in jail, mind you, but at _turning them into paying customers,_ or at least preventing them from stealing our signal.



RIAA?  Are you telling me that I can't find lots of music on torrents now?


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.
> 
> The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.




You can try to rationalize till you turn blue. The fact is if you have taken something without permission or paying for it, you have stolen it.


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.
> 
> The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.



Well, the effect of music downloads on sales is close to zero.  I'd expect that different segments could have other effects.


----------



## Dire Bare (May 29, 2008)

While sometimes it's fun to read all the pathetic justifications for infomation theft in these types of threads, it gets wearying after a while.  One positive of this never-ending argument is that I get a good chance to update my ignore list by perusing threads like this.

Information was meant to be free!  Uh, why?  Who says?  I think food should be free, but it isn't.  I think that no one truly should "own" land, but that's how it works anyway.


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> You can try to rationalize till you turn blue. The fact is if you have taken something without permission or paying for it, you have stolen it.




The Spanish law, among the law of most European countries, disagree with you.
I don't need permission of the owner (it's rightly specified in the laws).
And I'm not stealing something. I am not taking anything away with the use of force, the owner still has it and I got no profit intentions. 

Malraux, that line holds truth for most markets, even pharmaceutical products (says so in the study, need to research further) and for our case, books.
I know it by hand by movies and accounting products, since I've worked with both. 
Software is probably the most delicated one, especially accounting programs and Windows itself (due licenses).

Dire_Bare, thanks for making-up more stuff. Greatly appreciated.


----------



## Rykion (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.
> 
> The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.



Yes they are.  There is no difference in saying all knowlede should be free, and that we shouldn't pay people for their knowledge.  

I guarnatee that the effects of illegal downloads is far greater than near zero effect.  While someone who downloads 100 CDs of music a month wasn't going to buy all of them, they'd probably buy 5 or so.  Even if it's just a loss of 5 CD sales per year for the average downloader we're talking about millions of dollars in lost revenue.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> To steal means you take something away from someone. If I steal a car, the owner doesn't have it. If I download a song, the owner still has full powers over it. Don't forget that stealing has a profit intention (selling a car, in example). Downloading has no economical profit (if you do, then it's illegal). Downloading doesn't equal stealing.




I don't know how it works in Spain, but under U.S. law, when you buy a car (or a CD, or a book), you own the physical product. However, what you do _not_ own is the text of the book, or the song itself. Those remain the property of the artist, author, company, or whoever holds the copyright.

What you pay for is the right to use that product, in the form of a physical item. That has been legally construed to include the right to reproduce the product _for your own use_.



			
				Cirex said:
			
		

> Harvard studies, among others, reached this conclussion :
> 
> *
> 
> ...




Like I said, I don't know how it works in Spain, but what you are doing violates copyright law in the United States, where WotC is based. "Economic harm" is not a relevant criteria in assessing the violation of copyright law. It may be valid in assessing the penalty, but not the legality.

WotC owns the work in its books. You do not. Nor does someone who bought the book. As such, owning the book (or pdf) confers no right to distribute the product to others. With ONE exception. You may choose to distribute the physical product to others, by sale or gift, but only once. And you may not (legally) keep a download or scan if you do so. That is, unless you have paid WotC, or one of its authorized resellers, for said download or scan. Ditto for that person if they pass the book on.

That's the law. You may quibble with it. But that's U.S. copyright law.

To be fair, the United States has stricter rules on intellectual property than many other countries. Including Spain, apparently. Preserving ownership over what you create is intended to encourage innovation and creativity. As such, it was written into the U.S. Constitution. I take it you believe this ownership is a bad thing? Or do you just believe that illegal distribution truly has no effect?

The "they weren't going to pay anyway" argument is an awfully slippery slope, legally speaking. It can be used to justify all sorts of morally questionable behavior.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

Gargoyle said:
			
		

> People rationalize it by saying "I've got the hard copies on pre-order" or "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so they haven't lost a customer".
> 
> I believe that it's still wrong to download illegal PDFs for two reasons:
> 
> ...




Rebellion was against the law when the US broke from the UK.  Anyone involved in the underground railroad helping free slaves was breaking the law also.   While clearly this incident different.   Just because its "against the law" in no way shape or form makes it unethical.  

While the ends don't always justify the means it often does as in my slavery example.

Law does not equal morality or ethics and both morality and ethics are subjective.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> We live in an information age.  Many people's livelihoods are completely based on being paid to create and/or spread information.  This group includes teachers, authors, artists, musicians, doctors, accountants, programmers, analysts, and other specialists.  Obviously, they shouldn't be paid because knowledge should be free.




Absolutely, knowledge should be free! Anything else creates a caste system where people with money have knowledge and people without knowledge do not.

I AM a teacher. I get paid to spread knowledge. The knowledge I spread is paid for by the general public, not the recipients of the knowledge. The public has chosen to pay taxes to support the spread of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.

What if student goes home and makes a "copy" of the knowledge he learned by teaching it to his parent? That's a good thing!

Knowledge itself is free, but there needs to be an incentive for people to create or spread it. If the public stopped paying teachers, then we wouldn't teach. If the public stopped buying RPG books, then there would be no more RPGs!

The moral choice is not in "copying" knowledge, but rather in choosing to support the cost that is needed to have created it. Not everybody is going to pay for the knowledge that they've obtained, but they don't have to. Of all the people who will benefit from a knowledge or art, it only takes a much smaller portion of people to have supported its creation.


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Yes they are.  There is no difference in saying all knowlede should be free, and that we shouldn't pay people for their knowledge.
> 
> I guarnatee that the effects of illegal downloads is far greater than near zero effect.  While someone who downloads 100 CDs of music a month wasn't going to buy all of them, they'd probably buy 5 or so.  Even if it's just a loss of 5 CD sales per year for the average downloader we're talking about millions of dollars in lost revenue.




For the first part, show me the exact quote that says "I don't pay for stuff because it should be free".

For the second, prove that 5%.
Now, for the other 95%, the bands get to be more known, so, in fact, they get to sell more merchandising and concert tickets.
A quick fact -> Music CD sells decreased 0.7% last year in Spain (by any factor, actually) while concerts increased up to 45%.


----------



## pogminky (May 29, 2008)

What would happen if the powers that be decided that scanning, copying and distributing stuff entirely for free was just fine and legal?


----------



## Family (May 29, 2008)

If "we" don't purchase product, then those that do will have product cater made for them, to ensure sales.

"we" will be stuck downloading whatever the baby boomers purchase (in terms of entertainment product).

Copyright laws exist simply because intellectual property is seen as valuable.

Yes, enforcement is an issue, but it is still a risk, and immoral.

If you copy a file that you otherwise would not have bought, you are using your time and finding release in it instead of another activity, possibly one you might have paid for.

People’s jobs are on the line.

Unfortunately "we" ends up meaning millions of people, you think that "you" are not substantial. That is sad.

"you" are a sad parasite who is twisting your conscience to think your selfish immoral impact on society doesn't matter. It does.

Please contribute.

---
Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> Rebellion was against the law when the US broke from the UK.  Anyone involved in the underground railroad helping free slaves was breaking the law also.   While clearly this incident different.   Just because its "against the law" in no way shape or form makes it unethical.
> 
> While the ends don't always justify the means it often does as in my slavery example.
> 
> Law does not equal morality or ethics and both morality and ethics are subjective.



The only time revolution becomes legal is if you win. There is never any ethicality to stealing.


----------



## Korgoth (May 29, 2008)

Regardless of what anybody says, if you live in the USA and you torrent the PDFs you're committing a crime.  If you care enough, try to get the laws changed.  Until then, you're bound by them.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

SteveC said:
			
		

> There are many societies that are as near to being free of murder as any society made up of human beings can be. Once again, this is a political argument, and has no place on ENWorld.




"Near to being" is not the same as "being." There are no societies free of murder in the world. To claim otherwise is naive.



> ...and those people manage to accomplish what, exactly?




A reduction in the amount of piracy that affects our products.



> I don't know which company you work for, but I would find it extremely likely that torrents of all of their products exist despite your lawyers best efforts.




We can't prevent it, but we can stem the tide, which is what we do. Just because it's impossible to completely prevent things does not mean you should simply stop trying.



> If you work for any major software house, you're also in a position to have one or more orders of magnitude more resources available to you than WotC does.




We're not part of any big company. We're a moderate-sized developer. I'd say we probably have roughly the same legal resources available as Wizards (maybe a bit less, since they have Hasbro's backing).



> Stopping software piracy is not synonymous with defending your IP.




No, but when your IP is software, it's a huge part of it.



> Again, I seriously doubt that your company has managed to stop their products from being made available on the Internet.




Stopped? No. Reduced? Yes.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Sorry, that's not a fact. It's not even close to a true statement. It's a point so easy to take down that if I download the same copy 500 times, according to you, I have caused the loss of 500 potentially sold books.
> 
> That's false.
> 
> ...




I'd like to make a point I read on slashdot that sums up the way I feel.  There is a difference between finite and renewable resources.  Information is renewable i.e. copying doesn't degrade the original.  However, the time it takes to create that information is finite i.e. people don't live forever.  

You're not being asked to pay for information, you're being asked to pay for the time (and by extension creativity) it takes to create that information.  In that regard, illegal downloading without paying for the physical books is morally wrong since you're not paying your share of that designer's time.

The question then becomes does it really affect WotC sales significantly.  That is not so clear cut.  I do think, it's in the best interest of copyright holders to do a base level of copyright theft prevention.  Just do enough to keep the honest people honest and that's it.  It's not worth the trouble to do more then that.

Derek


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

pogminky said:
			
		

> What would happen if the powers that be decided that scanning, copying and distributing stuff entirely for free was just fine and legal?



Walmart (or other gigantic business) would crush all smaller companies under it.  Now if non-commercial copying were legal.... I doubt we'd have much of a difference between that hypothetical and now.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> Rebellion was against the law when the US broke from the UK.  Anyone involved in the underground railroad helping free slaves was breaking the law also.   While clearly this incident different.   Just because its "against the law" in no way shape or form makes it unethical.




Rebellion because of the suppression of fundamental legal rights and illegally copying and distributing someone else's property are not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even the same sport.

One is about the restoration of that which the law guarantees you, while the other is about acquiring a product through illicit means. One is a violation of the law in order to fix a deteriorating social order, while the other is about selfishness, pure and simple.


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I don't know how it works in Spain, but under U.S. law, when you buy a car (or a CD, or a book), you own the physical product. However, you do _not_ own is the text of the book, or the song itself. Those remain the property of the artist, author, company, or whoever holds the copyright.
> 
> What you pay for is the right to use that product, in the form of a physical item. That has been legally construed to include the right to reproduce the product _for your own use_.
> 
> ...




I am a Spanish citizen, so what I do from Spain is under Spanish laws. 

I know USA has stricter rules and it is NOT encouraging innovation and creativity. Copyright was born to encourage the spreading and expanding of culture. Ironic, isn't it? 

A faster and smoother expansion of culture encourages innovation and creativity. Think about how many little movie directors, music bands, unknown writers, etc. made it to the public thanks to the free expansion of culture. A few of those who discovered those little authors will have enough inspiration to create its own art, to share it with the other people, in short, to expand the culture.

How many musicians would exist if people would be allowed to just have one music CD at house? 


Family, you posted the same thing yesterday. The line "People’s jobs are on the line" makes me chuckle when I see it.
Once again, no effect on sales.

If a company closes down, it's because they had a quality/marketing issue, not due downloading.


----------



## Rykion (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> For the first part, show me the exact quote that says "I don't pay for stuff because it should be free".
> 
> For the second, prove that 5%.
> Now, for the other 95%, the bands get to be more known, so, in fact, they get to sell more merchandising and concert tickets.
> A quick fact -> Music CD sells decreased 0.7% last year in Spain (by any factor, actually) while concerts increased up to 45%.



The first part comes from my response to Novem5er who said that all knowledge should be free.

Where is your proof for less than 5%?  A Harvard study on something that would be impossible to get exacts on isn't really proof of anything.  How do you know that CD sales in Spain wouldn't have increased by 10% last year without internet pirates?


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> I am a Spanish citizen, so what I do from Spain is under Spanish laws.
> 
> I know USA has stricter rules and it is NOT encouraging innovation and creativity. Copyright was born to encourage the spreading and expanding of culture. Ironic, isn't it?
> 
> A faster and smoother expansion of culture encourages innovation and creativity. Think about how many little movie directors, music bands, unknown writers, etc. made it to the public thanks to the free expansion of culture. A few of those who discovered those little authors will have enough inspiration to create its own art, to share it with the other people, in short, to expand the culture.




You know, I dont recall ever reading anything from spain. Or buying any products from there. Or music....
Or anything really. Britain yes, Germany, even belgium. But not spain... Odd really. What is spain known for? Seriously this isnt a snyde remark, but what do you really export to the US?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (May 29, 2008)

Xsjado said:
			
		

> Did they ever put out legal pdfs in the first place?



Yes, quite a few of them. Check RPGNow.com and other vendors.


----------



## TheWyrd (May 29, 2008)

I'm a PDF addict. I have my entire collection of M&M on PDF on my hard drive. All purchased quite legally I might add. WotC would get lots of my money if they put out D&D 4e the same way.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> The only time revolution becomes legal is if you win. There is never any ethicality to stealing.




Warlock you talk in a lot of absolutes.  If I needed to steal to survive (clearly not the case here but to your point) I would certainly do so and I wouldn't feel bad about it at all.   If I "stole" slaves from someone who legally owned them (in order to free them) are you saying that the slave owner has the moral high ground above me, the thief?


----------



## Korgoth (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> Rebellion was against the law when the US broke from the UK.  Anyone involved in the underground railroad helping free slaves was breaking the law also.   While clearly this incident different.   Just because its "against the law" in no way shape or form makes it unethical.
> 
> While the ends don't always justify the means it often does as in my slavery example.
> 
> Law does not equal morality or ethics and both morality and ethics are subjective.




Wait, so people who steal the D&D books are some combination of George Washington and Harriet Tubman?    

It was morally right to support the underground railroad because slavery was an unjust law.  Anti-piracy laws are not unjust.  Being a buzzkill is not unjust.

Maybe I decide that I should be allowed to steal cars from a car dealership and take them around on joyrides.  Maybe I even decide to leave money for gas and mileage at the dealership when I'm done.  It's still Grand Theft Auto because I took their property against their will and because that's what the law says it is.

Also, morality and ethics are not subjective.  If someone walks up and kicks you in the groin, you're outraged because although you were innocent of any wrongdoing someone inflicted physical pain and harm upon you.  He didn't subjectively wrong you, he objectively wronged you.  If someone murders six million Jews he isn't subjectively a monster, he's objectively a monster because everyone who doesn't possess mental illness is able to understand that genocide is wrong (those who do it may not admit that it's wrong, but of course they know it).


----------



## Rykion (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> I AM a teacher. I get paid to spread knowledge. The knowledge I spread is paid for by the general public, not the recipients of the knowledge. The public has chosen to pay taxes to support the spread of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.



How would you feel if you found out somebody recorded all your classes without your permission and put them on the internet?  What if the school district decided to fire you and just played those videos to the next year's students?  You are being paid for your knowledge, and you are not distributing it for free.

Edit:  And the public is paying for the knowledge itself.  If you aren't teaching the specific information for a child in the correct grade, you probably won't be a teacher for long.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> Absolutely, knowledge should be free!




I often see the "Information should be/wants to be free" argument when we're talking about *someone else's information and property*. I'd like to see proponents of this policy post their personal and financial information in a public fashion. Such disclosure would show more sincerity than hiding behind internet anonymity.


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

I'm sorry, forums are a bit slow for me and I can't answer to everybody. By when I have published one reply, I got 3 more to write...



			
				pogminky said:
			
		

> What would happen if the powers that be decided that scanning, copying and distributing stuff entirely for free was just fine and legal?




Like in most European countries? It's going fine. Some companies are in denial and refuse to change their habits. Their loss. It's a lost battle.
Some others are taking alternative methods and they are going fine. Little music bands or independant cinema are enjoying their new life. Everything is ok at this side of the Ocean.



			
				Rykion said:
			
		

> The first part comes from my response to Novem5er who said that all knowledge should be free.
> 
> Where is your proof for less than 5%?  A Harvard study on something that would be impossible to get exacts on isn't really proof of anything.  How do you know that CD sales in Spain wouldn't have increased by 10% last year without internet pirates?




Well, maybe he was inspired by the "Knowledge, like air, shouldn't be denied to anyone" line, but that's just an exception. As for myself, if I got to buy a book, I buy it, no problem. I got 4e preordered, I buy RA Salvatore books and books about economy, accounting, etc. 
I downloaded the pdf of a book called "Copy this book", which uses Creative Common license, and you know what? I'm going to buy it soon! I want to carry it and mark some important lines on it.

The Harvard study is the first of many, as they even say. No other group of people dared to try it.

I like to put small bands as example. I listen to Melodic Death Metal, and in all seriousness, I wouldn't know who Insomnium, Before the Dawn or Dark Tranquility are if it wasn't for free downloads (and the wikipedia). Now I got t-shirts of all of them and I be damned that I was too slow to buy the Wacken festival tickets.

That money, from merchandising and tickets, go straight to their funds, while if they sell CDs, they only receive 3-10% of the money from each CD. I really don't know who is the thief here...


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

DerekSTheRed said:
			
		

> You're not be asked to pay for information, you're being asked to pay for the time (and by extension creativity) it takes to create that information.  In that regard, illegal downloading without paying for the physical books is morally wrong since you're not paying your share of that designer's time.
> 
> Derek




Exactly! But does every player around the table have to purchase their own set of books in order to be "supporting" the creators? Of course not. But where is the line? If I buy all three core books and run a game with 5 players (who haven't bought any books), then is this okay?

What if I run 2 different campaigns with different players and NONE of them have bought the books? Is this okay?

My point is that X number of people who purchase any information will result in X + Y number of people accessing that same information. Every company knows this and it's always been that way. They key is to make sure that X number of people still buy books. Thus, the act of downloading or copying is really mute, as long as X people purchase the product.

Anything else is just a measure of profit. Wouldn't it be MORE profitable if EVERYBODY playing HAD to buy their own books? There are extremes on both ends... Nobody buys books (0 profit and company fails) and EVERYBODY buys books (max profit). The reality is in-between and it always has been.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> Warlock you talk in a lot of absolutes.  If I needed to steal to survive (clearly not the case here but to your point) I would certainly do so and I wouldn't feel bad about it at all.   If I "stole" slaves from someone who legally owned them (in order to free them) are you saying that the slave owner has the moral high ground above me, the thief?



Of course! I'm a sith!   

As for the needing to survive, youll find there is a common law exception in most parts. But if you need to steal to survive, your ignoring a lot of other avenues of food. As for slaves, slavery is illegal. So its a moot point. You cant legally own a slave in the US.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Rebellion because of the suppression of fundamental legal rights and illegally copying and distributing someone else's property are not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even the same sport.
> 
> One is about the restoration of that which the law guarantees you, while the other is about acquiring a product through illicit means. One is a violation of the law in order to fix a deteriorating social order, while the other is about selfishness, pure and simple.




So lets say for the sake of argument that an industry was colluding to fix prices.  Lets say on some staple like bread.  At what point am I justified in stealing?  Is it at any point before I die of starvation?

I would also have to ask you if I have the books and I make PDF's for my own personal use and never distribute them am I still in the wrong?  The RIAA says yes if you pay for a CD you get the CD, not anything else for any reason, broke your CD with no copies to bad buy a new one.

The MPAA says that everyone in a room watching a movie should own a copy of the movie in order to legally be able to watch it.  Wanna get the finding Nemo for your kids? Better buy one copy for each kid, one for yourself and one for your wife.


----------



## malraux (May 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I often see the "Information should be/wants to be free" argument when we're talking about *someone else's information and property*. I'd like to see proponents of this policy post their personal and financial information in a public fashion. Such disclosure would show more sincerity than hiding behind internet anonymity.



In defense of the "Info should be free" claim, the constitution is clear that it should be free.... eventually.  Copyright is supposed to exist only for a limited time to give the creator a chance to make a buck then open it up so that someone else can build upon the idea.


----------



## vagabundo (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.




This. Most people downloading the books probably already have them on pre-order and are very unlikely to cancel it becuase of the download.

From a practical POV, who is going to print a 1000 pages? How much would it cost on a home printer. 

Anyway, aside from WOTC probably expecting this, I dont think it will ruin the offical launch. 

Back to business as usual, so what about those badge minions...


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> So lets say for the sake of argument that an industry was colluding to fix prices.  Lets say on some staple like bread.  At what point am I justified in stealing?  Is it at any point before I die of starvation?
> 
> I would also have to ask you if I have the books and I make PDF's for my own personal use and never distribute them am I still in the wrong?  The RIAA says yes if you pay for a CD you get the CD, not anything else for any reason, broke your CD with no copies to bad buy a new one.
> 
> The MPAA says that everyone in a room watching a movie should own a copy of the movie in order to legally be able to watch it.  Wanna get the finding Nemo for your kids? Better buy one copy for each kid, one for yourself and one for your wife.




I have to say it! *french accent* Let them eat cake!

Ok that being over. You deal with a lot of what ifs and not what ares. Please give something relevant to today.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 29, 2008)

I, for one, long since stopped caring if people pirated PDFs of products I wrote. 

Wolfgang Baur uses a ransom model, where he only actually releases the work he has written once a certain amount of money has been paid. He releases some free content to raise interest, then raises money to make writing worth his while.

WotC is part of Hasbro, and is probably too corporate to change their thought processes enough to make that work. Plus they have a business cycle they have to keep with, so their quarterly profits are high enough. However, they are doing more than just releasing books. They've also got minis, maps, online programs (theoretically) -- all things that you can't just 'pirate.'

I do wish WotC had put PDFs of their books on sale. I know a fair number of people would have actually paid for it. A lot would pirate it, sure, but I figure in any given gaming group, at least one player will buy a physical copy to make playing the game easier.

If they could have sold the books by PDF, and if the Digital Initiative was already up and running, I think WotC could have really profited. As some people have pointed out, a lot of folks online just expect to be able to get stuff for free. You can fight this, but I suspect we've tilted too far, and society is just changing.

So you don't fight it. You find other things to sell people: services (DI) and physical objects (minis and maps).

Even if some people just pirate 4e and play it without buying the books, I imagine a fair number of them will still buy minis and maps. WotC still gets to move product. The game just becomes a big advertising campaign for the real product: the minis and maps. Just like cartoons for the longest time have just been ads for toys.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> Of course! I'm a sith!
> 
> As for the needing to survive, youll find there is a common law exception in most parts. But if you need to steal to survive, your ignoring a lot of other avenues of food. As for slaves, slavery is illegal. So its a moot point. You cant legally own a slave in the US.




So if it was legal it would all be hunky dory in your book?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying the cross."- Sinclair Lewis


----------



## Westwind (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> For the first part, show me the exact quote that says "I don't pay for stuff because it should be free".
> 
> For the second, prove that 5%.
> Now, for the other 95%, the bands get to be more known, so, in fact, they get to sell more merchandising and concert tickets.
> A quick fact -> Music CD sells decreased 0.7% last year in Spain (by any factor, actually) while concerts increased up to 45%.




For comparison's sake, album sales in the States have dropped more than 25% over the last two years.  Obviously, this number is somewhat offset by an increase in legit digital sales, but it's still a net loss for the industry.  DVD sales dropped roughly 2% last year, which may seem like a small number but when you consider the amazing rate of growth that sector was showing not too long ago, it's a jarring change in direction.  Some of the album sales decline can probably be attributed to a lackluster product--there hasn't been a "mega" album for awhile now.  But Ashley Simpson only explains some of the decline.

Also, for the sake of academic honesty, the Harvard/UNC study is at odds with various other studies (no shock there), including Edison Research, U. Texas, and Forrester.

Finally, for what it's worth, the guy who came up with the idea of indirect appropriability (aka when piracy generates revenue for the company) admits that it's just a theoretical state that will never actually see the light of day.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> How would you feel if you found out somebody recorded all your classes without your permission and put them on the internet?  What if the school district decided to fire you and just played those videos to the next year's students?  You are being paid for your knowledge, and you are not distributing it for free.




I would not like to be fired. Being fired would be tantamount to the public no longer paying me for spreading my knowledge. I would suffer, but so too would the public and the kids I teach. Why?

-Videos cannot answer questions.
-Videos cannot expand ideas beyond the recording.
-Videos cannot collect and gather NEW knowledge.
-Videos cannot monitor classroom behavior.
-Videos cannot nurture the social interaction between humans.

People would be welcome to tape my lessons and post them online, as long as I still got paid to teach them. My point is that knowledge requires SOME people to pay for its creation and distribution, but everyone who accesses that knowledge does not need to pay to do so.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> I often see the "Information should be/wants to be free" argument when we're talking about *someone else's information and property*. I'd like to see proponents of this policy post their personal and financial information in a public fashion. Such disclosure would show more sincerity than hiding behind internet anonymity.




There's a difference between information that _should_ be confidential and information that you intend to make public. The "information should be free" crowd is saying that about information intended to be presented in the public, not personal or confidential information.


----------



## The_Fan (May 29, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> This. Most people downloading the books probably already have them on pre-order and are very unlikely to cancel it becuase of the download.
> 
> From a practical POV, who is going to print a 1000 pages? How much would it cost on a home printer.
> 
> ...



 I know someone who is printing it out, but that's because he works at a print shop and can do it for free. He also has it on preorder.

I'll repost my opinion, since it seems to have been drowned out in the shouting:

I have no small gameshop. None. At all. Not "in the next city over." Try "the next continent over." I would have to swim across the bleedin' Pacific Ocean to find the nearest game shop.

As such, "supporting the little guy" is a moot point to me. It simply does not apply. And given that I'm overseas, I likely will not see my (preordered 3 months ago) books until at LEAST a week after the street date. And that's if for some bizarre reason customs doesn't decide to hold on to my package for an extra month in the interest of national security, like they did my _birthday cake._*

In my case, is it unethical to download the pdfs?

*Not bitter at all.


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I
> I do wish WotC had put PDFs of their books on sale. I know a fair number of people would have actually paid for it. A lot would pirate it, sure, but I figure in any given gaming group, at least one player will buy a physical copy to make playing the game easier.
> 
> .



Um they have been for quite some time....


----------



## Cirex (May 29, 2008)

Westwind said:
			
		

> For comparison's sake, album sales in the States have dropped more than 25% over the last two years.  Obviously, this number is somewhat offset by an increase in legit digital sales, but it's still a net loss for the industry.  DVD sales dropped roughly 2% last year, which may seem like a small number but when you consider the amazing rate of growth that sector was showing not too long ago, it's a jarring change in direction.  Some of the album sales decline can probably be attributed to a lackluster product--there hasn't been a "mega" album for awhile now.  But Ashley Simpson only explains some of the decline.




Let's ASSUME that the 25% is caused, enterily, by downloading. Isn't it weird that the country with the most (we compare USA with Europe now) restrictive laws is the one suffering more from free downloading? 

USA is also facing an economical crisis...and that affects it. But it's easier to blame "internet thieves".
I really need to go. I would love to keep discussing it, since civil discussion is great for idea reviewing and so on.

Creative Commons is the way to go. Future will prove me, and over 150 million people, right.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> Exactly! But does every player around the table have to purchase their own set of books in order to be "supporting" the creators? Of course not. But where is the line?




You're engaging in an act of logical sophistry by talking about the difference between 1 person benefitting from a product and 10 people benefitting from the product. Since it's hard to say where you "draw the line" in that case, you're arguing that it's hard to say where to draw the line period.

To which I say: rubbish!

At the point at which you post a product online for anyone to use, we're not talking about the difference between 1 and 10 people benefitting. We're talking about the difference between 1 and THOUSANDS. At that point, I think we'd all agree that whatever line there is has been crossed.

Or are you telling me that it's "fair" for 9000 people to use the product as long as one of them paid for it? Really? _Really?!_

Under what theory is this right? I suppose the idea is that none of those 9000 would have paid for it, and so you're not actually costing anyone anything. And you know this for a fact, do you? Fine. Prove it and you won't go to jail.

Sorry, but people are just bending over backwards to try to find some justification for unethical behavior. And the point at which someone is trying to equate stealing music with freeing slaves, I think we're awfully close to Godwin's Law.


----------



## RangerWickett (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> Um they have been for quite some time....




I meant the 4e pdfs. The books are finished; the pdfs of them should be on sale. I'm not a fan of 'street dates.'


----------



## Family (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Future will prove me...right.



Disagree.


---
Mal: "Woman, you are completely off your nut."


----------



## Rykion (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> My point is that knowledge requires SOME people to pay for its creation and distribution, but everyone who accesses that knowledge does not need to pay to do so.



The number of people who would pay to create and distribute information for free is pretty small.  The quality of the vast majority of the work would be amateur    when compared to the quality of work people actually pay for.  Go to any free art website and you'll see dozens of poor artists for each good artist.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I, for one, long since stopped caring if people pirated PDFs of products I wrote.
> 
> Wolfgang Baur uses a ransom model, where he only actually releases the work he has written once a certain amount of money has been paid. He releases some free content to raise interest, then raises money to make writing worth his while.
> 
> ...




Thank you! I made the point a few pages ago that the books are just PART of the D&D revenue stream. Now we have DDI, separate books with "core material" in them (Frost Giants, anyone?), miniatures, and maps. D&D (Gygax, TSR, WotC) have NEVER had a business model where every player had to purchase their books, as they've found out that the more people who "play", the more books they actually sell.

The vast majority of people like owning stuff!

I'm also an aspiring author. Of course, I want people to buy my book!!! But do I expect every person who ever reads it to have paid me for that pleasure?! No... it would just be greedy to assume this was how things are supposed to be. Obviously, if a significant portion of readers only read "copied" versions of my book, I'd be a little pissed. But guess what? Fans of mine (I can only wish to have fans one day) are GOING to buy the book because they know that, if they don't, there won't be a second one.

And guess what? As an artist, I'd rather give my work away FREE to a million people than require EVERY reader to have legally purchased a copy. That situation reeks of thought-police and big brother on a corporate scale.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> I am a Spanish citizen, so what I do from Spain is under Spanish laws.
> 
> I know USA has stricter rules and it is NOT encouraging innovation and creativity. Copyright was born to encourage the spreading and expanding of culture. Ironic, isn't it?




Actually, by treaty I believe, copyright law is governed by the country where the copyright is held. That's why a lot of technical and scientific journals are published out of Switzerland, where the copyright law is stricter on fair use than it is in the US.

In fact, fair use is one area where US copyright law shines compared to many others. Our definition of that is pretty broad and designed to enable review, parody, and education. And it works quite well for that.

The problem with intellectual property laws, in the US at least, is their relationships with corporations. IP laws designed to protect an author's (or creator's) right to profit from the work can have the effect of suppressing creativity that they weren't originally intended to have because large corporations have longevity and political influence far beyond that of small publishers and individual authors. Mickey Mouse should have been public domain by now but the Disney Corporation and a compliant congress have extended the IP laws so that Disney can retain exclusive control of their signature icon. And they'll probably extended it again right before he comes up for public domain, all of this long after the Mouse's creator is long dead.


----------



## Vorhaart (May 29, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Actually, no, you don't.
> 
> Legally, the company you paid for has an obligation to ship you the product by a given date; if they fail to meet that obligation, you have the legal right to demand your money back. There's no law I know of which states, "If you pre-order a book, the minute you pay you're entitled to aquire it by any means." Please remember, the people you bought the book from aren't the copyright holders. You may have bought the books from Amazon, but when you download them, you violate the copyrights held by WOTC. How does your purchase from Amazon give you legal authority to violate WOTC's copyrights?




I agree, such a law would likely be almost impossible to enforce in any practical manner. However, downloading electronic versions of the books that you own the physical copyright to is a sticky legal issue. For the uninitiated, it is known as _format shift_ or _fair use_ ; the same loophole that lets you copy music you have on CD to an MP3 player. Or record TV programs to a VCR/DVR. 



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Perhaps I am ignorant of current jurisprudence on this matter. Links to relevant legal citations? I eagerly await the appropriate documentation for your interpretation of the law.




Actually, I am probably ignorant of current jurisprudence as well.    As I search for some appropriate material, can you provide any that supports your own interpretation? Until we have some solid legal ground, I doubt we can get any useful dialogue going. Things seems to be devolving into more of a shouting match right now....

As I understand it though, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, copyright law in the US extends only as far as preventing distribution or displaying for-profit; merely obtaining something you own in a different media is not strictly illegal. So far, I attempting to slog my way through Section 107: Fair Use of the US Copyright Law. Can anyone provide courtroom examples?

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

In particular, note: "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, I'll have to put this in the same category as the "My lousy boss doesn't pay me enough, so it's alright to shoplift" legal theory. (A close cousin to "They have insurance, so, it's not really hurting anyone" and "Those big companies have more money than they need, anyway.")




Not to antagonize, but that's VERY much a strawman argument you have going right there. Nothing I said was even remotely similar to this. There is a very real and substantial difference between format shift and outright theft.

Also, to those accusing me of criminal behaviour and making generally insulting remarks (no names but you know who you are), I'd like to point out that no, I haven't downloaded the books and have no intention to. I'm presenting a scenario and making an argument for why it may not be "wrong". Nothing more.



			
				warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> The key phrase here is PREordered. It hasnt officially been released. Therefore, no, noone was really supposed to see it before the 6th. Just be patient.




Exactly. Patience is a virtue. I've got plenty to occupy the time, I'm just thinking out loud.


----------



## mattdm (May 29, 2008)

Blacksmithking said:
			
		

> I think people are tilting at a windmill. I don't think PDF versions of the books will hurt WotC's sales.




Bingo.

Amazon sales rank (in all books) for the core gift set before the leaked PDFs appeared: #7. Today: #5.

This was going to happen eventually (what with it being the 21st century and all), although the amount of time before the release date was a surprise.

How should WotC react? They should go back to the expressed plan of offering PDF editions of the book to anyone who has a hard copy for a couple of bucks. I'd pay it without blinking.

If you want PDFs alone with no printed books, say 75% of the cover price. I'd totally pay that for DM-oriented supplements where I prefer an electronic form anyway. (But D&DI is no good because, 1) no net on the MBTA and 2) goes away when you stop paying.)


----------



## Lizard (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> People would be welcome to tape my lessons and post them online, as long as I still got paid to teach them. My point is that knowledge requires SOME people to pay for its creation and distribution, but everyone who accesses that knowledge does not need to pay to do so.




How do you propose we decide which poor sucker gets stuck with the bill?

History shows that when everyone gets the benefit but only some do the work, eventually, the hard workers catch on that they're being scammed, and stop working so hard. This is why communism, whether on the large scale of the USSR or the small scale of hippie communes, collapses. This is why kibbutzes have gone toward market systems. 

So a system based on some people paying while the majority doesn't will sputter along for a while, based on inertia, but one by one, the payers decide that they're tired of supporting the non-payers and drop out, or, more often, decide "I've paid enough -- someone else's turn!" and become non-payers. Then the pressure on the remaining payers increase, so they're more likely to drop out, and the cycle collapses. 

We are in the VERY early part of the cycle -- there's still dupes out there who feel like they're being noble and heroic when they support an artist, even though others just take the work for free. They feel, "Hey, I'll pay for this book now, and someone else will pay for the next book, the writer makes enough to live off, and everyone's happy!" But with each iteration, more leech and fewer pay. The writer has less time to write because he needs to earn money from other projects. The people who supported him feel disgruntled because they were buying, in part, his future productivity. So with less promise of more material to come, they are less likely to pay for what IS produced, and, also, when there's a lot of existing material, people newly aware of the artists are more likely to consume what's already out there for "free" instead of paying for the new material when it's released.

Look at early factory productivity in the USSR, or the way kibbutzes worked in the first generation of Israel's existence, or the way most communes and utopian communities in America started (and this goes back to the 19th century, the hippies were followers and copycats). Then look at how they worked a decade, two decades, a generation later. Same pattern, over and over. We're in a real "up" part of the "free" content cycle. The crash is coming.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (May 29, 2008)

Dire Bare said:
			
		

> Marvel Comics has already done something similar to this.  For, I think, $10 a month you can view all of Marvel's digital titles unlimited.  They don't have all of their comics "scanned" into the system yet, but they have an impressive list of both new and old titles, and it grows daily.  I'd have signed up if I weren't a DC man myself.  The titles are viewed over the web, and can't be downloaded (unless some enterprising  hacker has already gotten past this).  I wonder how well this is working for Marvel?  I would LOVE to see something similar integrated into the D&D Insider package, it would rock!





SImple answer to all this, isn't it? 


For those who are big against anti-piracy, to the point they'd jail folk who aren't _selling _ downloaded stuff (selling is, IMHO another matter), think on this:

Star Trek "replicators" were thought of as things not to be seen for centuries, or a joke, right?
yet today we've already got computer displays, voices and communicators as science fact, as Star Trek predicted (sort of).
By end of this century, we could have replicators.

Ever seen a 3d printer work? A design in digital 3d is used to make an object, say a car prototype model for wind tunnel testing. Initially incredibly expensive, improved technology has reduced prices, improved quality, I could now make a 3D model in Rhino, send it away, get a solid object back in a week for $150.
That's just plastic though.

By end of the century, you could have nano-replictors in your house.
You'd buy "designs", say, for your TV, no longer would you waste effort, fuel, warehouse space with goods, you'd just have raw materials and a machine that turns blueprints into finished goods, for real.

What does this mean for copyright?

Ok, if you go by the insane and sometimes illegal EULAs attached to software (go check them!), you, a real human being, would own NOTHING, all your stuff would be "licensed to you" by the blueprint maker..seriously, that's what they'd try and do, going by today's laws.

So, Human Beings would own nothing, corporations would own everything, _you would exist on their sufferance._

Anyone think that's "good" ?
Hence we need ot trash our current ideas on copyright and IP, and come up with something much better, before we end up in trouble by sticking to foolish, old ideas.

_You cannot own electrons or ideas_, but folk deserve respect and payment for their work. Corporations are not real, I've never _ever _ met one, they don't exist, they should never ever have rights beyond a Human Being.
Thus copyright, IP should be limited to actual people, NEVER ficticious business entities, and for a specific, short time, depending on nature of item.
More folk involved = less time copyright lasts, as it cannot be one person's sole effort in that case, their sole income.

I'd suggest something like 2 years for therapeutic drugs, but there after, for their natural lifespans, original creators still get some royalties. Drugs are too vital to let folk contorl them, it's life or death. Make the researchers get well paid, not the damned pharma companies.

Print 15 years for group, 30 years for individual, there after, they must always get a minimal royalty for any item sold, for their life times. Point being, to encourage use of their work, by preventing total domination of selling (by a publisher who may actually greatly reduce what the artist could earn), but ALWAYS respecting their effort.
better to make 1% of a million sales, than 10% of 10,000!

Or some such system. What we have now is actually _dangerous _ , the RIAA and manipulations of the USA government by lobbyists for copyright groups, show this very serious danger to civil liberties.
Copying a book or music for non-profit use, sans national security, should NEVER get you jailed for goodness sake!

_Encourage _ folk to buy pdfs instead, sell them cheap, it's only electrons and server maintenance for goodness sake, not very heavy books (requiring logging, bleaching, printing etc). Folk know that anyone selling a pdf at same price as a book is ripping them off, it's common sense, thus, they get angry: so don't do it! Sell pdfs cheap

Encourage honest, paying users, don't criminalize folk or get dangerously greedy. The Internet = vaslty greater opportuinities for sale and higher profit margins by/for artists _themselves_, big companies don't want that!


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2008)

Westwind said:
			
		

> DVD sales dropped roughly 2% last year, which may seem like a small number but when you consider the amazing rate of growth that sector was showing not too long ago, it's a jarring change in direction.




Do the DVD sales figures include HD and Blu-ray sales? If they don't, the growth of those two formats (and now just growth of Blu-ray) could account for the change. What evidence was presented that digital piracy was the cause of the decline?


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> The problem with intellectual property laws, in the US at least, is their relationships with corporations. IP laws designed to protect an author's (or creator's) right to profit from the work can have the effect of suppressing creativity that they weren't originally intended to have because large corporations have longevity and political influence far beyond that of small publishers and individual authors. Mickey Mouse should have been public domain by now but the Disney Corporation and a compliant congress have extended the IP laws so that Disney can retain exclusive control of their signature icon. And they'll probably extended it again right before he comes up for public domain, all of this long after the Mouse's creator is long dead.




This is horribly off-topic, but a fair number of legal problems were created by the Courts ruling that Corporations counted as "individuals" (including all the rights thereof) for legal purposes.

Corporations, which have no natural expiration date (unlike, say people), aren't subject to many of the "controls" that govern individual property, like inheritance tax and the like. However, they benefit from all the rights. This creates a skewed situation in many areas, not just intellectual property law.

Whether (or when) this will be altered, I have no idea.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> You're engaging in an act of logical sophistry by talking about the difference between 1 person benefitting from a product and 10 people benefitting from the product. Since it's hard to say where you "draw the line" in that case, you're arguing that it's hard to say where to draw the line period.
> 
> To which I say: rubbish!
> 
> ...




JohnSnow, I accept your opinion and I always value your posts. No hard feelings, on my part, for any of this.

That said, I think you're arguing against yourself now. You say it's okay to copy a couple pages or to let a few people benefit without having paid for it . . .  because it's not hurting anyone? But you're saying that 9,000 downloads is NOT okay because . . . it surely IS hurting someone?  You put that burden of proof on me, but isn't it the prosecution's job to provide evidence of guilt?

What if 9,000 downloads also meant 9,000 purchased core books? What if people who downloaded, out of curiosity, were never going to purchase it at all? How does one prove that downloads hurt sales by claiming it hurt "potential" sales?

No, if you read my other posts, I'm not claiming that we just spread free RPG books around the net, nor any other form of knowledge. What I'm saying is that any source of knowledge HAS to be financially supported, but by far fewer people than the number that actually benefit from that knowledge.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 29, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Anti-piracy laws are not unjust.  Being a buzzkill is not unjust.




It is many people's views, including mine, that the intellectual property laws in America are very unjust.  They exist to enslave the creators, inventors, musicians and artists, exploit the consumer and protect the rights of the distributors.  The creator doesn't own the property created, the company that distributes the property owns it.  The creator has to actually give up their rights to it to the company that has print facilities and a distribution network.  Ideas, information and art should belong to everyone, not to the distribution companies.  

It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create.  You can create whatever you want.  But if you want to actually make a living or have your work seen or heard (you know, in the sense that art elevates all of humanity), you have to sell your soul to some company who then owns the work you produce

User to user distribution is an expression of that viewpoint.  Sure, most of the people who actually use such services to "get free stuff" don't think about that or care.  But those who invented, support, and disseminate the technologies that make such networks viable very often do.  

Funny how anyone who makes the claim "stealing is stealing" in regards to this issue never seems to consider the grossly inflated profits of the distribution companies that put out movies, music, video games, etc., to be theft.

That brings us to another ridiculous statement - 



> Also, morality and ethics are not subjective.




Of course they are.  They can't be any other way.  Subjectivity means that something is relative to the way it is perceived.  Objective means that something is what something is, without the filer of perception.  Morality is entirely an invention of humanity and cannot be viewed outside of that context.  Therefore it is entirely subjective.  Yes, we can all agree Hitler = bad.  That doesn't make it objective.  And no, Hitler didn't agree that Hitler = bad.  Many of the Nazis working the camps didn't agree that what they were doing was bad.  They felt it was justified.  Just as there are many people today who feel it would be justified to exterminate all muslims.  MOST of the world agrees that such a thing would be wrong, and not only wrong, but purely evil.  But it is still, and can only be, a subjective evaluation.  

Subjectively, many people view our archaic notions of property rights to be a moral evil.  Like I said, I do.  I want to see the people, the "consumers" (I hate that term) empowered - not the owner caste who want to control, exploit and profit from what everyone even reads, sees, hears, and enjoys.    

(All that said, our hobby is different.  Gamers make the products, gamers run the stores, gamers work and run the companies involved.  It all kicks up to corporate overlords like Hasbro, sure, but the profits are a lot more slim than, say, the runaway gouging that takes place in music sales for example.  If you play the game, support the game.  If you use the services of a local game store, support the local game store.  Paying for our D&D books comes pretty close to directly paying the creators of the works that we enjoy.  The gaming market is one that is small enough, and specialized enough that the consumers really do exercise a degree of control on the market, rather than the Owner Caste.  So support that, it's a rare thing in a real world capitalist market.)

-puts soapbox back in closet, goes back to reading .pdfs-


----------



## The Sword 88 (May 29, 2008)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> pdfs suck as game books.  At best, you can preview a book with an illege pdf before ordering it online, but pdfs suck as game books and I can't imagine using one.




The previewing is the primary advantage.  I always buy a book I want and only play with stuff out of books that I or one of the guys in my group owns but I do like to look through a book first to see if it has anything I want in it that way I don't end up throwing away money on a book that I will never use.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> It is many people's views, including mine, that the intellectual property laws in America are very unjust.  They exist to enslave the creators, inventors, musicians and artists, exploit the consumer and protect the rights of the distributors.  The creator doesn't own the property created, the company that distributes the property owns it.  The creator has to actually give up their rights to it to the company that has print facilities and a distribution network.  Ideas, information and art should belong to everyone, not to the distribution companies.




I do not believe this is a problem with IP law. This is a problem with contracts and corporate capitalism. The only way to see any significant and lucrative distribution of your work is to sell off the bulk of the profit to a corporation with the capacity to produce, distribute, and promote it.
Not all corporations work or have to work like this, but you'll generally find the ones that work more equitably with their talent are a heck of a lot smaller and personal and less profitable.


----------



## Westwind (May 29, 2008)

Cirex said:
			
		

> Let's ASSUME that the 25% is caused, enterily, by downloading. Isn't it weird that the country with the most (we compare USA with Europe now) restrictive laws is the one suffering more from free downloading?
> 
> USA is also facing an economical crisis...and that affects it. But it's easier to blame "internet thieves".
> I really need to go. I would love to keep discussing it, since civil discussion is great for idea reviewing and so on.
> ...




I'd like to think I'm balanced on this issue--and I'll happily concede that piracy isn't responsible for even half that decline.  And obvious, any consumer industry is going to get hurt when disposable income declines, although the record industry's decline predates America's economic woes.  I haven't found any study (probably since the control group is so small) but I'd be very interested to see the market-specific impact of piracy.  If 5.5% (getting that number from the Edison study) of lost record sales are due to piracy, it's a big hit but one a healthy record industry could absorb and, with creative marketing, adapt to--all that's lacking at the moment is a healthy record industry.  However, the book market is a very different animal than the media market in terms of margins, etc.  On top of that, the role-playing market is not huge, so it's less able to absorb any sort of hit.

Here's a somewhat extreme example to illustrate the point:

Author A writes a book called "Trains."  Nice pictures, good book.  It gets pirated.  I'm willing to bet that it won't make a huge dent in overall train book sales since there are a ton of books in the marketplace about trains and, within the category of trains, a lot of people have different tastes.

Author B writes a book called "Great Finnish Holiday Food."  It gets pirated.  Now, before this book was written there was no such thing as great Finnish holiday food (I should know, I'm a Finn--I have a recipe that involves putting a whole fish inside a loaf of bread, no joke) so if you want to know anything about this topic, you're essentially forced to buy the book.  As soon as this is pirated, you're going to see a much bigger decline in the genre's sales in relative terms than you would with Author A's book.

The RPG market is not a big one and I'm inclined to believe it would be more vulnerable to revenue loss than, say, historical fiction.  On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.


----------



## LowSpine (May 29, 2008)

I am not going into moral issues. Companies only care about moral issues when they are using them to sue in court. Companies only care about money and sales so that is the theme of my arguments.

Companies get funny about illegal downloads because they think that if those downloads did not exist their sales would increase and they would get more money(it is nothing to do with the moral issues.)

This is true to a tiny extent. There is a very small minority of people so tight fisted that they will now not buy a legal copy purely because they have a free pdf. 

These are the kind of people who would write out the rules on the back of used envelopes and wrapping paper rather than spend a penny if they did not have to. These people are very very few.

Most of the people who have a pdf and are not going to buy the books were not going to buy the books anyway - pdf or not. They only have the game because it is free and if it wasn't they would just shrug and do something else. (These people are not reducing sales but are creating more players or DMs potentially improving sales)

Some with the pdf will not buy the books because they have decided they do not like the game. This is only the same as checking out a friend's book or a book in the shop and putting it back. These people will probably just delete the pdf anyway. (Not reducing sales much - a little because someone has not wasted their money on something they were going to put in the bin or give to someone else.)

Some people with the pdf that will not buy the books wont purely because they cannot afford to. Maybe in the future they will. Either way - no money - no buyey. (No sales loss.)

Some people will look at the pdfs and think 'Oh nice - I didn't know I would think this was so cool. I'll have to buy these.' (Sales increase.)

3.5 had loads of pdfs and sold very very well. If the companies made out any different it was because they wanted even more, unless they were some of those splat books that were only good enough for toilet paper - in which case boo hoo.

My point is IMHO the sales will not be affected much. The core 3 definitely not. Everyone who really cares about D&D really wants those books and stuff an eye bleeding pdf that would cost 10 times normal cost to print out a really crap pile of wrinkly, smudged, one sided A4s.

Later books will depend on the quality - but that is their problem. Put the work in to something worth owning and they will buy them.

*I'd just like to say I have pdfs of the Wizard's Presents books. I also bought the Wizard's presents books for the sake of physical and digital collecting purposes. These are the most pointless books ever but I got a little out of them and had enough money to not mind paying for them. The same will happen with the new books when amazon pulls their finger out.


----------



## billd91 (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> This is horribly off-topic, but a fair number of legal problems were created by the Courts ruling that Corporations counted as "individuals" (including all the rights thereof) for legal purposes.
> 
> Corporations, which have no natural expiration date (unlike, say people), aren't subject to many of the "controls" that govern individual property, like inheritance tax and the like. However, they benefit from all the rights. This creates a skewed situation in many areas, not just intellectual property law.
> 
> Whether (or when) this will be altered, I have no idea.




You're preachin' to the choir, man. I'm definitely with you on that score.

Hence, anyone who really feels the need to engage in real civil disobedience against an unjust law should abuse the heck out of Mickey Mouse since the Sonny Bono Act _*IS*_ is unjust! Viva la revoluccion!


----------



## Transit (May 29, 2008)

Westwind said:
			
		

> On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.



I think this is a very good point.  You can't really compare the pirating of "normal" books by people who just want to read them, with RPG rule books where the ability to cut and paste the text into other documents and spreadsheets is actually a big incentive to download the pirated file.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

Rykion said:
			
		

> The number of people who would pay to create and distribute information for free is pretty small.  The quality of the vast majority of the work would be amateur    when compared to the quality of work people actually pay for.  Go to any free art website and you'll see dozens of poor artists for each good artist.




I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that people should create things for free. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to require everyone who accesses that creation to pay for it.

I think it's fair to make people pay to use art/material/information if they intend to make direct profit from it.

But when was the last time you paid to see a Norman Rockwell painting? Not an actual painting, but a copy thereof. I bet you could do an internet search for Norman Rockwell, find images of his paintings, right-click and Save Image As, and then have access to that image for free for the rest of your life.

Thief? Criminal?

Artists have to get paid or there will be little art going around. But everyone who experiences that art does not have to pay for that experience.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> So lets say for the sake of argument that an industry was colluding to fix prices.  Lets say on some staple like bread.  At what point am I justified in stealing?  Is it at any point before I die of starvation?




Ridiculously strawman situation, and completely irrelevant. We're discussing an entertainment product being illegally distributed and acquired, not a necessity being unattainable due to collusion.



> I would also have to ask you if I have the books and I make PDF's for my own personal use and never distribute them am I still in the wrong?  The RIAA says yes if you pay for a CD you get the CD, not anything else for any reason, broke your CD with no copies to bad buy a new one.




In the wrong, as far as ethically speaking, no. In the wrong, as far as legally speaking, I have no idea. IANAL. The RIAA could very well be right. It's for a court to decide (and appeal), not me.



> The MPAA says that everyone in a room watching a movie should own a copy of the movie in order to legally be able to watch it.  Wanna get the finding Nemo for your kids? Better buy one copy for each kid, one for yourself and one for your wife.




WotC is not asking everyone playing the game to own a copy, merely that every copy acquired is by legal means.

Your entire post seems to be full of overly contrived strawmen that have no application in the current situation.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> JohnSnow, I accept your opinion and I always value your posts. No hard feelings, on my part, for any of this.
> 
> That said, I think you're arguing against yourself now. You say it's okay to copy a couple pages or to let a few people benefit without having paid for it . . .  because it's not hurting anyone? But you're saying that 9,000 downloads is NOT okay because . . . it surely IS hurting someone?  You put that burden of proof on me, but isn't it the prosecution's job to provide evidence of guilt?




The distinction I'm drawing has nothing to do with "someone being hurt." It has everything to do with the doctrine of "fair use." What constitutes "fair use" is well-established in the United States (and the U.S. has a pretty liberal viewpoint on the subject, I might add).

It's okay to copy a couple pages for your own use because, well, it's _your book_. It's okay to share it with a few other people (especially if they're members of your gaming group), as long as you don't make any money, because, again, you've paid for the book and have the right to "use it." All these things constitute YOU using the book - "fair use" as it were. (Moderately off-topic, this is why the RIAA's arguments are total crap. Making a digital copy of your CD is fair use. Making 10 digital copies of your CD is _probably still_ "fair use." Somewhere between there and 100, we definitely leave the bounds of "fair use.")

By the time you're distributing copies over the internet free to people you don't even no, you're no longer talking about "fair use" of the book (or whatever). Because at this point, you're not using it, but rather "distributing it." And, beyond passing on the physical copy (and, by the way, not keeping a digital one), you just don't have any right to do that. The rights to the content go along with the physical book. The only grey area here is if by accident or theft, you lose your physical copy, but I digress.

Clearly, this totally ignores things like "what a person can memorize." Obviously, if you can memorize a book, you can "use it" as long as you want. This is because (at least now) no control can be maintained over what people think. "Thought police" (so far, at least) remains just a joke.



			
				Novem5er said:
			
		

> No, if you read my other posts, I'm not claiming that we just spread free RPG books around the net, nor any other form of knowledge. What I'm saying is that any source of knowledge HAS to be financially supported, but by far fewer people than the number that actually benefit from that knowledge.




I know you aren't claiming that. However, I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with any theory about "harm" and everything with the distinction between what constitutes "fair use" and what qualifies as "distribution."


----------



## The Little Raven (May 29, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> In defense of the "Info should be free" claim, the constitution is clear that it should be free.... eventually.  Copyright is supposed to exist only for a limited time to give the creator a chance to make a buck then open it up so that someone else can build upon the idea.




And I totally agree with that. Copyright law in the US is rather ridiculous in some areas. Just like plenty of other laws.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How do you propose we decide which poor sucker gets stuck with the bill?
> 
> History shows that when everyone gets the benefit but only some do the work, eventually, the hard workers catch on that they're being scammed, and stop working so hard. This is why communism, whether on the large scale of the USSR or the small scale of hippie communes, collapses. This is why kibbutzes have gone toward market systems.
> 
> ...




It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.    

IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back.    Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society.  The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation.   Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation.   Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.


----------



## Westwind (May 29, 2008)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Do the DVD sales figures include HD and Blu-ray sales? If they don't, the growth of those two formats (and now just growth of Blu-ray) could account for the change. What evidence was presented that digital piracy was the cause of the decline?




These numbers are a little tougher to come by since all Sony wants you to know is BluRay sales are up a gajillion%.  Well, no kidding.  Three years ago, sales were 0.  Two years ago, sales were however many copies of Pirates of the Caribbean you sold.  BluRay (and if you haven't made a choice yet, choose BluRay people--HD is the next Betamax) is really taking off now, so it's hard to parse what BluRay sales you're getting in place of DVD sales.  When it comes to DVD sales, it's not so much the -2% growth that's alarming, it's the fact that in 2004 DVD sales grew +29% and now you're suddenly at -2%.  Not coincidently, retailers like Borders and Barnes&Noble made major investments in DVD and CD sales around this time (in terms of how many square feet in a store they devoted to those products, also in terms of opening much bigger stores to accommodate a high volume of DVD/CD sales) and take a look at how their stock's been doing lately.


----------



## LowSpine (May 29, 2008)

I do not have a problem with the pdfs but I do fully believe that wotc deserve to be paid well for hard work. I do not believe in free information. That is just teenage hippy talk for 'I want it! - stamps foot.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 29, 2008)

Westwind said:
			
		

> The RPG market is not a big one and I'm inclined to believe it would be more vulnerable to revenue loss than, say, historical fiction.  On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.




I read somewhere the SciFi shows on US network tv don't do well because sponsors don't get a lot of bang for the buck and consequently, networks don't want to run them or cancel them early.  SciFi fans are more likely to download the episodes illegally, skip/mute the ads, or just plain ignore commercials.  Contrast that to Nascar racing fans who will religiously buy products their favorite driver sponsors.  This means Nascar is more valuable to tv advertisers and networks per capita then SciFi fans.  If you feel like there is too many "stupid" shows and not enough "smart" shows on tv, it's probably because smart people aren't the target audience anymore because of this.  

Cause and effect, if people buy books and make the publisher and creator profit then they are more likely to make and publish more of them.  If you want to see more rpg products, do not use illegal copies.  If want to see more high quality rpg products, only buy high quality rpg products.  They aren't going to publish books, if they don't think they are going to sell.

I understand the whole, argument that you live too far away, or that you buy one book for your group, or you're just browsing and what not.  I think it's safe to say WotC would look the other way if the illegal to legal ratio of use was 5:1 or maybe even 10:1.  It's when it's 1000:1 or more that they HAVE to do something or else risk not making a profit.  It's a cost benefit decision making process.

Derek


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create.  You can create whatever you want.  But if you want to actually make a living or have your work seen or heard (you know, in the sense that art elevates all of humanity), you have to sell your soul to some company who then owns the work you produce




Another fine point! Forgive me if I'm wrong about the specifics of this next statement, but I think it generally applies:

Mike Mearls (et all designers) already got paid to "create" the information. The artists already got paid to create the artwork in the corebooks. The visual design team and copywriters got paid to put the books together. The printing press already got their money. WotC already paid for all this... and it is WotC mission to make that money back by distributing that work, plus X% to make a profit.

What % of D&D players are required to purchase the books to make their money back? What % of players need to purchase books for them to make their expected profit?

Look the IDEAL model for WotC is that 100% of players buy the books. Their worst-nightmare is that 0% of players buy the books. As fans of the books, we don't want that to happen either, or else they wont pay Mike Mearls (et all) to create NEW books.

We already don't expect 100% of players to buy books... but what is our expectation? 50%? 70%? As long as WotC is making their investment back, plus x% for their trouble, then the difference between 60% or 70% player/purchase is a question of corporate profit, not morality.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.
> 
> IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back.    Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society.  The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation.   Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation.   Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.




Before copyright laws, creative people had to find a patron to do creative work.  There might have been 1000s of musicians more talented then Mozart who didn't get a chance to show it because of a lack of a patron.  Allowing creative people to make a career out of being creative promotes innovation.  Having no IP laws didn't stop innovation, it just made it harder.

Derek


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Clearly, this totally ignores things like "what a person can memorize." Obviously, if you can memorize a book, you can "use it" as long as you want. This is because (at least now) no control can be maintained over what people think. "Thought police" (so far, at least) remains just a joke.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> . . . I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with any theory about "harm" and everything with the distinction between what constitutes "fair use" and what qualifies as "distribution."




You actually make an excellent point. Fair use is a pretty good measuring stick for this situation. But then, why wouldn't it be okay to download a PDF copy of a physical book that you own? Many people here are saying it's immoral to download anything, whether you own the book or not! They seem to imply that the act of having an unauthorized copy is immoral.

I will agree... Mass distribution is wrong. I don't do it. But you also mentioned the "thought police"  That's my largest concern. Saying that it's immoral to have information that you didn't pay for is ridiculous... now distributing information beyond fair with the intention that NOBODY has to pay for it? Yeah. I'd draw the line somewhere around there.


----------



## Family (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> We already don't expect 100% of players to buy books... but what is our expectation? 50%? 70%? As long as WotC is making their investment back, plus x% for their trouble, then the difference between 60% or 70% player/purchase is a question of corporate profit, not morality.




That is a fine point for my shampoo brand, but when it comes to my hobby it is moot.


---
Mal: "I would appreciate it if one person on this boat would not assume I'm an evil, lecherous hump." 
Zoe: "No one's saying that, sir." 
Wash: "Yeah, we're pretty much just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly."


----------



## Rykion (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that people should create things for free. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to require everyone who accesses that creation to pay for it.



Certainly, that's what museums and libraries are for.  It is also why most stores let you demo games, music, books, etc.  



			
				Novem5er said:
			
		

> I think it's fair to make people pay to use art/material/information if they intend to make direct profit from it.



I agree.  Learning and enjoyment are also forms of profit.



			
				Novem5er said:
			
		

> But when was the last time you paid to see a Norman Rockwell painting? Not an actual painting, but a copy thereof. I bet you could do an internet search for Norman Rockwell, find images of his paintings, right-click and Save Image As, and then have access to that image for free for the rest of your life.
> 
> Thief? Criminal?



Both my mother and grandmother have Norman Rockwell prints.  They were paid for.  The paintings are likely in the public domain now. 



			
				Novem5er said:
			
		

> Artists have to get paid or there will be little art going around. But everyone who experiences that art does not have to pay for that experience.



They do have to pay except at free libraries, free museums, or for art that is the public domain or that is distributed freely by the person or entity that holds the rights.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> In defense of the "Info should be free" claim, the constitution is clear that it should be free.... eventually. Copyright is supposed to exist only for a limited time to give the creator a chance to make a buck then open it up so that someone else can build upon the idea.




This goes back to the "Corporation" problem. The laws were written before corporate ownership of things was widespread. Inventors, authors and artists were supposed to own their works for a time, and (IIRC) have the right to pass those on to their heirs.

With Patent Law, it's clear - there's an expiration date. Copyrights have become another issue because the framers of the copyright laws never imagined immortal entities (like Corporations) being able to "own" original creations. People die, and then maybe their immediate heirs gain the right over their creations. But after a time, their works become public domain. As it should be. (Can you imagine if Shakespeare's works weren't "public domain?" Or Twain's? The mind boggles...)

Corporations have muddied the waters because they *just don't die.* The easy, and obvious, solution would be to put a reasonable time-limit (50 years?) on how long exclusive rights can be maintained, exactly as is the case with Patent Law. But given how many large media outlets that would adversely affect, and how deep their pockets are, good luck getting _that law_ to pass.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Ridiculously strawman situation, and completely irrelevant. We're discussing an entertainment product being illegally distributed and acquired, not a necessity being unattainable due to collusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Im addressing 2 aurgments that I've seen in this thread

#1)  That legality = morality 

I'm not saying that you can't believe that, I'm just saying that morality being totally subjective its a ridiculous argument.

#2) That breaking the law is always a bad thing and should always be punished.

As such I have provided the above examples to illustrate that I don't believe that to be true.  I am attempting to separate the legal argument from the moral argument.


----------



## mlund (May 29, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> It is many people's views, including mine, that the intellectual property laws in America are very unjust.  They exist to enslave the creators, inventors, musicians and artists, exploit the consumer and protect the rights of the distributors.




That's an interesting opinion that some people might share with you, but it lacks any sort of substantiation. The use of "enslave" here is amusing hyperbole that might score points in some circles, but it does you a disservice in the view of a skeptic. You're entitled to your opinions, but your claims about facts need support that you just aren't providing.



> The creator doesn't own the property created, the company that distributes the property owns it.




That's an out-and-out lie that shows complete ignorance of the subject of copyrights and property rights. 

Creators are the initial owners of property. Since it is *their property* they can sell it, rent it, trade it, gift it, or lease it to other parties. 

If you invalidate their right to exchange their exclusive rights to some other desired good, service, or currency you've deprived them of their right to property *and* damaged the value of that property by making it less liquid.



> The creator has to actually give up their rights to it to the company that has print facilities and a distribution network.




That's another outright lie. Sometimes it is profitable to *choose* to do so. Sometimes it is not. Some of us hire a printing vendor and develop our own distribution network or utilize an existing network for a fee.

Diamond Comics, for example, has the best distribution network in the business. They don't own the I.P.'s that they distribute. Comic printers don't either.



> Ideas, information and art should belong to everyone, not to the distribution companies.




No. *THAT* paradigm is actually far more comparable to slavery than your earlier, misguided claims. What you are proposing is that a man's work be taken from him without compensation because *you feel entitled to it*.

At least the "evil distribution companies" have to pay a man for his work and a man is free to elect to not do business with them. You simply want to take his labor from him whenever you please. *You* are the slaver here.



> It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create.




The only people that actually deprive a creator of their properties are those who appropriate those properties without the creator's consent. When the creator sells or contracts his rights to a property he's given consent. When a creator watches his works being pinched by a bunch of bums under the guise of "socialism" or "freedom of information," he's being robbed.



> Of course they are.  They can't be any other way.  Subjectivity means that something is relative to the way it is perceived.  Objective means that something is what something is, without the filer of perception.  Morality is entirely an invention of humanity and cannot be viewed outside of that context.




I'm sorry but Kant and Plato would disagree with you, and they've got far better credentials.

*Consensus* on morality within a given society, however, probably has to be subjective by the very nature of human society and consensus.

Moral consensus != Moral truth

- Marty Lund


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> Another fine point! Forgive me if I'm wrong about the specifics of this next statement, but I think it generally applies:
> 
> Mike Mearls (et all designers) already got paid to "create" the information. The artists already got paid to create the artwork in the corebooks. The visual design team and copywriters got paid to put the books together. The printing press already got their money. WotC already paid for all this... and it is WotC mission to make that money back by distributing that work, plus X% to make a profit.
> 
> ...




Are you saying you would only illegally download from a "big" company but not from a little guy that barely scrapes by?  Are you going to audit each company's financial records to make sure your illegal download isn't hurting their bottom line?  IMO illegal downloading is a habit and once you start doing it, you will rationalize every illegal download in a slippery slope fashion until you stop rationalizing it and just do it without thinking of the consequences.  I know, I used to just that.

Derek


----------



## nerfherder (May 29, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1037302
> 
> Quite an argument, what do you guys think?



I think I'm surprised at the number of people admitting on a company's website that they have violated their copyright.  I wonder if Hasbro's lawyers are starting the legal steps necessary to prosecute them.


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

This is actually still interesting. And shockingly, everyone's staying civil...



			
				mlund said:
			
		

> Creators are the initial owners of property. Since it is their property they can sell it, rent it, trade it, gift it, or lease it to other parties.




Actually, that's not _entirely_ true. Some companies make it a condition of employment that the work that you do while working for them (including any intellectual property you create) remains the property of the company, not the creator. Essentially, when you accept the job, you agree that your salary includes compensation for any intellectual property you create.

This has been fought out in courts, and, so far at least, the companies have won. As an example, the 3e D&D rules are the property of Wizards of the Coast, and _not_ that of Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, et. al.

For collaborative projects, that probably makes sense. But like I said above, a lot of things are messy when corporations are involved.


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

> I'm sorry but Kant and Plato would disagree with you, and they've got far better credentials.
> 
> *Consensus* on morality within a given society, however, probably has to be subjective by the very nature of human society and consensus.
> 
> ...





Yes Moral consensus, so wait, am I pro life or pro choice?  Also I was going to go have relations with a 17 year old, is my level of morality dependent on what country or state I'm in?   When I drink at 19 years old in Canada I'm perfectly moral but when I go back to Michigan that little political boundary makes me immoral again?  I'm so confused.


----------



## Novem5er (May 29, 2008)

DerekSTheRed said:
			
		

> Are you saying you would only illegally download from a "big" company but not from a little guy that barely scrapes by?  Are you going to audit each company's financial records to make sure your illegal download isn't hurting their bottom line?  IMO illegal downloading is a habit and once you start doing it, you will rationalize every illegal download in a slippery slope fashion until you stop rationalizing it and just do it without thinking of the consequences.  I know, I used to just that.
> 
> Derek




No, I'm saying that I wouldn't illegally download something, decide NOT to purchase the product, but then continue to use the illegal copy anyway.

It doesn't have anything to do with a big company or small company. As a moral and responsible person, I will financially support the hobbies that I enjoy. But the act of ALSO looking at a copy of said material is not itself immoral.

Distributing material beyond fair use may be immoral. Using material without financially supporting it's creation/distribution may be immoral. But simply accessing that material, without payment, is not immoral by any means... for if it were, then we would live in a dangerous world.

My argument is based on a moral system of patronage, rather than an absolute system of pay-for-knowledge.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (May 29, 2008)

i don't have time to read this whole thread at the moment, but its a very interesting read so far.

To make the issue of digital ownership more fuzzy, how many of you here that venomously against piracy have ever used an avatar that you did not create (cropping the image or addeding text does not count)

Just to pick on someone i know heavily against piracy, JohnSnow, did you ask newline cinema or Viggo Mortensen for use of that image? do you think that you should pay a fine and are you comfortable in doing so? 

My avatar, I made from scratch. I did not steal anyone else's intellectual property to give myself an online identity. 

Hopefully you understand my point John. Also apologies if I upset you by using you as an example.

I'm just trying to show the issue is not black and white, or at least i don't see it that way. I don't know where i stand on the issue. Both sides have very good and relevant points.


----------



## mlund (May 29, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Actually, that's not _entirely_ true.




No, it is entirely true - I assure you.



> Some companies make it a condition of employment that the work that you do while working for them (including any intellectual property you create) remains the property of the company, not the creator.




I'm well aware of that. This falls under the "sell, rent, lease, gift, etc." prerogative of the creator. It is done with the creator's full consent under the terms of an agreed-upon contract.



> Essentially, when you accept the job, you agree that your salary includes compensation for any intellectual property you create.




Exactly. You agree to the sale of said rights in a consensual exchange.

Creator --- Contract of Sale / Commission / Whatever ---> Buyer

It still originates with the creator. The right to enter into such an agreement is part of your free exercise of your property rights as a creator.



> As an example, the 3e D&D rules are the property of Wizards of the Coast, and _not_ that of Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, et. al.




Indeed - they sold their work for a price, as is their right as creators. If they couldn't do so, their rights would be infringed upon and the value of the property would be damaged.

Of course, there is also a tangent case to be examined about Derivative Works here - building a 3.X game brand out of the I.P. ashes of 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and even Basic D&D. It isn't like the D&D 3rd Ed. core books could've been created and published by Cook, Tweet et. al. without some sort of license from Wizard's preexisting intellectual property in the first place - otherwise they'd be in turn violating property rights originating with Gary and Dave.

- Marty Lund


----------



## xechnao (May 29, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How do you propose we decide which poor sucker gets stuck with the bill?
> 
> History shows that when everyone gets the benefit but only some do the work, eventually, the hard workers catch on that they're being scammed, and stop working so hard. This is why communism, whether on the large scale of the USSR or the small scale of hippie communes, collapses. This is why kibbutzes have gone toward market systems.
> 
> Look at early factory productivity in the USSR, or the way kibbutzes worked in the first generation of Israel's existence, or the way most communes and utopian communities in America started (and this goes back to the 19th century, the hippies were followers and copycats). Then look at how they worked a decade, two decades, a generation later. Same pattern, over and over. We're in a real "up" part of the "free" content cycle. The crash is coming.




It is a war for education that needs to be won. People should fight for the education that will allow them to be creative and contribute. If the right battles are fought and won then the war can be won and no such problems you are citing here arise. Wars are lost though you know. That does not mean that people should never fight.  

EDIT: unless you want to have a system based on classes and you are seeking for methods and excuses to enforce it (as the privileged classes usually do)



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> We are in the VERY early part of the cycle -- there's still dupes out there who feel like they're being noble and heroic when they support an artist, even though others just take the work for free. They feel, "Hey, I'll pay for this book now, and someone else will pay for the next book, the writer makes enough to live off, and everyone's happy!" But with each iteration, more leech and fewer pay. The writer has less time to write because he needs to earn money from other projects. The people who supported him feel disgruntled because they were buying, in part, his future productivity. So with less promise of more material to come, they are less likely to pay for what IS produced, and, also, when there's a lot of existing material, people newly aware of the artists are more likely to consume what's already out there for "free" instead of paying for the new material when it's released.




What artist-writer are you speaking of? Any specific example so to see how it actually has been working this?


----------



## robertliguori (May 29, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> How do you propose we decide which poor sucker gets stuck with the bill?
> 
> History shows that when everyone gets the benefit but only some do the work, eventually, the hard workers catch on that they're being scammed, and stop working so hard. This is why communism, whether on the large scale of the USSR or the small scale of hippie communes, collapses. This is why kibbutzes have gone toward market systems.
> 
> ...




Yes, but what are we crashing into?  The ironic thing is that the same distribution network that lets you distribute content for basically-free lets artists who create for the joy of creation distribute content just as cheaply freely.  You may no longer be able to make a living writing RPG products, but it is not as though there is a dearth of people perfectly willing to do so of their own free will, and put them out for public use.

See, the problem with worrying about the harm caused by widespread piracy and copying is that there is, from a legal perspective, pretty much jack-all you can do about it.  Given the technical and legal realities of the world, it is a fact that if an electronic is popular, it will be scanned, uploaded, and shared (with a briefly-noticeable squeak as whatever attempt at content protection is blasted away like a stick of butter in a Sahara sandstorm).

So, either change the laws to enforce copyright more stringently, change technology so that works cannot be copied and distributed (good luck with that), or adapt to the reality that there will be freely-available shared X.

Finally, I'd like to bring up the case of iTunes.  99% of iTune's product is available for free online; only the most cursory technical knowledge is needed to find free music online.  Despite this, iTunes remains in business, and even turns a profit.  This is because iTunes is competitive with the various forms of sharing music illegally for free; it is legitimate, convenient, and provides product in a form that people want.  The aforementioned physical and legal realities do not preclude you from turning a profit from the creative sweat of your brow; they just mean that you might not be able to do it the same way you could fifteen or twenty years ago.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 29, 2008)

Novem5er said:
			
		

> No, I'm saying that I wouldn't illegally download something, decide NOT to purchase the product, but then continue to use the illegal copy anyway.
> 
> It doesn't have anything to do with a big company or small company. As a moral and responsible person, I will financially support the hobbies that I enjoy. But the act of ALSO looking at a copy of said material is not itself immoral.
> 
> ...




That's a much more interesting argument then what you said previously.  I personally don't have a lot of faith in people to morally patronize a piece of IP that they use.  I know there are examples of this like Radiohead's new album.  I see these as exceptions to the rule.  People like free stuff and if given the choice will take things for free.  Getting donations out of most people generally requires some sort of guilt trip.

Derek


----------



## Argyuile (May 29, 2008)

robertliguori said:
			
		

> Finally, I'd like to bring up the case of iTunes.  99% of iTune's product is available for free online; only the most cursory technical knowledge is needed to find free music online.  Despite this, iTunes remains in business, and even turns a profit.  This is because iTunes is competitive with the various forms of sharing music illegally for free; it is legitimate, convenient, and provides product in a form that people want.  The aforementioned physical and legal realities do not preclude you from turning a profit from the creative sweat of your brow; they just mean that you might not be able to do it the same way you could fifteen or twenty years ago.





I completely agree and raise you a Robert A Heinlein Quote

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, for their private benefit."


----------



## JohnSnow (May 29, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> i don't have time to read this whole thread at the moment, but its a very interesting read so far.
> 
> To make the issue of digital ownership more fuzzy, how many of you here that venomously against piracy have ever used an avatar that you did not create (and i don't just mean you copped the image or added text)
> 
> ...




No worries, I'm not the least bit upset.

To answer your question, if New Line Cinema chose to charge for the use of this image, I think they'd have the right. I would then have the right to decide _whether or not_ to continue my use of the image. However, there's two possible arguments here:

1) I'm using a still image from one instant of a 3 hour movie. To call this "0.1% of the product" would be generous. Hence, if I own the movie (which I do, in multiple copies), using this image constitutes "fair use."

2) To some degree, said "extraction" *is* marketing (basically product placement) that actually _helps_ the company. Hence, it's still "fair use."

There's a parody strip called "Bored of the Rings" that makes use of a lot more still images from New Line's films than my teeny little avatar does. And, since they don't profit from it, that's still considered "fair use."

Obviously, whenever someone makes money, it changes things a lot. However, there is still a threshold, even if nobody is profiting from it, where you have clearly transcended "fair use." Posting the entire movie online for anyone to download for free would certainly qualify.

But, by the same token, 1000 people colluding to get the entire text of 4e online by each posting one page is still not "fair use." By distributing copyrighted material over the internet, in my opinion, you have transcended "fair use" _whether you profit by it or not._

(There's a "quality" argument too - that allows something like YouTube to skate 'cuz it's low-res. I don't know if it's got much of a leg to stand on legally, though.)


----------



## Thasmodious (May 29, 2008)

mlund said:
			
		

> That's an interesting opinion that some people might share with you, but it lacks any sort of substantiation. The use of "enslave" here is amusing hyperbole that might score points in some circles, but it does you a disservice in the view of a skeptic. You're entitled to your opinions, but your claims about facts need support that you just aren't providing




The proof is entirely in the pudding, so to speak.  



> That's an out-and-out lie that shows complete ignorance of the subject of copyrights and property rights.




Your failure to grasp the point does not constitute dishonesty on my end.



> Creators are the initial owners of property. Since it is *their property* they can sell it, rent it, trade it, gift it, or lease it to other parties.




And if they ever want to make a profit from it, they have little choice but to sell it, and their rights, off to some corporation for meager restitution.  And just because some rock band sees a lot more money than you do doesn't mean the restitution isn't meager.  The important ration isn't how much they make compared to a cashier but how much they make compared to how much the company makes off their work.



> If you invalidate their right to exchange their exclusive rights to some other desired good, service, or currency you've deprived them of their right to property *and* damaged the value of that property by making it less liquid.




I disagree that 'right to property' is a fundamental or necessary right at all.



> That's another outright lie. Sometimes it is profitable to *choose* to do so. Sometimes it is not. Some of us hire a printing vendor and develop our own distribution network or utilize an existing network for a fee.




Refer to my previous comment about your accusations towards my honesty.  Just because you are incapable of understanding the ideas you are reading doesn't constitute any fault on my end.  

Self distribution or small partnership distribution is a wonderful thing.  Its part of the information revolution and something I am fully on board with.  



> No. *THAT* paradigm is actually far more comparable to slavery than your earlier, misguided claims. What you are proposing is that a man's work be taken from him without compensation because *you feel entitled to it*.




No, that is not what I am proposing at all.  But if you really want to argue that point, go argue with constitutional law, which makes (well, originally, until corporations lobbied until they got their way) patents, trademarks, copyrights all things that expire.  Because people have a right to seek profit, but society also has a right to enjoy innovation and information and progress from it.  It is, after all, the existence of that society that allowed for such innovations or labor to occur at all in the first place. 



> At least the "evil distribution companies" have to pay a man for his work and a man is free to elect to not do business with them. You simply want to take his labor from him whenever you please. *You* are the slaver here.




Keep sticking your gross (or is it willful) misunderstanding of my position here.  It's working great for you!



> When a creator watches his works being pinched by a bunch of bums under the guise of "socialism" or "freedom of information," he's being robbed.




Sad, another mind shackled and subdued by generations of propaganda and manipulation by the Owner Caste.



> I'm sorry but Kant and Plato would disagree with you, and they've got far better credentials.




I have a degree in philosophy, does Plato?    

No he doesn't.  And he has over 2000 years of philosophers and intellectuals trashing his positions and viewpoints on objective morality.  Hint: its only true if there is an objectively moral force at work in the universe - ie God.  Since that can't be established, neither can an objective morality.  Read some Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell and get back to me.  



> Moral consensus != Moral truth




Kant was also wrong.  Important, but wrong.  There is a reason why German Idealism is discussed in modern circles in the past tense.


----------



## Darrin Drader (May 29, 2008)

My opinion is that making the content available when the publisher definitely does not want it to be so at a certain time is immoral. However, I feel that once the genie has been let out of the bottle, that item has just become public domain, whether the laws say it is or not. Should an end user feel bad for accessing that public domain? For me, that's where things get cloudy. 

If a person has the books on pre-order and then they get a sneak peak at it, I don't consider it as bad as when a person had no intention of buying the books and then gets them for free. If the latter person then goes on to use the material and still does not buy the material, then I think that a moral line has been crossed.

In this case I would like to think that most people who are downloading the books are just taking an unauthorized sneak peak, but are still planning to buy them. 

At any rate, someone on another messageboard pointed me to a location where the books could be downloaded. This wasn't a torrent site, but an actual download site where one click gets you everything in its entirety. I forwarded the links to WotC so they can try and get them taken down. The decision to honor copyright law was an easy one for me to make. I can wait another week and a half.


----------



## Lizard (May 29, 2008)

Argyuile said:
			
		

> It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.




Of the projects on sourceforge, how many are de facto abandoned? How many of those are because the project lead couldn't devote the time to both the project AND earning a living? (And what percentage of succesful projects ultimately gain a commercial angle, from support or documentation or what-not?)



> IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back.




But for many people, it's how they buy those things. If they can't buy these things by creating ideas, they will find other work.

Let's make it simple. I ask you to do work for me. I then decide not to pay you what I promised. When you complain, I say I've taken nothing from you but time and effort -- you still have all the phyiscal property you used to have, so shut up and stop whining. If you want to "get paid" for your "work", you have to think outside the box! Be creative! Don't bitch to me that I am "supposed" to pay you or that I "benefitted" from your work. This is a new age! Forget the old rules! Labor wants to be free -- especially YOUR labor for MY benefit.

What do you spend when you, say, clean up the junk in my backyard? Time and energy.

What does a writer spend when he creates? Time and energy.

Why do you deserve to get paid for physical labor and the writer not get paid for mental labor?



> Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society.  The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation.




That's pretty bad, IMO.



> Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation.   Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.




And do you think it is coincidence that the rate at which innovation increased coincided with the realization that ideas were property?


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 29, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> I disagree that 'right to property' is a fundamental or necessary right at all.
> 
> Refer to my previous comment about your accusations towards my honesty.  Just because you are incapable of understanding the ideas you are reading doesn't constitute any fault on my end.
> 
> ...



This is getting a bit personal no? And a bit paranoid. There are a few caste cultures in the world, but this isnt one of them. People may be wrong from your point of view, but in the end, just be civil. And when you are as well known as the above people then you cant say who is wrong or not


----------



## Tervin (May 29, 2008)

A couple of years back I taught some computer classes for teenagers where issues with copyright, illegal downloading etc were an important part so I had to do a bit of reading up. I also learnt quite a bit from my students.

Just a few little things that I think are interesting:

Illegal downloading seems to hit different industries in very different ways. In the music business the big companies complain of losses, while many independents have benefited from the free marketing. Many claim that the business is healthier now than it ever was - myself I think that might have more to do with cheap technology and the Internet making it possible for many more people to spread their musec outside of the mainstream channels.

When it comes to film/dvd it is hard to draw any conclusions yet, but the dvd rental shops should be the first to lose business from the downloading. They are still around, even here in Piratebay's backyard. My guess is that the porn industry is losing money, or at least making a bit less than they would otherwise.

"Internet piracy" started with computer programs. For a long time the most pirated products were Microsoft's Office and Windows. Both those products were created mainly for the business world, and for many years intentionally made easy to copy. In the computer game industry there has been talk of illegal copies being serious problems, that caused some companies to go under. Nothing proven, but there are cases where that was probably one big reason for what happened.

Illegal e-books, like pdfs, is a very small part of the whole thing, and I can't say that I know for sure what is happening there. The pattern from every other part of the "piracy world" says that the illegal downloading is concentrated on big budgeted, mainstream products plus hard-to-get cult classics. For D&D I do personally think that the spread of the core books willl not hurt sales more than having the d20srd site out there did. (In other words, not at all...) Upcoming sourcebooks and adventures are another matter. 

What I think is the most important thing to realise with this issue is that *there is no point in discussing ethics here*. Illegal spread of copyrighted material will not go away, just because people win debates on forums. A productive discussion would be on how our hobby can make sure not to be hurt by this.

I think including miniatures, tiles and big folded maps in adventures and sourcebooks is a good way. I think that making sure that more than a few pages per splatbook are interesting to most consumers is another. I think that free pdfs given out with setting fluff for campaign worlds is good business. And I think the problems with Gleemax and DDI are way more important than any pdf leaks, because in DDI WotC has a potential product that is safe from the "Internet pirates".


----------



## Lizard (May 30, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Sad, another mind shackled and subdued by generations of propaganda and manipulation by the Owner Caste.




Sad, another mind shackled and subdued by generations of Marxist drivel.



> I have a degree in philosophy, does Plato?




Oh, boy, does THAT explain a lot...


----------



## The Little Raven (May 30, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> The decision to honor copyright law was an easy one for me to make. I can wait another week and a half.




You are a good and virtuous man, patience being a virtue and all that.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh, boy, does THAT explain a lot...




It's kinda cool to see us on the same side of a debate.


----------



## Vorhaart (May 30, 2008)

Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> My opinion is that making the content available when the publisher definitely does not want it to be so at a certain time is immoral. However, I feel that once the genie has been let out of the bottle, that item has just become public domain, whether the laws say it is or not. Should an end user feel bad for accessing that public domain? For me, that's where things get cloudy.




Exactly. In this case, I think it is less an issue of "Is this right or wrong?" and more an issue of "What can we learn from this?" Shrieking at each other about whether this is fair use or theft should really be secondary to trying to determine (a) how to prevent this from happening in the future, and (b) determining what the market itself is trying to tell us. The horse has already left the barn; arguing over who didn't lock the door is really secondary to trying to catch the horse.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> If a person has the books on pre-order and then they get a sneak peak at it, I don't consider it as bad as when a person had no intention of buying the books and then gets them for free. If the latter person then goes on to use the material and still does not buy the material, then I think that a moral line has been crossed.




Definitely. If you don't pay, you shouldn't play. Simple as that.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> In this case I would like to think that most people who are downloading the books are just taking an unauthorized sneak peak, but are still planning to buy them.




Or have already bought them, and are just waiting for them.



			
				Whisperfoot said:
			
		

> At any rate, someone on another messageboard pointed me to a location where the books could be downloaded. This wasn't a torrent site, but an actual download site where one click gets you everything in its entirety. I forwarded the links to WotC so they can try and get them taken down. The decision to honor copyright law was an easy one for me to make. I can wait another week and a half.




Well done, no arguments here. Although, there is little difference between a torrent and an http download; both can be easily exploited for the purposes of illegally obtaining material to which you have no rights. The problem is not how the material is obtained from a technical standpoint, rather a more complex legal one. The law is ultimately concerned only whether or not the burglar broke the law, not whether he used a Stanley or a Craftsman crowbar to jimmy the door.


----------



## Thasmodious (May 30, 2008)

warlockwannabe said:
			
		

> This is getting a bit personal no? And a bit paranoid. There are a few caste cultures in the world, but this isnt one of them. People may be wrong from your point of view, but in the end, just be civil.




Dude calls me a slaver and a liar and I'm the one who needs to be civil?  How exactly does that work?



> And when you are as well known as the above people then you cant say who is wrong or not




That's why I mentioned Nietschze and Russell.  They do a fine job of trashing Kant and Plato for me.  Just because some guy said something 2000 years ago doesn't mean he was right.  Humanity was barely walking upright then, least of all figuring out the answers to life, the universe and everything.  I have some other updates for you, though, if you are stuck in that time period - the world is round, not flat; the earth moves around the sun, not the sun across the sky; and sorcery isn't real.


----------



## Scribble (May 30, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> and sorcery isn't real.




until the new power source comes out next year!


----------



## SSquirrel (May 30, 2008)

My pre-order is still on at Amazon, I just want to be able to tweak the LotS pregens for this weekend cuz some of them (Dragonborn Paladin) could have a much better stat allotment


----------



## warlockwannabe (May 30, 2008)

*looks thru the thread and created and chaos he has wrought*
Yup, im evil, and its fun.
Come to the darkside all, we have all the fun!


----------



## Fifth Element (May 30, 2008)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> To make the issue of digital ownership more fuzzy, how many of you here that venomously against piracy have ever used an avatar that you did not create (cropping the image or addeding text does not count)



I'm against piracy, though perhaps not 'venomously'. I did not create my own avatar.

(My brother did. Based on an image in the public domain.)


----------



## Scribble (May 30, 2008)

all Ihave to say is... the latest swimsuits are VERY nice.


----------



## BoGGiT (May 30, 2008)

Tervin said:
			
		

> What I think is the most important thing to realise with this issue is that *there is no point in discussing ethics here*. Illegal spread of copyrighted material will not go away, just because people win debates on forums. A productive discussion would be on how our hobby can make sure not to be hurt by this.
> 
> I think including miniatures, tiles and big folded maps in adventures and sourcebooks is a good way. I think that making sure that more than a few pages per splatbook are interesting to most consumers is another. I think that free pdfs given out with setting fluff for campaign worlds is good business. And I think the problems with Gleemax and DDI are way more important than any pdf leaks, because in DDI WotC has a potential product that is safe from the "Internet pirates".




This!

I can't understand why people still, after all these years, still think it's relevant at all to discuss whether or not online piracy is "right" or "wrong". Trying to convince people to stop downloading torrents is like trying to convince people to stop masturbating. You can do it with the gravitas of Henry the fifth, with rhetorics that would make Cicero himself green with envy. You can do it in a speech in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Guess what? People would still masturbate.

Oh, *warlockwannabe* asked for stuff produced in Spain and then exported. To be quite honest, I can't really think of much except for that horrible, _horrible_ song they made all the rest of Europe listen to during the Eurovision Song Contest finals last weekend. Oh, there is something though, a novel written centuries ago about a  guy fighting windmills...

Ironically enough, it's public domain and available for download here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/996


----------



## mlund (May 30, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Your failure to grasp the point does not constitute dishonesty on my end.




No, your failure to frame your assertions and opinions in an honest fashion constitutes dishonesty on your end.

Your back-peddling to semantic arguments and claims that everyone who does not both infer from the aether and then accept as valid your paradigm that rejects common understandings of property rights simply puts the nail in the coffin.



> And if they ever want to make a profit from it, they have little choice but to sell it, and their rights, off to some corporation for meager restitution. And just because some rock band sees a lot more money than you do doesn't mean the restitution isn't meager.




Again, don't just pass off your opinions are logical conclusions or established facts. I have a lot of choices in life. If I want to maximize my monetary profit while minimizing my effort I may very well end up deciding to sell my intellectual property to a corporation. If I want to put in more effort I may self promote. If I want more creative control I may settle for less monetary profit.



> The important ration isn't how much they make compared to a cashier but how much they make compared to how much the company makes off their work.




"Important ration," only in your mind, I'm afraid.

You simply have a personal abhorrence for "the company" that you keep interjecting as if it has any relevance to anyone but yourself.



> I disagree that 'right to property' is a fundamental or necessary right at all.




*There* we have a fundamental disagreement. Most people I'd deal with on a regular basis, however, accept the assertion of "life, liberty, and estate" asserted by Locke in one form or another.

You just can't please the Communists or the Anarchists though, so I don't bother trying.



> go argue with constitutional law, which makes (well, originally, until corporations lobbied until they got their way) patents, trademarks, copyrights all things that expire. Because people have a right to seek profit, but society also has a right to enjoy innovation and information and progress from it. It is, after all, the existence of that society that allowed for such innovations or labor to occur at all in the first place.




Those rules are A.) derived from the consent of the governed, B.) mutable thanks to legislation, and C.) set an *expiration* on exclusive rights after a period in which it is presumed that the creator's free exercise of his rights has generally run its course. 

- Marty Lund


----------



## Fifth Element (May 30, 2008)

Thasmodious said:
			
		

> Read some Nietzsche or Bertrand Russell and get back to me.



Where's Will Hunting when you really need him?


----------



## Vorhaart (May 30, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Of the projects on sourceforge, how many are de facto abandoned? How many of those are because the project lead couldn't devote the time to both the project AND earning a living? (And what percentage of succesful projects ultimately gain a commercial angle, from support or documentation or what-not?)




Working in the IT industry professionally in a development role, I see a lot of commercial ideas also end up abandoned due to lack of resources, most of which never get beyond the design phase. This is not endemic to community-supported projects alone.

As a disclaimer, there do seem to be a disproportionally higher number of abandoned projects on sourceforge, so I agree with you in part.




			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> What do you spend when you, say, clean up the junk in my backyard? Time and energy.
> 
> What does a writer spend when he creates? Time and energy.
> 
> ...




A classic argument, and one I fully agree with. However, think of it this way:

I have already paid. They have my money, the reward of *my* physical/mental labor if you will. They can treat my labor however they want. Spend it on ale and whores, it's not my concern anymore. So why am I being denied the opportunity to use *their* labor how *I* want (while still adhering to the principles of copyright law and fair use, of course)? It's not difficult to see why some would consider this somewhat biased. 

Again, not trying to antagonize, just providing a different perspective.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> And do you think it is coincidence that the rate at which innovation increased coincided with the realization that ideas were property?




Correlation does not (necessarily) mean causation. Some would argue that innovation increased _despite_ this perception.


----------



## Felon (May 30, 2008)

That OP over in the WotC forums--Subedei--is either an evil genius or a tremendous tool. Instead of choosing a discreet manner of contacting WotC, he announces the availability of the illegal copies in a public forum. To get pats on the head? Hungry for attention? Or actually a clever saboteur? I find it hard to believe that the only way he could think of to get WotC's attentions was to post it on the messageboard. 

Now there's going to be a bigger rush than ever to the pirate sites.


----------



## DerekSTheRed (May 30, 2008)

BoGGiT said:
			
		

> This!
> 
> I can't understand why people still, after all these years, still think it's relevant at all to discuss whether or not online piracy is "right" or "wrong". Trying to convince people to stop downloading torrents is like trying to convince people to stop masturbating. You can do it with the gravitas of Henry the fifth, with rhetorics that would make Cicero himself green with envy. You can do it in a speech in front of hundreds of thousands of people. Guess what? People would still masturbate.
> 
> ...




Masturbating doesn't hurt anyone.  Illegal downloads cause financial hardships (for probably most but not all IP creators).  Teaching empathy and showing that illegal downloads are not something you would want done to your own IP COULD convince others to stop and actually pay someone a fair price for their work.  I know it's not likely, but it's worth a try.

Derek


----------



## Dinkeldog (May 30, 2008)

I'm closing this thread (at least temporarily).  If the thread can be deemed reopened, we will do so.  

Generally we do not allow threads about piracy of any form here.  This thread started skirting the line, but was at least generating more light than heat.  However, if this thread topic is reallowed, then we will expect everyone to refrain from political comments and personal attacks.

Thanks,
Dinkeldog/Moderator


----------

