# Pirating RPGs. (And were not talking "arggg" pirate stuff here.)



## FCWesel (Aug 8, 2005)

Saw this over at the Eden Boards. This stuff _really_ sucks.



> What a day.
> 
> Found out today that someone posted the Army of Darkness RPG, which hasnt been released as a hardcopy yet, as a free download on a p2p site.
> 
> ...


----------



## Roudi (Aug 8, 2005)

The usual argument here is "did you really think those 136 people would have bought the PDF if it wasn't available on a peer-to-peer network?"

Honestly, publishers have to stop looking at pirated products as lost sales.  The vast majority of those who do pirate material likely would never pay for it if that were their only option.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 8, 2005)

THat's not what's wrong with this.  DRM would not have stopped this as he seems to thing or idcate.  And why these might not be lost sales, it is a bunch of people who have the product and did not pay for it.  It doesn't matter if they would have bought it or not, all that matters is they stole it here.


----------



## Psion (Aug 8, 2005)

Bad Joss, all around. 

That said, would DRM really have addressed the situation? From what I understand, it's easier to create a DRM free PDF from a DRM PDF than it is to spend "the time and effort to go and remove 256+ pages worth of watermarking".


----------



## Roudi (Aug 8, 2005)

I'll agree with you, Crothian - DRM would not have prevented this person from posting the copy of Army of Darkness for free online (just look at how much work he or she took to remove the watermark).

You are right, to an extent, about the fact that there may have actually been "lost sales" as a result of this theft.  I'd just like to know (since I refuse to direct my browser to the DTRPG site) how much these 136 people saved themselves by pirating the book.  One of the best deterrents to piracy is keeping one's prices low and fair (though that doesn't always work).  How much is the 256-page PDF of Army of Darkness selling for?


----------



## Sunmocker (Aug 8, 2005)

*Humm...*

I've found that folks who dowload the material tend to get the books/music/etc as well after review. Plus if you can't get to a store easly, it's nice to fully review a product before you shell out money for it, wait for it to arrive, find out it was not what you were looking for, send it back, wait for a refund etc... Just a thought... Brian.


----------



## delericho (Aug 8, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> The usual argument here is "did you really think those 136 people would have bought the PDF if it wasn't available on a peer-to-peer network?"
> 
> Honestly, publishers have to stop looking at pirated products as lost sales.  The vast majority of those who do pirate material likely would never pay for it if that were their only option.




Doesn't matter. However you slice this, it's wrong. If nothing else, they have managed to undo all the good work that had been done in persuading DTRPG and their clients to use watermarked PDFs in place of DRM. Which sucks for those of us who are honest.

They've almost certainly reduced the willingness of Eden to produce further PDF products, and perhaps to produce products at all. And who knows how many other companies are going to make the same decision?

Then there's the question of how many of those illegal downloads would have been a sale. Even if it's just a few, that's a significant percentage of the sales recorded at DTRPG. Which has a knock-on effect on Eden, and on the game designers, none of whom are really rich. Ca they really afford the hit?

All in all, this just sucks.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 8, 2005)

Sunmocker said:
			
		

> I've found that folks who dowload the material tend to get the books/music/etc as well after review. Plus if you can't get to a store easly, it's nice to fully review a product before you shell out money for it, wait for it to arrive, find out it was not what you were looking for, send it back, wait for a refund etc... Just a thought... Brian.



Y'know, I do the same thing with DVDs - steal 'em off the store shelves, watch 'em a couple of times to see if they're worth keeping, and then go back to the store and buy them if I think they'll be a good addition to my collection.

Not.

Just a thought...


----------



## FCWesel (Aug 8, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> How much is the 256-page PDF of Army of Darkness selling for?




$28.00 US. Full color. 

And they have a preview on the same site for those folks who wanted to see what it was like.


@ Sunmocker. Nothing against you Sun, but I find that 'arguement' to be pretty much a load. This day and age it is pretty darn easy to get an _idea_ of what a RPG product is like without having to resort to THEFT. There's ten MBs these days for every game out there it seems. Not to mention the actual base pages.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

I think for a lot of guys this doesn't have anything to do with money. They think they are screwing the man, or the system or something. For the others, its about free stuff, if if they won't use it. Look at RPGNow, you can sell a pdf and get under a 100 downloads for a good game book of whatever type, put up for free and you'll get hundreds of downloads, or even over a thousand. People like free stuff.

It doesn't make it right, but Eden selling a PDF for $28 doesn't exactly make it a hard decision for these guys to pirate. I mean, if you are not going to sell pdfs at what the market normally bears, or what is reasonable for the industry, then don't give me a song and dance when it doesn't work out and how "you gave it a try". You didn't want it to work out and it didn't. cheers.


----------



## Jim Hague (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> I think for a lot of guys this doesn't have anything to do with money. They think they are screwing the man, or the system or something. For the others, its about free stuff, if if they won't use it. Look at RPGNow, you can sell a pdf and get under a 100 downloads for a good game book of whatever type, put up for free and you'll get hundreds of downloads, or even over a thousand. People like free stuff.
> 
> It doesn't make it right, but Eden selling a PDF for $28 doesn't exactly make it a hard decision for these guys to pirate. I mean, if you are not going to sell pdfs at what the market normally bears, or what is reasonable for the industry, then don't give me a song and dance when it doesn't work out and how "you gave it a try". You didn't want it to work out and it didn't. cheers.




George and many other publishers have already stated that they'd much prefer that their customers get a hardcopy - either from them or the FLGS.  Whether you agree with that or not, I don't see any reason why you should go bagging on Eden, nor a reason for you to take a snarky tone that implies that _you_ don't see anything wrong with Eden losing money to some halfwit with a P2P setup.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> It doesn't make it right, but Eden selling a PDF for $28 doesn't exactly make it a hard decision for these guys to pirate. I mean, if you are not going to sell pdfs at what the market normally bears, or what is reasonable for the industry, then don't give me a song and dance when it doesn't work out and how "you gave it a try". You didn't want it to work out and it didn't. cheers.




Well, you can't really say what is reasonible for the industry or what the market bears for their PDF.  There just are not that many full color, liscense based products out there for sale as PDF.


----------



## reveal (Aug 8, 2005)

Who cares how much this stuff costs? Who cares whether it's DRM or not DRM? None of that matters. What matters is that a product a company produces is being stolen (i.e. downloaded without paying for it) by people. That's it. Is it lost sales? Maybe. Is it a reflection of Eden's business practices? No. That's like saying people with more expensive homes "shouldn't have bought that type of house" because it's more prone to burglary.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> I think for a lot of guys this doesn't have anything to do with money. They think they are screwing the man, or the system or something. For the others, its about free stuff, if if they won't use it. Look at RPGNow, you can sell a pdf and get under a 100 downloads for a good game book of whatever type, put up for free and you'll get hundreds of downloads, or even over a thousand. People like free stuff.
> 
> It doesn't make it right, but Eden selling a PDF for $28 doesn't exactly make it a hard decision for these guys to pirate. I mean, if you are not going to sell pdfs at what the market normally bears, or what is reasonable for the industry, then don't give me a song and dance when it doesn't work out and how "you gave it a try". You didn't want it to work out and it didn't. cheers.




No matter what price Eden put on that PDF (say $14), it would have appeared on that p2p. Chances are that if there was no PDF version, once the hard copy was in the shops the same guy would have it scanned and up on the p2p. To these guys $1 is too much.

Blaming Eden for pricing it out of the market "forcing the freedom fighters of RPGs to reluctantly put it on a p2p to make it easily available to all the downtrodden gamers of the third world who otherwise would be denied their rights to game" is the kind of argument the pirate would be using to support their actions. And it would still be wrong.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> George and many other publishers have already stated that they'd much prefer that their customers get a hardcopy - either from them or the FLGS.  Whether you agree with that or not, I don't see any reason why you should go bagging on Eden, nor a reason for you to take a snarky tone that implies that _you_ don't see anything wrong with Eden losing money to some halfwit with a P2P setup.




I'm not sure who you are talking to, but its not me. I said it doesn't make it all right. I was just pointing out that they have no interest in their pdf business actually succeedingly, which you yourself say they admit. Thats not bagging on people. Go pick a fight with someone else.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Well, you can't really say what is reasonible for the industry or what the market bears for their PDF.  There just are not that many full color, liscense based products out there for sale as PDF.




I feel pretty safe in believing that most pdf buyers would blink at a $28 price tag, regardless how much color it had in it.


----------



## philreed (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> Look at RPGNow, you can sell a pdf and get under a 100 downloads for a good game book of whatever type, put up for free and you'll get hundreds of downloads, or even over a thousand. People like free stuff.




Yep. A free PDF I put up about a week ago has had about 150 downloads. A for sale PDF put up around the same time has sold 10 copies.

I really think a lot of the people downloading the free stuff don't even read it -- they collect PDFs.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 8, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> That said, would DRM really have addressed the situation? From what I understand, it's easier to create a DRM free PDF from a DRM PDF than it is to spend "the time and effort to go and remove 256+ pages worth of watermarking".



You're absolutely right that DRM wouldn't have made a difference, as protection schemes generally don't. DRM-removal programs have been around for a while; the process is already automated. The same is probably true of removing watermarks, so I doubt anybody went through all 256 pages and manually removed them.



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> If nothing else, they have managed to undo all the good work that had been done in persuading DTRPG and their clients to use watermarked PDFs in place of DRM. Which sucks for those of us who are honest.



Well, I have no qualms purchasing a DRM .pdf, because like I said above, I can remove the DRM quickly and painlessly. So I'm actually glad such software exists, otherwise there are a lot of things I just wouldn't buy due to the publishers' sometimes ridiculous expectations of content control (although I certainly don't think a watermark falls into that category--I'm a bit amazed at the price tag on it though).



			
				delericho said:
			
		

> They've almost certainly reduced the willingness of Eden to produce further PDF products, and perhaps to produce products at all. And who knows how many other companies are going to make the same decision?



This also doesn't make a lot of sense. Most of the pirated RPG material you can find online actually isn't .pdf originals; it's hardcopy books people scanned and turned into .pdfs. Did Eden release .pdf versions of Buffy or Angel? Because they're out there on p2p networks.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> I'm not sure who you are talking to, but its not me. I said it doesn't make it all right. I was just pointing out that they have no interest in their pdf business actually succeedingly, which you yourself say they admit. Thats not bagging on people. Go pick a fight with someone else.




Whether or not Eden has any interest in their pdf business doesn't give anyone the right to make available their property for free.



> It doesn't make it right, but Eden selling a PDF for $28 doesn't exactly make it a hard decision for these guys to pirate. I mean, if you are not going to sell pdfs at what the market normally bears, or what is reasonable for the industry, then don't give me a song and dance when it doesn't work out and how "you gave it a try". You didn't want it to work out and it didn't.




I believe this is the part of your original post that is annoying people. It implies that Eden's pricing is unreasonable thus the pirates, who only want what is fair for the people, have every right to their actions.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> No matter what price Eden put on that PDF (say $14), it would have appeared on that p2p. Chances are that if there was no PDF version, once the hard copy was in the shops the same guy would have it scanned and up on the p2p. To these guys $1 is too much.




Which is why i said it wasn't about money for a lot of these guys and the rest just like free stuff and don't care about the particulars.



			
				Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Blaming Eden for pricing it out of the market "forcing the freedom fighters of RPGs to reluctantly put it on a p2p to make it easily available to all the downtrodden gamers of the third world who otherwise would be denied their rights to game" is the kind of argument the pirate would be using to support their actions. And it would still be wrong.




Okay, i'll respond one last time to these posts that are *stuffing words into my mouth*. I didn't call them freedom fighters, you have. I didn't AT ALL say what they were doing was right. I pay for my PDFs, bub.

You ALL need to stuff that self-righteous flame back where it came from. Thank you.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> I feel pretty safe in believing that most pdf buyers would blink at a $28 price tag, regardless how much color it had in it.




Doesn't matter what they would blink at.  The PDF market is new, and Eden has books that are in categories others do not have.  Therefore one can't judge what the market is.


----------



## Skrit (Aug 8, 2005)

Complaining about crime is like complaining about the weather. No matter what precautions are taken someone will always find a way to Exploit/take advantage/subvert whatever. You can arrest 10 crack dealers and there will be 10 or more to replace them soon enough.

The software industry has taken countless measures, sure they work for awhile but then someone comes up with a work around. With software especially you have a few people working on security, when the product is realeased you'll have millions trying to break that security.

A lot of pirates do their illegal activity for a variety of reasons. Some do it for just the notariety that "hey I'm the one that cracked soandso's product". Others seem to do it for the "I'm not paying for this crap, so I'll get it for free". Lasty yes there are people who are just angry with society and like to (as the other poster said) "Stick it to the man".


----------



## Catavarie (Aug 8, 2005)

Well first off I'll say that I'm not going to quote every post that I have a coment about directly, because well I'm lazy. That said here's my take on the discussion...

Ok someone took a copy of the game which they may or maynot have paid for in the first place, and scanned it into thier computer and decided that they would offer it up for p2p sharing and 136 people saw it and said to themselves "Self, that looks good I think i'll download that" well in my experience with the p2p world 136 is small potatoes...not to say that its not unethical (I refuse to say immoral because that would be incorrect, look up the differences in a dictionary if you like).  Only because 9/10 files on any p2p are downloaded by the thousands.  But if it were my project that someone had stole and put on p2p I'd be upset as well.  And before you all try to damn me for using p2p lets just straighten things out by saying that the files I upload I am the sole author of and hold all rights to. 

Now with that said, I have several friends of mine that use p2p for movies and music daily, but what they want is to know exactly what is on the disc before they go and buy it, they will download an entire CD and listen to it, or an entire movie and watch it and if it holds up to their standards they go and buy it at the store, and if not they simply delete it an dmove on.  And in the same way you can't say that out of the 136 downloads that atleast one of them might not have done the same...download and read through it  and if they liked it went down to their FLGS and picked up a hardcopy.  Hell I don't buy any book that I haven't had the chance to look through completely myself.  I boycott stores that keep all their books in plastic wrap and refuse to open them for a customer.  My favorite store keeps one copy of everybook out and unwrapped just for that purpose and they keep the rest sealed so taht you can buy a fresh pressed unsmugged book for yourself after you know what youre getting.  And for those of you who can figure out how good a book is from a 4 to 6 page exerpt then good for you, but I've seen too many bad movies that had great trailers for me to waste my money on a bad book becasue it has a good exerpt.  

Does that mean that I think that piracy is ok? No. But as long as humans have been around we've tried to find ways to bend things to our will.  To have an outcome that we want.  No matter what security measures are in place someone will find a way around it becasue thats what humans do.  Hell the $20 bill had a perfectly good forgery out within 2 hours of its release.  Human ingenuity is measured by the last step that someone took to out think, out play, out wit, someone else.  So we could sit around and complain about piracy, but is it really going to change anything?


----------



## JBowtie (Aug 8, 2005)

DRM is inherently insecure; you're giving the attacker the key, the cipher, and the ciphertext. The limitations you impose actually motivate attackers to break the protection (as often as not for fair use; ask any non-Windows user about protected formats).

Watermarking is much better - since it doesn't interfere with functionality or usage, most people are going to be less motivated about removing the watermark (unless the watermark is in-your-face). Of course, someone motivated out of ideology or paranoia will still attack it, but you seriously lower the threshold.

There are still two things you need to consider. While likely, it is possible that the person has not broken the law; copyright law is not the same the world over. I wouldn't bet on it, but is within the realm of possibility that the individual in question is exercising their legal rights. Maybe you should be getting a bit of the blank media levy that's been imposed since tape recorders were invented.

Even within the fairly draconian USA, this person is guilty of copyright infringement, not theft. Unlike a physical copy of the book, it's still sitting in your virtual store, ready for someone to purchase. Brick and mortar retailers allow for shrinkage in their business plans. Does your online retailer do the same?


----------



## Crothian (Aug 8, 2005)

Catavarie said:
			
		

> So we could sit around and complain about piracy, but is it really going to change anything?




Well, I'm pretty sure not complaining about won't stop it, so might as well try complaining....


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter what they would blink at.  The PDF market is new, and Eden has books that are in categories others do not have.  Therefore one can't judge what the market is.




Yes one can. Pdf publishers judge the market constantly. When someone decides to not buy a pdf because of its price (or buy once the price is lowered), they are judging the market. You might not like it, Eden or others that don't want to lower their prices might not like it. (though we know that Eden doesn't really care about a strong pdf presence) The pdf market is old enough that i see plenty of publishers that have lowered their pdf prices. Some because they have misjudged the market, some that lower prices on old products, and some that just lower their prices as experiements (Like Philip Reed did that one time on a 101 collections).

When customers blink or complain at high prices, any of the pdf publishers that actually care about their pdf sales pay attention.


----------



## Lazarous (Aug 8, 2005)

So i'm curious about something here - how is downloading software 'theft'?  From what i understand of the definition, theft means depriving someone of something, rather than just making a perfect copy, or am I completely wrong?  

That being said, putting a price tag on information when perfect reproductions are possible (specifically digital media of all forms) is always going to be problematic.  Many of the economic underpinnings that keep theft relatively low key in the real world are simply not valid when you can make perfect copies and not obviously take anything away from the person who made the information originally.  Information is by far the hardest 'commodity' to control in todays society, and its unlikely any of these copy protection schemes will do anything significant to change that.  

So, what can companies that deal with this sort of thing do?  Ask for reform of the infrastructure of the internet.  If, for example, the internet providers themselves liscensed software/information and made it available to their subscribers (thus being able to control flow of information, since they actually have access to the physical underpinnings of the net.  

Pretty much anything short of that and companies should basically assume that any pdf type products they have are essentially free advertising rather than a serious money making scheme.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> Yes one can. Pdf publishers judge the market constantly. When someone decides to not buy a pdf because of its price (or buy once the price is lowered), they are judging the market.




and unless you know the inner workings of eden, or are aware of hundreds of compliants to them that specifically mention price; you don't know their market.  they might not even have enough info to know the market. Most people who don't buy also do not send messages to the publisher telling them why they don't buy.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 8, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> When customers blink or complain at high prices, any of the pdf publishers that actually care about their pdf sales pay attention.




Then I'm going to complain about the high prices of porches. Its entirely unfair that I cannot afford one.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> and unless you know the inner workings of eden, or are aware of hundreds of compliants to them that specifically mention price; you don't know their market. they might not even have enough info to know the market.




I'll take them at their word that they are just trying to reach customers that can't buy physical copies. Much like Necromancer games. They sold what, 34 copies legally? I wonder how many of them were those hard luck, lives in Zimbabwe customers, and how many of them were regular customers of DTRPG (i always get their initials messed up)



			
				Crothian said:
			
		

> Most people who don't buy also do not send messages to the publisher telling them why they don't buy.




I hear plenty of price complaints about pdfs here and other boards on the internet, and even those at rpgnow occasionally. Or at least i used to, the prices have stabilized a little, with experiements and wierd prices now and again. Only the publishers can tell you themselves whether those complaints or comments affected their pricing schemes. But i can see a pattern in all the ones i see every day that i go to rpgnow.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 8, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Then I'm going to complain about the high prices of porches. Its entirely unfair that I cannot afford one.




Well, if you have porch sellers in your area who live off of you're business, it'll help. If you have porch sellers in your area who don't give a damn about you or you're business, it won't help.


----------



## jgsugden (Aug 9, 2005)

This is really not worth discussing: The e-thefts are a fact of modern living.  There are only three possibilities left:

#1: Accept it and wait for it to kill the industry, leaving it entirely up to hobbyists to support the game, 

#2: Fold in physical aspects into the design of the game, so that you can not play it (using the rules) if you have physical objects that are only available with the purchase of physical books (- you can't steal DDM figures online for use on your kitchen table -), 

#3: Foster an environment where people face more risk than reward for e-thefts.  For instance, if we implemented a USA federal system where you could turn in someone that was E-stealing copyrighted product off the internet and get a confidential reward, we might be able to nip this in the bud.  Imagine what would happen if there was a minimum $3,000.00 fine for being caught comitting an e-theft (up to $25,000 for multiple offenses) (plus 1 week minimum community service), with 25% of the collected fine being given to the person turning in the thief.  Heck, if that were available, I can imagine a nice niche cottage industry for being a narc ...

Now ... who was it that was advocating this type of theft?    

Of course, this would never fly in real life, but it is pretty much the only way to give people an incentive not to steal these materials if morality is not enough.


----------



## dagger (Aug 9, 2005)

People are going to do what they do. The warez community is not going anywhere, whether it is movies, games, or even books (and that is the tip of the ice berg). They have been doing it for a long time.

Just about any product you can find on this site, and I guarantee every rpg ever produced by ANY company is available.  Many (most) of them are also available as OCR, so the community who does these things is very organized.

I like having a copy on my computer and a hardcopy, it is very convenient. Especially software that will take a scan (jpeg or whatever) and do OCR on it; then convert it to PDF.

I do like Hardcopies better than a pdf any day of the week though. *It would be cool if a free OCR pdf came with every hardcopy purchase. *


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 9, 2005)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> #3: Foster an environment where people face more risk than reward for e-thefts.  For instance, if we implemented a USA federal system where you could turn in someone that was E-stealing copyrighted product off the internet and get a confidential reward, we might be able to nip this in the bud.  Imagine what would happen if there was a minimum $3,000.00 fine for being caught comitting an e-theft (up to $25,000 for multiple offenses) (plus 1 week minimum community service), with 25% of the collected fine being given to the person turning in the thief.  Heck, if that were available, I can imagine a nice niche cottage industry for being a narc ...
> 
> Now ... who was it that was advocating this type of theft?
> 
> Of course, this would never fly in real life, but it is pretty much the only way to give people an incentive not to steal these materials if morality is not enough.




Or try that Ransom Model that i have heard about from 3 different sources today. Strange i hadn't heard about it before. A great idea!

http://www.gregstolze.com/ransom.html


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

I'm not sure what these extremist answers from one side or the other are going to achieve. This topic is not the question of one and only one truth.

Yes, distributing copyrighted materials on p2p networks is a criminal act, how ever you call it. And no, actual laws don't differ fundamentally between most countries; the differences are minor in this case (fair use rules, etc.).

No, copy protection methods don't prevent copyrighted material from appearing on p2p networks. Copy protection methods only hit people who don't use p2p networks, but would give a free copy to a friend. This friend might actually be a potential buyer, as he is most probably interested in the product, whereas most p2p users are not.

No, there is no fundamental difference between watermarking and DRM as far as security is concerned. Both formats just need different tools for removal.

Yes, most people downloading free material don't actually use it. That's why pirated copies don't translate to lost sales.

Yes, price matters. Price doesn't matter whether a product appears on a p2p network - all products appear on p2p networks, and if your product does not appear on p2p networks, you should consider writing something more interesting. But price matters for the number or your sales. Real fans earning some good wages will always buy a product. Lower prices are more suited to attract new customers. Your pricing scheme depends a bit on how large you estimate the potential for new customers as part of your total sales.

Arcana Evolved sells for $16.80. You have to decide whether you consider AE as a competitor or not when you set your prices .


----------



## philreed (Aug 9, 2005)

dagger said:
			
		

> Just about any product you can find on this site, and I guarantee every rpg ever produced by ANY company is available.  Many (most) of them are also available as OCR, so the community who does these things is very organized.




Maybe so. But I hope the people reading this are decent enough people not to participate in downloading and exchanging illegal PDFs. I pay my bills through PDF sales and every copy downloaded is potentially lost revenue.

I hope I can trust all of you to respect me, my work, and the other people who work in the game industry enough not to download or distribute illegal PDFs.


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 9, 2005)

_Copyright infringement_ people. Not theft, they are not thieves, they don't steal. If you download something from the internet, you do not steal it, and therefor you are not a thief. There are separate laws for copyright infringment and shoplifting for example. That's why it's refered to as copyright infringement. I know, you are trying to get support from those who don't understand the matter at hand by using loaded words, but in reality the only thing that happens is you annoy those who are interested in intellectual property and copyright law, the people who can actually help you. 

For example, according to DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), the judge explicitly said you shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as theft. I quote: 


> interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.



That's a precedent people. You can legally call copyright infringment whatever you want, but if you do it in court prepare to be corrected. And if you decide to argue about having the law on your side etc, use the correct term, because the laws regarding theft of physical property will surely not help you.

That said, it's wrong. Copyright infringment is as wrong as theft, but they are not the same thing. Thanks.


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2005)

I think one thing needs to be clear here:

Not liking the inconvenience of DRM in exchange for whatever minimal gains in stemming distribution is _not_ tantamount to advocating or endorsing e-piracy. I feel that authors provide me a great service and deserve to be compensated for their efforts. But I also feel that if I am going to fork over real money for bits, those bits should not lose their value after the 6 inevitable hard drive crashes/windows upgrades/reinstalls and the whim of one grumpy customer service rep (or hostile takeover) at Adobe.


----------



## HellHound (Aug 9, 2005)

Agreed with Psion.

And thanks for the precedent, psionicist.

And I have to agree that DRM only makes it more likely that a product will appear in the pirate environment as compared to Watermarking.

That said, there are automated DRM -and- watermarking removal tools now.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Not liking the inconvenience of DRM in exchange for whatever minimal gains in stemming distribution is _not_ tantamount to advocating or endorsing e-piracy.



Good point. I've never ever bought a pdf with DRM protection and I never will. I don't mind watermarking though, as you don't see it on printouts and don't have that silly online hassle.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> But I hope the people reading this are decent enough people not to participate in downloading and exchanging illegal PDFs. I pay my bills through PDF sales and every copy downloaded is potentially lost revenue.
> 
> I hope I can trust all of you to respect me, my work, and the other people who work in the game industry enough not to download or distribute illegal PDFs.





ditto, please


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 9, 2005)

I don't know how DriveThrus watermarking works, but an idea is to use lots of different methods, such as randomly inserting a random letter in a random word on a random page. There will always be small typos in books, and it's much harder to remove than the "sigil" kind of watermark.

Edit: You can also embed XML documents in PDF's if I recall correctly, so you can mark the PDF there too. Open a very small PDF in Notepad and check for text that looks like english. If it doesn't look like gibberish, you can modify it, and therefor you can mark it in a non-obvious way. This is actually easier than chaing the text itself, but it's also easier to "circumvent" (just by resaving the document will probably get rid of it).


----------



## sfedi (Aug 9, 2005)

> People are going to do what they do. The warez community is not going anywhere, whether it is movies, games, or even books (and that is the tip of the ice berg). They have been doing it for a long time.



Education is the thing that change this.

Of course, that would also change the government, industry, etc. as well


----------



## Agamon (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Good point. I've never ever bought a pdf with DRM protection and I never will. I don't mind watermarking though, as you don't see it on printouts and don't have that silly online hassle.




Funny, I just printed out a watermarked pdf from DriveThru and my name is at the bottom of each page.

I agree about the DRM.  I don't buy anything that doesn't allow me to use it as I wish.  Such restrictions only hamper the law abiders, and are only a minor annoyance to the pirates.


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 9, 2005)

Not every illegal download is a "lost sale", sometimes they are customers you haven't gotten to yet, or you've failed to service already who tried to buy from you.

A friend of mine downloaded a pirated .pdf of Iron Heroes a week and a half ago on p2p.  He was quite enthused about the book and kept up with all the previews, and downloaded it as something to hold him over until he could get a legitimate hardcopy.  The moment it came in at our FLGS he happily bought a copy and is already planning two campaigns for it.  At another game, I met somebody who actually legitimately downloaded a watermarked copy of IH and printed it out, and he couldn't bring himself to buy a printed hardcopy since it was so expensive, he'd already lost money on buying the .pdf and printing it compared to just getting a book.

As a fan of the d20 Star Wars RPG,  I often see or talk to players who want to get into the game, but are hindered by how it's out-of-print and poorly supported.  It makes me quite glad I managed to get everything produced for the game while it was in production.  The SWRPG books are on p2p, and I know people who have downloaded them, but only after trying their FLGS (sold out), trying to special order them through their FLGS (sold out at the distributor level), trying to buy it on eBay (some sourcebooks sometimes going for over $100), and looking around at used bookstores/flea markets/wherever, and once they've exhausted every legal option they turn to piracy.  Frankly, I can't blame them, they haven't deprived WotC or LFL of a dime since they have tried multiple times to get the material through legitimate channels, and been stymied.  If WotC would put the SWRPG back in print, piracy of it would probably drop.

Also, a lot of downloads on p2p are downloads of convenienence, not "lost sales".  It's one thing to be willing to spend $40 or $50 on a new gaming book, it's another thing to idly scan a p2p network, download a book and look at it.  We don't know what happened after those 136 downloads.  How many thought it wasn't what they were looking for and deleted it immediately?  How many took a quick look and filed it away, probably never to view it again?  How many actually poured over it and intend to buy it when it comes out in hardcopy, and feel more confident that it will be a good purchase, and might have even been on the fence beforehand?  How many people don't have a FLGS to browse in, so they download an illicit .pdf to preview before ordering it from Amazon or other hardcopy souce?  How few of those actual downloaders actually said "I was going to buy it, but now I don't have to!" and are planning on running Army of Darkness games using their illicit file?

Many of the games I've seen on p2p are long out of print, things for long discontinued systems, sometimes for defunct companies, but the sort of things that some gamers could appreciate.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Agamon said:
			
		

> Funny, I just printed out a watermarked pdf from DriveThru and my name is at the bottom of each page.



It probably depends on the printer and, maybe, also on the product. I just tried yesterday with a few pages from AE, and there the watermark is not visible on printouts from my laser printer.

Edit: I find it funny that just this moment my browser complains about the wrong security certificate of the drivethrurpg ad on this page .


----------



## Steel_Wind (Aug 9, 2005)

Well - I'll leave the issue of piracy another day.  It is true that the vast majority or pirates would never have bought it.

But vast majority  does not equal all.  And the fact that somebody else got it for free tends to diminish the value of the product in the eyes of the legitimate purchaser.  It's a difficult issue and I understand the outrage of the publisher, I really do.

I will say this though: I am not sure where and what the proper price point for a product is.  But I am certain it is not $28.00 for a .pdf.

Sounds like 125 people disagree with me. I expect you would have had a hard time finding that many more disagreeing with me it if had never seen a P2P network.  

Easy to say of course. I guess now we will never know.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Edit: I find it funny that just this moment my browser complains about the wrong security certificate of the drivethrurpg ad on this page .




Yeah, that's driving me nuts.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I will say this though: I am not sure where and what the proper price point for a product is.  But I am certain it is not $28.00 for a .pdf.



I don't think that everyone disagrees. People who say something along the lines that the proper price for a product is what a producer asks for his product, and everybody who thinks it's too expensive just sees that he is not able to afford it, forget some fundamental market laws. The proper price is not that one that the producer deems the right one, but the proper price is that one that consumers are willing to pay. Whether it's worth for the producer to make the product for that price (or the opposite: whether consumers are willing to pay much more than the production costs) is a completely different question.


----------



## francisca (Aug 9, 2005)

I'd like to echo Psion as well.

I work at a University that does a lot of research in digital copyright protection.  When DTRPG opened, I spent a fair amount of time discussing the technolgy with professor, phd students, and industry professionals.  My conclusion: DRM is no real deterent.  Period.  It only serves as a barrier to full enjoyment to those who paid for it.

Watermarking is better.  The tecnique used by DTRPG isn't much stronger than DRM, but at least it isn't a pain in rear to the consumer.  Since dropping DRM on many of it's products, I've put my money where my mouth is and shelled out over $100 for products.

Now, the next step in this game of leapfrog is to embed a non-visible watermark, on random pages, with random orientation of the page, in addition to the visible name/order number.  This makes it much harder to remove.  It is also a more expensive technology, and would add to the price of the books.  And of course, it would be a temporary solution.

Having said that, I am big supporter of digital watermarking these documents.  Why?

1) they don't infringe on my usage.
2) They will help a publisher should they take someone to court.  By making at least a token effort to secure their IP, they've shown a willingness to go to the expense and effort to protect their work, and it is easier to demonstrate malicious intent on part of the person who removed the watermark vs. a simple unmarked pdf.

Of course, the big joke is on the losers who spend all the time and money to download gigs and gigs of this illegal stuff.  They spend all their time online, sucking down files, sorting them, and never reading or playing any of it.  In addition, they have to keep shelling out more money for bigger hard drives, DVD-RW disks to burn it to back up, etc...  So go ahead guys, queue it up and download it all.  I'll be reading and using the material I paid for.

EDIT: Irony of Ironys:  when I posted this, I got a certificate error from DTRPG.  Their host didn't match the cert.  Nice.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Copyright infringment is as wrong as theft, but they are not the same thing. Thanks.




And arguing about the "incorrect" usage of theft when describing copyright infringement is a common tactic used by people who don't like being called thieves.

Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?

I wonder if we'll see the other common justification of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway".

_Edit: Not that I'm accusing you specifically of anything, Psionicist. I just thought that your post made a good jumping point for my own._


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 9, 2005)

Interesting short thread  from DTRPG's board.  They don't want to go back to DRM either.

(I also sent them a message while I was there about their cert.)


----------



## Ace (Aug 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yep. A free PDF I put up about a week ago has had about 150 downloads. A for sale PDF put up around the same time has sold 10 copies.
> 
> I really think a lot of the people downloading the free stuff don't even read it -- they collect PDFs.




Kinda guilty here with LEGAL pdf's only. 

I will download almost anything OGL that is free and legal. PDF's take up essentially no space. 

I do have an excuse though -- I write a little  and playtest a lot of D20 stuff and it helps to keep up


----------



## dagger (Aug 9, 2005)

sfedi said:
			
		

> Education is the thing that change this.
> 
> Of course, that would also change the government, industry, etc. as well




Most of these groups start in institutions of higher learning.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?
> 
> I wonder if we'll see the other common justification of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway".



No, because it's not a "justification". It's just a correction . The infringement of copyright _potentially_ prevents money from getting into the pockets of the copyright holders. The way you formulated the sentence it is objectively false.

Edit: Just to make it clear: I don't download copyrighted stuff from p2p networks.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 9, 2005)

Meh. 

I've bought lots of stuff that I never used after buying (book and PDF, both). Are the publishers "thieves" who "stole" my money by advertising dirty, rotten lies? Will they return the bucks I've spent if I return their PDFs?

They are compensated for "pirates" who "steal" their property by fools like me, who buy stuff & then never use it. I hope someone out there is getting good use out of a PDF they've "pirated", and that some publishers are enjoying the jingle of my ill-earned cash in their pockets.

I think there's a lot of whining going on, and it's really kinda annoying. People will always buy stuff, people will always "steal" stuff. If more people are stealing your stuff than you'd like, you need to lower the price, or add more value via services (like updates).

 -- N


----------



## Ace (Aug 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yep. A free PDF I put up about a week ago has had about 150 downloads. A for sale PDF put up around the same time has sold 10 copies.
> 
> SNIP




part of this is the nature of the web though. Thanks to the OGL there is a vast amount of free legal D20 stuff out there for the taking, more than anyone can use in fact. It can make it really hard to sell a low percieved value item like a pdf -- even at a buck or two.

Its hard to compete with free

The real problem is when the line between -- here are my houserules 'n cool vanity stuff for you -- free and legal and  'kewl a PDF of the monster guide -- might as well grab it get blurred.


----------



## Gilwen (Aug 9, 2005)

Cost of doing business. That what this is....no matter what you do your stuff is going to get stolen...period. You have a business decision to make not an emotional one. You determine your risk of being in the PDF market and decide what you can stand to lose if you determine it be too high of a risk stay out of that market until you can find a way to lower the risk.

What is going on is illegal and wrong but it will always be a barrier to entry for some. And absolutely don't fall into the trap that the Records and Movie ppl (who i feel have made their problem worse) have in thinking that every single person who downloaded the stuff would have been a sale, that is akin (IMO) to crying about ppl who browse in a store and leave with out buying. 

Gil


----------



## Ace (Aug 9, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THat's not what's wrong with this.  DRM would not have stopped this as he seems to thing or idcate.  And why these might not be lost sales, it is a bunch of people who have the product and did not pay for it.  It doesn't matter if they would have bought it or not, all that matters is they stole it here.





Short of banning peer to peer software, broadband and scanners there is no way to stop the unlawful distribution of PDF's -- None at all 

Even if every non PDF game company went strictly to paper only it wouldn't matter -- these guys get a kick out of what they are doing and wouldn't hesistate to simply scan the whole book --

It sucks but there is nothing that can be done


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Well, just to consider the original post. If only 34 people actually bought the pdf, it shouldn't be impossible to locate the one who distributed the copy. Just a thought .


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Well, just to consider the original post. If only 34 people actually bought the pdf, it shouldn't be impossible to locate the one who distributed the copy. Just a thought .




The problem is that it needn't be the original downloader. Perhaps a friend of a friend. Such is the utility of PDFs.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Aug 9, 2005)

Wow, I read this whole thread and there wasn't a single mention of George Vasilakos' over-reactionary nature. A year ago, when the DTRPG opened shop and people were arguing all over the place about DRM, wasn't he accusing all the DRM disapprovers of being a pack of "thieves looking to steal food from the mouthes of his children"?

The man seems to enjoy temper tantrums too much. I remember his tantrum at Shorecon in 1998 when he felt the other vendors in the demo area didn't provide sufficiently professional appearances to their booths, as if showing up a day and a half late made the Eden booth very professional. All that yelling really spoiled the giant monster game I was playing at one of the demo booths at the time.

Anyway, here is a thought. I wonder what else Mr. Vasilakos downloads while he's busy rooting around on p2p networks looking to see what Eden products have become available.

As for the overpricing of the Army of Darkness PDF, I agree it is overpriced, but I understand the reasoning behind it. Eden is primarily a print business, and those businesses overprice their PDFs as a deterrent to online sales in order to keep the offline distributors and retailers happy.


----------



## Poster Bard (Aug 9, 2005)

Ace said:
			
		

> It sucks but there is nothing that can be done





False.  There's always _something_ that can be done.  Your defeatist attitude is going to cost you the screenname "Ace" is you're not careful. 





Spoiler



(No.  I will not elaborate...)


----------



## Romnipotent (Aug 9, 2005)

I agree with what phillip reed said, some of us just collect PDF's, legally free ones. 

I'd exhausted a lot of sites of their demos and modules and erratas just to have them around. Then I started getting some of the free ones of DTRPG, non DRM and the like till I got a small PDF of DTRPG, loaded it up, and at that moment Adobe crashed and I got a BSoD. Not just any BSoD, somehow both my hard drives boot sectors got boned at the same time. This was not a hard drive failure or driver failure because with a quick format on the drives I was able to get the machine running again and recover the stuff. Promptly I deleted the DTRPG files.
I dont care if it was coincedence, but I will never touch DTRPG again, and I'll discourage anyone from doing so.

As for pirating, a large section of those who would pirate the book probably can't afford it anyway. Its wrong and all, theres nothing like holding a book thats well illustrated and well written, but for some people its a short term solution to waiting for the tax refund each year to buy up what you can. 
Pirating anything that can be digitised has been around since the old BBS's. I remember getting Space Hulk a few months before it came out here, back in the old days when a 486 was incredible.

Has Eden lost sales through piracy: yes.
Has Eden lost 130 sales through piracy: no.
Has Eden lost 30 sales through piracy: maybe. Normally those who wont buy it never will, but sometimes some people will... 30 is an optimistic figure of sales. Try 5 for a (subjective) realistic figure.
Has DRM hindered piracy in any way shape or form: No, have a high quality scan you can strip the DRM from and remove the watermark of in the same or less time it takes to scan a book and compile it, OCR if you need to, and distil. I've had to electronically archive books for Universities, we only did a couple, and they took a while.
Has DRM just been annoying for rightful owners who run a WW game on a laptop without a net connection: I think it has been, from what I can tell by reports and rumours.

The best protection is branding the buyer, not the cattle. The buyers the most likely one to stray.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Can't we just talk about Arrr! Pirated RPGs?  I hear _Skull and Bones_ is pretty darn good.  And National Talk Like A Pirate Day is only a few weeks away now, too.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> And arguing about the "incorrect" usage of theft when describing copyright infringement is a common tactic used by people who don't like being called thieves.
> 
> Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?
> 
> ...





The incorrect use of "theft" annoys me too. But perhaps that is because I'm a lawyer who took a class in IP in law school and used to do criminal defense.

Even if correcting the semantics is a common tactic of copiers, that doesn't mean others might not be annoyed by the term or that the usage is correct.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 9, 2005)

*Putting on my flame-retardant suit*

Warning: seriously inflammatory content ahead . . . borderline political conversation. I will apologize in advance because I'm pretty sure this will infuriate a lot of people. Sorry, I just couldn't be quiet.



			
				Jim Hague said:
			
		

> a snarky tone that implies that you don't see anything wrong with Eden losing money to some halfwit with a P2P setup.



Eden did not *lose* money to someone downloading their work from a P2P setup. They *may* have failed to realize some income from potential buyers, but that's assuming any of the so-called "pirates" would have bought the product in the first place. That assumption is shaky at best.



			
				reveal said:
			
		

> What matters is that a product a company produces is being stolen



Nothing has been stolen. Eden still has its product (physical books) available for sale and they still have the ability to profit from the sale of .pdf documents.



			
				Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Whether or not Eden has any interest in their pdf business doesn't give anyone the right to make available their property for free.



I agree that Eden's interest in the .pdf business has no bearing on the matter. I would not say that it is wrong for someone to make *information*_, _not *property*, available for free.



			
				Skrit said:
			
		

> A lot of pirates do their illegal activity for a variety of reasons. Some do it for just the notariety that "hey I'm the one that cracked soandso's product". Others seem to do it for the "I'm not paying for this crap, so I'll get it for free". Lasty yes there are people who are just angry with society and like to (as the other poster said) "Stick it to the man".



Don't forget those people who believe that all *information*, not *property*, should be available for free to anyone at anytime. In the world we live in the cost of distributing information is nearly zero. Should someone choose to make information available they are doing a service for the world-at-large.



			
				JBowtie said:
			
		

> someone motivated out of ideology or paranoia will still attack it



This is absolutely correct, and without serious infringements on individual liberty it will be entirely impossible to stop. While draconian punishment and/or inspection measures could radically reduce "piracy" of information, the cost of such measures would surely exceed their value to society as a whole.



			
				Lazarous said:
			
		

> So i'm curious about something here - how is downloading software 'theft'? From what i understand of the definition, theft means depriving someone of something, rather than just making a perfect copy, or am I completely wrong?



"Piracy" of information is certainly not theft. You clarified that perfectly. Some may believe that sharing information is immoral, and in some cases it's certainly illegal, but that does not mean it is absolutely *wrong*. That is a value judgement. Just because an act is illegal does not make it wrong.



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> #3: Foster an environment where people face more risk than reward for e-thefts. For instance, if we implemented a USA federal system where you could turn in someone that was E-stealing copyrighted product off the internet and get a confidential reward, we might be able to nip this in the bud. Imagine what would happen if there was a minimum $3,000.00 fine for being caught comitting an e-theft (up to $25,000 for multiple offenses) (plus 1 week minimum community service), with 25% of the collected fine being given to the person turning in the thief. Heck, if that were available, I can imagine a nice niche cottage industry for being a narc ...



Ah, yes, the first suggestion of seriously draconion punishments for sharing information. As I said before, such measures would *reduce* but not *eliminate* so-called "piracy." And the cost of such measures would far exceed the value to society. Would you like to be required to open up your computer or your libary or your music collection to "the authorities" at any time so that they could check for "piracy"?



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> Now ... who was it that was advocating this type of theft?



Um, that would be me . . .



			
				PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> Or try that Ransom Model that i have heard about from 3 different sources today. Strange i hadn't heard about it before. A great idea!
> 
> http://www.gregstolze.com/ransom.html



This is exceptionally clever and probably the best route for an e-publisher to take. Get paid in advance for the product the amount that you believe it is worth. I like this a lot.



			
				sfedi said:
			
		

> Education is the thing that change this.
> Of course, that would also change the government, industry, etc. as well



You're exactly right. We must educate the public that information should be free to any and all people at anytime.

Information cannot be stolen. Only property can be stolen. Just because some people will pay for information, does not mean that information has an intrinsic value in and of itself. Furthermore, by obtaining information a person does not deprive another person of anything.

Now, in a world where information can be reproduced at essentially zero cost, how does one reimburse an author, artist or scientist for his/her efforts in creating or discovering information? That's an interesting question that has a relatively simple answer . . . voluntary payment systems.

The Ransom Model above is awesome. I would love to see that come into common usage. I imagine that any reasonably well-known person (even in a niche industry like RPGs) could collect a reasonable "salary" from this method. Let's say Monte Cook was going to publish a new Game Master's Guide or some other gaming document. How much would he reasonably expect to collect as his income for this book if it was published in a standard manner? I honestly have no idea, but I'll throw out a number of say, $20,000. Is it possible that RPG fans on the Internet would donate a total of $20,000 or more to this project to see it published in a free .pdf format? I think it is very likely. Assuming that the above-mentioned figure represents 10% of the actual printed cost of said book . . . we've saved RPG fans $180,000 AND made the book available to EVERYONE that might have wanted it.

Another method of payment to creators of infomation is freeware/shareware systems in which the author of some information requests that users pay for the information as they see fit. I have often donated $10, $20 or $50 to software projects that I felt were worthy of my donation. I've also used products that I never paid for because I didn't believe they were worth my money.

Finally, publishing information for free and requesting *voluntary* donations for the electronic format does not prevent the original author (or any other person) from publishing the data in a physical format. Publishers can *still* collect money for physical books or CDs or other formats from people that would prefer to have the information in that format.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

The Everquest RPG core books are full color, licensed and 50% off the cover price. I plan on getting those (so I can search them and cut and paste which I can't from my hard copies of them) but not the AoD one, even though I enjoyed the movie a lot. 

There is, however, a salient difference in that these are of the older edition EQRPG and the new one is not 50% off. I have no plans to get the new edition at its current price although it looks like it has neat stuff.


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> It probably depends on the printer and, maybe, also on the product. I just tried yesterday with a few pages from AE, and there the watermark is not visible on printouts from my laser printer.
> 
> Edit: I find it funny that just this moment my browser complains about the wrong security certificate of the drivethrurpg ad on this page .




Mine too. Which means they are trying to serve up a banner add with a secure socket. Why they would do that is beyond me.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I really think a lot of the people downloading the free stuff don't even read it -- they collect PDFs.




Not just the free stuff. I have a ton of pdfs I've bought that I think I will enjoy reading or using that I haven't read yet. I haven't read cover to cover every physical book I've bought either though.

I think I only got through the first dozen or so issues of dragon on my compilation CD for example.


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 9, 2005)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> #3: Foster an environment where people face more risk than reward for e-thefts.  For instance, if we implemented a USA federal system where you could turn in someone that was E-stealing copyrighted product off the internet and get a confidential reward, we might be able to nip this in the bud.  Imagine what would happen if there was a minimum $3,000.00 fine for being caught comitting an e-theft (up to $25,000 for multiple offenses) (plus 1 week minimum community service), with 25% of the collected fine being given to the person turning in the thief.  Heck, if that were available, I can imagine a nice niche cottage industry for being a narc ...




Do you by any chance work for the music industry? Just curious.


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> (snip)




So, what's your Slashdot UID?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall; I'm not familiar enough with the legal definitions of theft to understand if you've creatively written your own laws there for yourself or not, but the idea that all information should be available for free to everyone is ludicrous.  Information is *not* public domain, and misuse of information in all kinds of situations is both legally and ethically wrong.  Even if it's not technically theft, according to your same basic premise, insider trading, corporate espionage and blackmail are all just perfectly acceptable activities to engage in.

It's also economically incredibly naive.  If you take away the artists' source of income, then you stop getting products to steal.  Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating.  Everybody loses.  Dumb idea.  Unless, of course, you're also advocating government subsidies of RPG authors and artists.  But that's just as dumb an idea for completely different reasons.

I do agree that the cost of trying to control piracy is greater than the benefit that we'd get (as a society) from implementing such controls, but that's a far cry from flat-out advocating piracy as a completely normal and acceptible thing to do.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> *snip*



Intellectual property is indeed property in the legal sense, and it is illegal to use it without obtaining the rights to it. Don't believe me? Write a story set in the Star Wars universe and offer it for sale over the Internet, then let me know how many billable hours your attorneys charge you for fending off Lucas' law firms.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> And arguing about the "incorrect" usage of theft when describing copyright infringement is a common tactic used by people who don't like being called thieves.
> 
> Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?
> 
> ...




If you think it is just semantics then you don't understand the situation.
And falsely declaring the desire to correctly identify a problem as somehow justifying the problem is absurd.

If someone vandalized Phil's car, that would be a crime against him and he would fully deserve compensation.  But it isn't theft.  If some fool called it theft and you corrected them, you would not be justifying the vandalism.  


I can't stand these cheap scum who do this crap.  But calling one action another because it is easier to understand just muddies the water and runs counter to solving the real problem.
Anyone who illegally distributes copies should be forced to pay AT LEAST full value (and really more) for every single copy moved.  The problem is getting enforcement to care and catching the true criminals.


On the DRM vs. watermark topic, if Drivethru says that sales are way up, then clearly there is more money going toward the pockets of the authors/owners.  If you got crime either way, go with the way that gets the good guys paid the most.  Maybe a better plan will come along in the future....


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating.




Joshua, this is Linus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds Linus, get out of your sports car and say hello to Joshua. Some people make money from open source software. If anything, it's naive to claim the only way there will actually _be_ books/software/info is if someone gets paid to create it. How was the intellectual property laws when Shakespeare or Mozart did their thing? Did they suddenly stop creating because their work was copied and they were not paid royalties?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent Nall said:
			
		

> We must educate the public that information should be free to any and all people at anytime.




Why?  Information has as much inherent value as anything else.  Whether it's physicists unlocking the secrets of subatomic particles or some guy busting his ass at night working on an RPG, it takes work to craft 'information' from the 'hypothetical'.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Brent_Nall; I'm not familiar enough with the legal definitions of theft to understand if you've creatively written your own laws there for yourself or not, but the idea that all information should be available for free to everyone is ludicrous.  Information is *not* public domain, and misuse of information in all kinds of situations is both legally and ethically wrong.




I don't agree with his conclusions, but there are some fundamental truths there.  I think you mis-step when you refer to public domain.  In an absolute sense, there is no such thing as public domain or an absense thereof.  It is an arbitary human invention as part of the arbitrary concept of intellectual property.  



> Even if it's not technically theft, according to your same basic premise, insider trading, corporate espionage and blackmail are all just perfectly acceptable activities to engage in.




Exactly.  
In an absolutes only world:
if I now a business secret that will crush its stock and use your lack of knowledge to let you buy soon to be worthless stock, I've done nothing wrong.
if I get picture through your factory window and use that to profit off your innovation, to your expense, then I've done nothing wrong
if I find out about you dirty secrets and simply offer not to tell for a few bucks, then I've done nothing wrong. 

But these are true only in a world of absolutes and a lack of reasoning, logic and complexity. In the full spectrum of reality, these things are clearly wrong.    Just as infrigement is.

Theft is wrong in the absence of reason.  A squirrel takes an acorn from another, the second squirrel loses something.  No great cognitive thought required.  Just a simple wrong. 

If I read one of Phil's pdf's to you and you memorize it simply in the hearing, have you wronged Phil?  We have replicated his information.  Information itself, really is free by its own nature.  It can be replicated perpetually for no cost.  The concept of IP is an artificial construct of human thought.  But it is a very good concept that addresses right and wrong in a way that simple absolutes can never achieve.

Blackmail is wrong.  Infringement is wrong.
I think your reasoning started out a little wrong.
But your conclusions were exactly right.


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 9, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> If you think it is just semantics then you don't understand the situation.
> And falsely declaring the desire to correctly identify a problem as somehow justifying the problem is absurd.




I think my post miscommunicated my intent.

I meant to say something along the lines of:

Arguing semantics and offering fallicious justifications all are used to distract from the argument at hand - that copyright infringement (if I may use the correct term) is illegal. Already this thread seems to be heading downhill, especially with Brent_Nall's post above (I see in it declarations that no property is being lost, that information should be free, piracy is not theft, something that is illegal can also be not wrong.... all the hallmark's of someone justifying to themselves their criminal behaviour - not that Brent_Nall is doing so himself, but he is using the same arguments of one who is).

Any thread that discusses piracy or copyright infringement always seems to spiral down this path (IMHO).

Copyright Laws exist to ensure the creator of the information makes a reasonable income from it. If they didn't exist then we wouldn't get such things as Firefly, Vampire: The Masquerade, Unisystem, etc.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> So, what's your Slashdot UID?



Sorry, dude, I don't have one.
 

In all honesty, I have never downloaded any music, software or written works illegally. The current deterrent system is enough to stop me. I have enough money to buy what I really want, and I won't risk my freedom or wealth to illegally acquire something I can buy. So, I guess I'm just a loud-mouthed advocate for a cause I won't directly support.
 



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It's also economically incredibly naive. If you take away the artists' source of income, then you stop getting products to steal. Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating. Everybody loses. Dumb idea.




Have you ever heard of open source software (one of many examples: http://sourceforge.net/)? Software developers regularly make pretty significant discoveries and advances in the realm of software development and publish those findings at no charge. Many of these developers accept donations for their projects, and some rare, talented individuals make a good living publishing, at no direct cost, open source software.

I think that any realm of information discovery/creation could flourish under such a system.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Intellectual property is indeed property in the legal sense, and it is illegal to use it without obtaining the rights to it. Don't believe me? Write a story set in the Star Wars universe and offer it for sale over the Internet, then let me know how many billable hours your attorneys charge you for fending off Lucas' law firms.



Hey, check this out: http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/

It's a 45 min. movie set in the Star Wars universe that is available free of charge over the Internet.

I agree completely that if they attempted to *sell *this movie they would be in a fight with Lucas's lawyers. They would likely lose that fight. That still doesn't make them wrong. Just because an act is illegal doesn't mean that act is wrong.



			
				Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Why? Information has as much inherent value as anything else. Whether it's physicists unlocking the secrets of subatomic particles or some guy busting his ass at night working on an RPG, it takes work to craft 'information' from the 'hypothetical'.



Information does not have an inherent value. Information is infinitely sharable at practically zero cost to anyone. If I acquire some information without paying for it I have in no way decreased your benefit if you acquired that same information via some effort on your part or by paying for it.

The effort that some person goes through to create or discover some information certainly has some value. I firmly believe that people that discover/create information can be fully compensated for their efforts even if the information they create/discover is made available at no direct cost. See above.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Information does not have an inherent value.




_Tell me that when you're up to your elbow in the garbage disposal and I'm asking which one is the switch for the light..._


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 9, 2005)

Mark CMG said:
			
		

> _Tell me that when you're up to your elbow in the garbage disposal and I'm asking which one is the switch for the light..._



LMAO!

Yes, but you still can't put a price on that information.  To me that information will have nearly infinite value.  To you, probably less value, but some.  To some person unaware of the situation that information will have practically zero value.  However, if we publish that information on the Internet we have in no way reduced it's nearly infinite value to me nor have we increased it's value to an uninterested party.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THat's not what's wrong with this.  DRM would not have stopped this as he seems to thing or idcate.  And why these might not be lost sales, it is a bunch of people who have the product and did not pay for it.  It doesn't matter if they would have bought it or not, all that matters is they stole it here.




Agreed.  A quick google is all it takes to learn how to remove DRM.  It's actually a bigger pain in the ass to manually remove watermarks than it is to crack a DRM-protected file.


----------



## trancejeremy (Aug 9, 2005)

A lot of the arguments about this are beating a dead horse and probably don't have an actual answer. (lost sales vs. people just browsing , theft vs. copying, etc).

But look at the music industry. It faced a similar problem. Even more so than RPGs, because a person can turn a download into a cd with pretty much the same exact quality  as the original for pretty much nothing (as blank cds are cheap), while it is probably more expensive to print out a RPG than to buy a copy at a store (unless you work at a printer or something).  Digital Music selling sites like iTunes are making money, and many are springing up.



How can the RPG industry duplicate the success of digital music?  That's a more productive discussion, IMHO.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Y'know, I do the same thing with DVDs - steal 'em off the store shelves, watch 'em a couple of times to see if they're worth keeping, and then go back to the store and buy them if I think they'll be a good addition to my collection.
> 
> Not.
> 
> Just a thought...




Allow me to fix this:



> Y'know, I do the same thing with DVDs - rent them from the video place, watch 'em a couple of times to see if they're worth keeping, and then go back to the store and buy them if I think they'll be a good addition to my collection.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> LMAO!
> 
> Yes, but you still can't put a price on that information.  To me that information will have nearly infinite value.  To you, probably less value, but some.  To some person unaware of the situation that information will have practically zero value.  However, if we publish that information on the Internet we have in no way reduced it's nearly infinite value to me nor have we increased it's value to an uninterested party.




I would have thought the price to be obvious; 50% off of an arm and a leg...


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that people that discover/create information can be fully compensated for their efforts even if the information they create/discover is made available at no direct cost. See above.




How to you guarantee this? Apply this to roleplaying games.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> LMAO!
> 
> Yes, but you still can't put a price on that information.  To me that information will have nearly infinite value.  To you, probably less value, but some.  To some person unaware of the situation that information will have practically zero value.  However, if we publish that information on the Internet we have in no way reduced it's nearly infinite value to me nor have we increased it's value to an uninterested party.




No, but it has quite effectively reduced it's value to Mark.  Whereas before he could have charged you an arm and a leg, so to speak, for the information he put effort into gathering, now he can charge you nothing.  You've been enriched at his expense.


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 9, 2005)

Crothian said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter what they would blink at.  The PDF market is new, and Eden has books that are in categories others do not have.  Therefore one can't judge what the market is.




Well, since the book isn't selling at $28, apparently, then the market won't bear paying $28 for that book.  Pretty simple equation.

I've had several books that there was no way I'd have purchased them at the price initially asked for them...but when I saw them on special (like last Christmas, when publishers were practically giving stuff away), or when I had a big bonus and hence spare cash floating around, I was more willing to part with the cash on books I'd passed on originally.

But in no way would I ever spend $28 on a PDF book, personally.  Regardless of what the intellectual copyright or worth is, there's no physical backup or product.  If my computer gets wiped, I've lost the file.  If it gets corrupted, then I get to spend the money purchasing it again.  And before somebody comes out and eagerly points out that a book could get damaged, I'll do them the favour of admitting that I've had far more files lost due to computer issues over the years, than physical books getting damaged.  Only one book ever did...the Midnight Campaign Setting v.1, in about 14-15 years of gaming.

Banshee

Banshee


----------



## Banshee16 (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Sorry, dude, I don't have one.
> 
> 
> In all honesty, I have never downloaded any music, software or written works illegally. The current deterrent system is enough to stop me. I have enough money to buy what I really want, and I won't risk my freedom or wealth to illegally acquire something I can buy. So, I guess I'm just a loud-mouthed advocate for a cause I won't directly support.
> ...




I believe Lucas is aware of that movie, and actually supports it.  I remember reading an article somewhere.  But I belief that support only lasts so long as they don't try to profit from it.

Banshee


----------



## TheGM (Aug 9, 2005)

Sunmocker said:
			
		

> I've found that folks who dowload the material tend to get the books/music/etc as well after review. Plus if you can't get to a store easly, it's nice to fully review a product before you shell out money for it, wait for it to arrive, find out it was not what you were looking for, send it back, wait for a refund etc... Just a thought... Brian.




This is the utter crap spewed by Piraters. 
Let's see there's the "Only reviewing it" argument.
There's the "I wouldn't have paid for it" argument.
There's the "I didn't pirate it, I just downloaded it" argument.

And all the time these lame arguments are being deployed, good people who develop games and modules for us are losing money.

Cracked downloads do not equate directly to lost sales, but there is an impact. I've seen it. I used to know one group that bought exactly one copy of anything and then sent electronic copies to the group. The claim was that they owned a legal copy, so could have backups.

It made them sleep better, but it's utter crap too. If more than one person can be viewing it per purchased license, it's copyright infringement.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Gilwen said:
			
		

> Cost of doing business. That what this is....no matter what you do your stuff is going to get stolen...period. You have a business decision to make not an emotional one. You determine your risk of being in the PDF market and decide what you can stand to lose if you determine it be too high of a risk stay out of that market until you can find a way to lower the risk.
> 
> What is going on is illegal and wrong but it will always be a barrier to entry for some. And absolutely don't fall into the trap that the Records and Movie ppl (who i feel have made their problem worse) have in thinking that every single person who downloaded the stuff would have been a sale, that is akin (IMO) to crying about ppl who browse in a store and leave with out buying.
> 
> Gil




Movie Industry: Don't download our movies!
Record Industry: Don't download our records!
Kid watching TV ads against P2P networks: You mean I can get movies and records off the internet, just by downloading them?  Awesome!


----------



## Psionicist (Aug 9, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> This is the utter crap spewed by Piraters.
> Let's see there's the "Only reviewing it" argument.
> There's the "I wouldn't have paid for it" argument.
> There's the "I didn't pirate it, I just downloaded it" argument.
> ...




Ah, "lame". 

There are many arguments, here are a few I like.

* A pirated movie is BETTER than the legal DVD you purchase. No commercials you cannot fastforward, no region codes, no copy protection, you don't have to wait several months for the movie to be released where you live, _if_ it will, you don't have to wait a couple of days  for the physical DVD to arrive in your mailbox. 
* A pirated music CD is BETTER than the legal CD your purchase. No copy protection, and you don't have to encode the music to MP3's yourself. If I cannot make the contents of a music CD into MP3's the CD is completely worthless for me. I don't have to wait several days for the CD to arrive in my mailbox either. And the kind of music I listen to is not the kind of music you can find on "iTunes".
* A pirated computer game is BETTER than the legal game you buy in the store. I don't have to swap CD's, and I don't have to put the DVD in the drive to play the game.
* A pirated TV-serie episode is BETTER than the one you can watch on cable. No commercials, and you don't have to wait 6 months for the show to air where you live, if it's shown at all. (This happens all the time in Sweden).

People don't like paying for an inferior product. Content creators should realize this and at least make their own product better than the pirated version.

For this reason, i have "warezed" copies of all the movies and CD's I own, because it is much more convenient.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Already this thread seems to be heading downhill, especially with Brent_Nall's post above (I see in it declarations that no property is being lost, that information should be free, piracy is not theft, *something that is illegal can also be not wrong....* all the hallmark's of someone justifying to themselves their criminal behaviour - not that Brent_Nall is doing so himself, but he is using the same arguments of one who is).



(emphasis mine)

Do I read that correctly?  Are you trying to claim that a thing is rendered wrong by virtue of it being illegal?


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Warning: seriously inflammatory content ahead . . . borderline political conversation. I will apologize in advance because I'm pretty sure this will infuriate a lot of people. Sorry, I just couldn't be quiet.




You may infuriate some people but I think overall, your arguments are self-defeating. Essentially, I don't think you have clearly defined (that is to say completely ignored) the difference between information and intellectual property. How do you define each?

As to pricing information/intellectual property at a sum total of zero dollars, I think you will quickly find that economics will quickly dissolve the number of products available to zero as well; nothing for nothing in its purest form. Not everyone else in the world thinks like you. As such, people simply won't bother producing stuff/information/intellectual property.

As to how I feel, knowing that I spent hard earned money on a product that you or people like you stole/copyright infringed for nothing, I suppose it's something I can live with. I don't know you or them from a bar of soap. That is to say I don't think your collective behaviour directly affects me.

As to how I will feel the day when I hear that you or people like you have been caught and dealt with (if or when laws are enforced against either you or people who follow your philosophy), I suppose a smile will cross my face as I think: "sucked in".      

Best Regards and Quietly Hoping for That Day,
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ah, "lame".
> 
> There are many arguments, here are a few I like.
> 
> * A pirated movie is BETTER than the legal DVD you purchase. No commercials you cannot fastforward, no region codes, no copy protection, you don't have to wait several months for the movie to be released where you live, _if_ it will, you don't have to wait a couple of days  for the physical DVD to arrive in your mailbox.




Don't forget "It's subtitled in my language, which is a damn sight better than the movie producers thought of doing."

And for all kinds of media, music being the most near and dear to my heart, "Nobody sells this anymore, and the original copies were on vinyl (and had a run of about 500 units anyway), so the .mp3 version is both infinitely more durable and available than the sale copies."


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ah, "lame".
> 
> There are many arguments, here are a few I like.




But none of those apply here.....


----------



## Elephant (Aug 9, 2005)

FCWesel said:
			
		

> $28.00 US. Full color.
> 
> And they have a preview on the same site for those folks who wanted to see what it was like.
> 
> ...




You're entitled to your opinion on these matters, but please use appropriate language.  Copyright infringement and theft are two distinct things.  Keep that in mind when formulating your arguments.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> You're entitled to your opinion on these matters, but please use appropriate language.  Copyright infringement and theft are two distinct things.  Keep that in mind when formulating your arguments.




His opnion seems to be it's theft!


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> (emphasis mine)
> 
> Do I read that correctly?  Are you trying to claim that a thing is rendered wrong by virtue of it being illegal?





Nope. Only within the context of this topic - as in copyright infringement is wrong AND illegal.

But there are people who would use fallicious reasoning to say that if A is illegal but not wrong, then B being illegal is also not wrong.


----------



## HeavyG (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating.




Well... piracy is pretty common right now. I'd say it's already a de-facto "pay if you want to" model, out there.  :\


----------



## Elephant (Aug 9, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> Cracked downloads do not equate directly to lost sales, but there is an impact. I've seen it. I used to know one group that bought exactly one copy of anything and then sent electronic copies to the group. The claim was that they owned a legal copy, so could have backups.
> 
> It made them sleep better, but it's utter crap too. If more than one person can be viewing it per purchased license, it's copyright infringement.




Pathetic and dishonest.  If the whole group wants the book, the whole group should buy the book - otherwise they should lend things back and forth.

The line gets fuzzy on purchased pdfs, though.  For example, I have a copy of TheLe Games' _17 Magic Armors_.  After reviewing it, I think it has some cool stuff in it that I'd like for my group to use.  I can email the pdf to one of my friends so that he can look at it, but I'm unlikely to think to delete it from my hard drive as I do so.  Even if I DO think to do so, it's a hassle to simulate a bound book by emailing and deleting the pdf multiple times in order to send it to multiple friends.

With all this in mind, I've chosen not to mail copies of TheLe's pdfs to my friends - it's less of a hassle to simply read them from my hard drive.  The downside of this is that my friends don't really get exposure to the armors - I haven't been DMing much lately, so I haven't had occasion to insert these special armor properties (or anything else from TheLe's products, for that matter) into the game.  And as a player, of course, I can't very well say to the DM "I want to use this material, so you have to buy a bunch of stuff in order to know about it for the game." ... the DM would tell me to take a hike!

I've handled the situation as ethically as I can, and the people who sneer at p2p downloads can find no fault with my position here.  However, the truth of the matter is that my actions have probably resulted in fewer sales for TheLe Games; my friends don't have any exposure to the products and therefore no desire to support them.

I feel stuck, really.  On the one hand, I prefer for my actions to be ethically sound.  On the other hand, I feel like I'm letting TheLe down in a way - he's given away quite a few free copies of his pdfs, and I'd love to see him gain a few sales because of it.  Editing issues aside, they're solid products, and they're worth having.


----------



## Elephant (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> And arguing about the "incorrect" usage of theft when describing copyright infringement is a common tactic used by people who don't like being called thieves.
> 
> Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?




Calling it a "tactic" is rather inappropriate, given that equating copyright infringement with serious crimes (commonly theft, sometimes rape and serial murder) is a common tactic on the part of a sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry that makes the most voracious of downloaders look like paragons of virtue.

Regardless of the legalities involved, I just don't WANT to side with the people saying that downloading stuff is bad - that population contains such callous blackguards that anything they promote looks questionable to me.

Oh, one more thing.  Copyright infringement does not NECESSARILY take money from the pockets of the holders.  They like to use language tricks and semantic nonsense to make it SOUND like it does, but there is, at best, mixed data on the question.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Hey, check this out: http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/
> 
> It's a 45 min. movie set in the Star Wars universe that is available free of charge over the Internet.
> 
> I agree completely that if they attempted to *sell *this movie they would be in a fight with Lucas's lawyers. They would likely lose that fight.



And if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I specifically indicated "for sale" as distinguished from fan fiction - one might even be able to get by with a satirical piece that riffs on SW.

It doesn't change the fact that intellectual property is still legal property, and your earlier statement is incorrect and misleading, reflecting your personal ideological stance perhaps but not the laws of most Western nations, including those where the game book was pirated.







			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> That still doesn't make them wrong. Just because an act is illegal doesn't mean that act is wrong.



Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong - that fact that there's a law attached to it simply reinforces society's stand on the issue.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> How to you guarantee this? Apply this to roleplaying games.



No one can guarantee anything, but I do believe it is fairly easy to illustrate that people will pay for a product or service even if they do not have to.

Ever seen this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106049 ?
It appears that an awful lot of people donated money to EN World . . . to the tune of over $13,000. I don't know if everyone that donated got something out of it, but I'm sure many people would have donated without getting anything in return.

Ever noticed some EN World users have something other than Registered User under their user name? Many of them got that by becoming community supporters. They essentially gave money to EN World that they didn't have to. Sure, they can change their user name title and they can use the search function, but they didn't get any real concrete value out of this donation. They did it because they wanted to see EN World stick around and felt that they could part with a bit of cash to make that happen.

I think people would do the same thing to ensure the publication of quality RPG material. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Ransom Model (which I think kicks a$$) . . . demand a certain level of donations before publishing material. That would do it. I still believe that some people would pay a voluntary "fee" for use of a good product. I know I would and have in the past (for shareware software).



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> Essentially, I don't think you have clearly defined (that is to say completely ignored) the difference between information and intellectual property. How do you define each?



I did ignore the difference between information and intellectual property. I believe intellectual property is a false construct of the modern age that will vanish in the future. Many great thinkers and artists existed long before intellectual property laws existed and we still had great music, poetry, literature and scientific discoveries (Mozart, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Plato, Socrates, etc.). The fact that someone can own a thought, idea or series of musical notes arranged a certain way is offensive to me, but that's the world we live in.



			
				Herremann the Wise said:
			
		

> As to pricing information/intellectual property at a sum total of zero dollars, I think you will quickly find that economics will quickly dissolve the number of products available to zero as well; nothing for nothing in its purest form. Not everyone else in the world thinks like you. As such, people simply won't bother producing stuff/information/intellectual property.



I believe you are mistaken. See my previous post regarding open source software. As was already mentioned . . . ever hear of Linux? Also, see above . . . artists, scientists, etc. from times before intellectual property laws existed still created/discovered information and were well compensated for their efforts even though they didn't "own" their works.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Calling it a "tactic" is rather inappropriate, given that equating copyright infringement with serious crimes (commonly theft, sometimes rape and serial murder) is a common tactic on the part of a sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry that makes the most voracious of downloaders look like paragons of virtue.




So, making unfair comparisons is worse then this illegal activity?  And the gaming industry is far from "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing".


----------



## Izerath (Aug 9, 2005)

*Legal Eagle's question*

OK - I know the general differences between Copyright infringment and theft in legal terms: both in how the crime is pursued in the courts and the sentencing differences for those found guilty. 

That said, you'll likely rarely recall reading about a copyright infringement arrest. If I remember correctly, it's because the oneous(sp?) of proof of copyright infirngement falls on the copyright owner, not the legal system. Essentially, I would have to witness the infringement and then sue the pants off the guy that did it, provided I know who that is. The reason for this difference in treatment is that copyrights and patents protect "ideas and concepts" while the definition of theft is specific to physical products.

A simple example are the "anonymous defendant"  lawsuits that big music labels are filing against avid and often abusive p2p users. By filing the lawsuit, it gives them certain legal rights to pursue the identities of the anonymous users for copyright infingement. Essentially you have to sue them to stop and then sue them for damages as well.

So to those lawyers out there -  is my line of thought correct? Is the only legal recourse for those who are trodden upon as publishers to sue the evil-doers? And if so, if they can quantify the number of infringments, is their some legal tax or other recourse they can take to "write off" or recoup their perceived losses based on the infringements they can prove occurred?

Just a fellow who's always been curious about the law.....


----------



## Shining Dragon (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> No one can guarantee anything, but I do believe it is fairly easy to illustrate that people will pay for a product or service even if they do not have to.
> 
> Ever seen this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106049 ?
> It appears that an awful lot of people donated money to EN World . . . to the tune of over $13,000. I don't know if everyone that donated got something out of it, but I'm sure many people would have donated without getting anything in return.
> ...




Didn't Stephen King also try this? With a serialized novel called The Plant that didn't go beyond 6 installments. It seemed that $1 was too much for some to pay per installment.


----------



## Kem (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Also, see above . . . artists, scientists, etc. from times before intellectual property laws existed still created/discovered information and were well compensated for their efforts even though they didn't "own" their works.




They got paid to make the works.  They got paid to perform (in some method).

Others got paid to MAKE MORE.

Not all where ever fully compensated for their efforts.  Few in fact where.

Based on how much Mozart I hear, how much artwork from Leonardo, how much calculus I see being used, I will say outright, right in the open, that they where NEVER compensated for what they made, based on the popularity, and value placed on their items today.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> LMAO!
> 
> Yes, but you still can't put a price on that information.  To me that information will have nearly infinite value.  To you, probably less value, but some.  To some person unaware of the situation that information will have practically zero value.  However, if we publish that information on the Internet we have in no way reduced it's nearly infinite value to me nor have we increased it's value to an uninterested party.




Price is a negotiable. Your example proves exactly *why* you can put a price on information. I'm not following your arguement. It seems like you think there's something called "inherant value" and how since nothing has an "inherant value" nothing has any value.

Value is a relationship between availability and need/desire. If there is something that someone needs/desires then there is value and you *can* put a price on it. Through negotiation, that price will reach a "market value." A market value isn't the "worth" of an object—it's just the codification of many value relationships over a period of time. There is not, and never has been, any inherant value in any information. However, value is not, and has never been, inherant to begin with.

Now on to another point: Having the ability to infinitely duplicate some information can destroy value, or conversely it can increase value of said information.

I all boils down to this: information has value *regardless* of it's formatting. No matter if I tell you how to double your crop-yield, write it down and sell it to you, broadcast it on a radio, use smoke signals, or use any other method of communication the information has value if *you want to double your crop yield.* It's only if you don't, or if you're life is never effected by others doubling their crop yield does that information have no value. To you.

joe b.


----------



## Lazarous (Aug 9, 2005)

> No one can guarantee anything, but I do believe it is fairly easy to illustrate that people will pay for a product or service even if they do not have to.
> 
> Ever seen this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106049 ?
> It appears that an awful lot of people donated money to EN World . . . to the tune of over $13,000. I don't know if everyone that donated got something out of it, but I'm sure many people would have donated without getting anything in return.
> ...




A thought about this matter - voluntary payments *really* scare modern corporations.   You're pretty much destroying the underpinnings of a consumer society, that being you need to keep buying stuff.  Economics is always about ways to deal with scarcity, and with modern information distribution methods, scarcity doesn't exist.  Economic models start failing when that happens, so you have to _introduce_ scarcity into the system (copyrights, copy protections, etc.) to have your economic theory work.  
Possibly more important, alternative economic systems (i.e. the ransom model) have an inherent upper limit to their profits.  Once the ransom is paid, the product becomes free information - there is no chance of breakout hits that make a lot more money than anyone thought they would.  You start cutting heavily into the profit margins of a company when that sort of thing becomes commonplace, so you're going to see the record and movie industries fighting this sort of paradigm change tooth and nail.  That being said, is cutting into the profit margins of these types of activities a bad thing?

Another problem with that sort of paradigm is that it requires an existing market and user base for it to work - someone has to already want your work before the ransom would be paid.  Not sure if the rpg market is large enough to support that sort of thing.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 9, 2005)

I would like some assistance in understanding how it is that a non-free roleplaying product in digital format is purely 'information', as opposed to being 'a product'. Or am I mistaken in thinking that anyone has made such a claim?


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 9, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> I would like some assistance in understanding how it is that a non-free roleplaying product in digital format is purely 'information', as opposed to being 'a product'. Or am I mistaken in thinking that anyone has made such a claim?



The claim.


----------



## Jacen (Aug 9, 2005)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:
			
		

> Interesting short thread  from DTRPG's board.  They don't want to go back to DRM either.
> 
> (I also sent them a message while I was there about their cert.)




This is not a hijack attempt, but need to say the following...

I think it would be nice to read that but no can do... I surf without cookies and javascript if site doesn't work without them it is not meant for me. DTRPG apparently needs cookie or something or else it throws one to logout window which doesn't load because no cookies or something and it goes for logout window which doesn't load... well I think you get the picture. 

If I want to use a site that need cookie (buy something etc) I'll enable them then. But I won't enable them for seing the site. After they gave up DRM I was thinking about using site, but... Not to mention that I do not use IE

Surprisingly I do not have  spyware on my computer even I check it with different spy&adware software and virus checkers a couple of times a month.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 9, 2005)

Ah, _there_ it is. Thanks. I was kind of in a hurry at the time.


So, is a printed book just 'information' too? Just need that cleared up, first.


And how would a full-time writer (for example) make a living, if this belief system were to become dominant in the world?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> * A pirated computer game is BETTER than the legal game you buy in the store. I don't have to swap CD's, and I don't have to put the DVD in the drive to play the game.




My PC's CD player is broken, so I use no-CD cracks to be able to play my (legally purchased) games on it.  I wonder if people think this is immoral?

BTW I think calling free distribution of a text "piracy" is a silly use of language.  Arr me hearties...  I feel sorry for Eden though, but I think if they'd sold their text at $5 or so they'd most likely have sold a lot more.  A note on the .pdf "if you have acquired this without paying, please send us $5" would probably also have helped.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> And how would a full-time writer (for example) make a living, if this belief system were to become dominant in the world?




Most full-time writers don't make a living.  A few do, but this is a recent phenomenon, and not one that has any inherent right to exist IMO.  If you want to write, you can write.  Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Jacen said:
			
		

> This is not a hijack attempt, but need to say the following...
> 
> I think it would be nice to read that but no can do... I surf without cookies and javascript if site doesn't work without them it is not meant for me. DTRPG apparently needs cookie or something or else it throws one to logout window which doesn't load because no cookies or something and it goes for logout window which doesn't load... well I think you get the picture.
> 
> If I want to use a site that need cookie (buy something etc) I'll enable them then. But I won't enable them for seing the site. After they gave up DRM I was thinking about using site, but... Not to mention that I do not use IE



If that direct link in Rodrigo's post doesn't work, click on the DriveThru logo on that logoff site. This leads you to the front page. Anyway, here are the posts Rodrigo referred to:


*LLoyd:* _"Could we please have more DRM PDF files? When I pay good money for a book I don't want some stupid watermark on each page. I want the book to look perfect. For some books I'm even willing to take the file to a print shop and have it printed on heavier (i.e. higher quality) stock and get it bound. I like paper and if this is the only way to get an out of print book, then so be it.

I'm not willing to pay money to print a watermark. DRM works fine for me. I can't see one complaint about DRM on the forums, so it's a bit difficult for me to be sympathetic with people who want watermarks."_

*Administrator:* _"Hi Lloyd,

I understand your concerns, but truthfully there are a LOT of people who really hated DRM. Our sales have gone up tremendously since we started moving over to the watermarking structure. There have been a number of DRM complaints on our own forums, but most such complaints were on other forums from potential customers who refused to buy from us due to the DRM protection. So the best advice I could give you would be to get the DRM products you want before they get switched over to the watermark system. Unfortunately, there's not else we can do for you at this point."_


This simply shows that people don't like DRM and, more importantly, don't buy files secured with DRM.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Most full-time writers don't make a living. A few do, but this is a recent phenomenon, and not one that has any inherent right to exist IMO. If you want to write, you can write. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.



Some do though, as you say.

And to say that I disagree with your opinion regarding this phenomenon is _certainly_ an understatement. For someone to pour time, care and effort into a written work is, to me, just as valuable (in every sense) a contribution as anything else. 


So let me see... do you agree with any of the following?

If you want to make cars, you can make cars. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.
If you want to heal the sick and injured, you can do so. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.


Oh anyway, you get the idea, I'm sure. What are your thoughts on this?


----------



## glass (Aug 9, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> Well, if you have porch sellers in your area who live off of you're business, it'll help. If you have porch sellers in your area who don't give a damn about you or you're business, it won't help.




I assume Shining Dragon meant Porsches, rather than porches. Of course, I could be wrong.


glass.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> So let me see... do you agree with any of the following?
> 
> If you want to make cars, you can make cars. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.
> If you want to heal the sick and injured, you can do so. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.




Yup, I agree with both 100%.  Nobody has a right to earn a living making cars or healing the sick, or doing any particular activity.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yup, I agree with both 100%. Nobody has a right to earn a living making cars or healing the sick, or doing any particular activity.



*chuckle* ah.


----------



## Jacen (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> If that direct link in Rodrigo's post doesn't work, click on the DriveThru logo on that logoff site.




Well the page is blank as it starts to load a page https://www.drivethrurpg.com/catalog/logoff.php which apears to be empty as it starts to load https://www.drivethrurpg.com/catalog/logoff.php which is empty and it starts to load a page... It might be netscape (older version) but no can do. Work machine so can't update. Other alternative is IE and I use it only with intranet pages and a handfull of other sites I do want to use and needs cookies&scripts which are enabled on that. In netscape I have disable cookies&java script for tighter security. But that is not mine our anyone elses problem (execept DTRGP as lost customer) as long as I can live without DTRPG.


----------



## glass (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> BTW I think calling free distribution of a text "piracy" is a silly use of language.  Arr me hearties...



I was wondering why so many people were onjecting to calling it theft, but apparently had no problem with calling it piracy. I would imagine most software priacy does not happen on the high seas... 


glass.


----------



## JBowtie (Aug 9, 2005)

Izerath said:
			
		

> So to those lawyers out there -  is my line of thought correct? Is the only legal recourse for those who are trodden upon as publishers to sue the evil-doers? And if so, if they can quantify the number of infringments, is their some legal tax or other recourse they can take to "write off" or recoup their perceived losses based on the infringements they can prove occurred?




IANAL, just a student of it.

Obviously it depends on your jurisdiction.

In China, copyright infringement is a capital crime prosecuted by the state. The rather onerous punishment was required by the US during WTO negotiations. Unless the publication is banned or involves cultural legends. In other words, the publisher can take it to the police.

In most European jurisdictions and Canada publishers are entitled to a cut of the blank media levy. In practice, the music trade associations misappropriate the funds and never cut in other publishers. You should be able to get recompense from the levy fund based on some complex formula, but good luck.

Last I checked, P2P distribution was legal in Canada under certain circumstances. There has been lobbying by US firms to change this. You can sue but the burden of proof is likely to be substantial.

England, New Zealand, and a number of other Commonwealth members have a crown copyright with special rules. I don't remember the details but I would guess the Queen can pirate your works if she wants and lock you up in the Tower of London if you disagree. 

As of January 2003, US works legally have no copyright protection in Iran, Ethiopia, Nepal, North Korea, and about a dozen other countries.  Assuming it is legal for nationals of said countries to access your works to begin with, it is perfectly legal for them to do whatever the heck they please with your work, including redistributing it to individuals in other nations (where the work is otherwise protected). That's one reason why many trading hubs operate in "obscure" countries (though most effective hubs operate in Western European countries where the practice is illegal but enforcement is negligible). I suspect this means you do nothing unless you live there.

Artists living in countries that are signatories of the Berne Convention have non-transferable moral rights that are enforced in Europe and largely ignored (and routinely violated) in the US. If you're an artist, you can sue a publisher who tampers with your artistic vision by inserting four pages of ads.   I suspect it will be a difficult case to win but am utterly ignorant of the individual signatory implementations.

There is no penalty for falsely placing a copyright notice on works that are not protected by copyright in the USA. It is illegal in other jurisdictions (for example, fair trading acts in Commonwealth countries would generally apply in such a case). Look at the weasel words in Penguin Classics for a good example. If you're a publisher of such works, you have no recourse.

Russian law is currently written in such a way that only physical copies are subject to copyright law - it basically does not recognize the existence of digital works. This was why the case against AllOfMp3.com was dismissed earlier this year. In Russia, it's not copyright infringement until your PDF hits the printer (then it becomes a physical copy subject to normal sanctions). If you're a publisher you may be able to get the US to apply pressure on the Kremlin, but don't hold your breath. As a practical matter you probably have little to no recourse, though your case is stronger if you're a print publisher.

Frankly copyright law with regards to digital works is still evolving. It's not likely to be settled for another 20 years, given the usual pace of the courts. For example, under one theory of law, reading a work from the hard disk creates an unauthorized copy in memory. Even then, it may simply move offshore with the banking and gambling.

Ultimately, your best bet is to find a business model that does not depend on digital distribution for revenue. See Cory Doctorow, Larry Lessig, O'Reilly Publishing, and Baen Books for examples of successful print publishers who give digital copies away.

Would you rather be pirated or ignored? As an author and musician, I'd much rather be famous and poor than rich and unknown. That's just me.

Putting my money where my mouth is, you can listen to my CD tracks for free at CD Baby, and while I can't guarantee my label won't come after you (stupid industry contract!) for making copies I would rather you listen to it for nothing and remember my name than let it languish in obscurity because it's too expensive/restrictive. Hopefully in a couple of years I can convince them to re-release under a Creative Commons license.

I'm also going to be publishing three PDFs later this year for free, all of which I could put up on RPGNow for a few dollars. There will be no restrictions on distribution and I'll put them on P2P myself. I'll let you know how it turns out.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Theft - illegal permanently depriving a person of an item of property

Piracy - illegal seizing of a ship at sea, or seizing the contents of the ship

Copyright infringement - reproducing a literary or artistic work contrary to copyright law (being without authorisation and not being a legally permitted reproduction)


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

JBowtie said:
			
		

> Obviously it depends on your jurisdiction.
> 
> In China, copyright infringement is a capital crime prosecuted by the state. The rather onerous punishment was required by the US during WTO negotiations.




The USA _required_ the death penalty for copyright infringement?  Wow...


----------



## JBowtie (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The USA _required_ the death penalty for copyright infringement?  Wow...




Historically China has had very lax IP laws by Western standards. Sharing is pretty integral to Chinese culture; the new laws are rarely enforced and I'm not aware of the sentence actually being carried out.

But, yes, as a precondition of WTO membership the US insisted most firmly that infringers be sentenced to death. I don't know whether to be more depressed about the request or the compliance with said request.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Given that China is an evil totalitarian dictatorship I'm not too surprised they complied.  The immorality of the US demand is kinda mind-blowing though.  Hm, I suppose this is kinda getting onto politics.


----------



## philreed (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Given that China is an evil totalitarian dictatorship I'm not too surprised they complied.  The immorality of the US demand is kinda mind-blowing though.  Hm, I suppose this is kinda getting onto politics.




Yeah. It's probably time for this thread to be closed before it gets out of hand.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I did ignore the difference between information and intellectual property. I believe intellectual property is a false construct of the modern age that will vanish in the future. Many great thinkers and artists existed long before intellectual property laws existed and we still had great music, poetry, literature and scientific discoveries (Mozart, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Plato, Socrates, etc.). The fact that someone can own a thought, idea or series of musical notes arranged a certain way is offensive to me, but that's the world we live in.




If I kept a diary, and said that it was *my* diary, and that I didn't want anyone else to read it - would you find that offensive?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> If I kept a diary, and said that it was *my* diary, and that I didn't want anyone else to read it - would you find that offensive?




I'd say you have a right to privacy, to prevent other people reading your diary, which does not depend on monopoly ownership of the information in the diary.  If you publish your diary on the Internet but then tell other people they can't eg link to your diary page or quote bits from your diary, I'd find that offensive.


----------



## JBowtie (Aug 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yeah. It's probably time for this thread to be closed before it gets out of hand.




Sorry, my post was meant to be informative, not overtly political. Apologies if I offended anyone.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

JBowtie said:
			
		

> Sorry, my post was meant to be informative, not overtly political. Apologies if I offended anyone.




I don't think anyone would say your post was political, but my response (death penalty for copyright infringement = a bad thing) could presumably be considered political.  I'm not going to withdraw that opinion though.


----------



## Thanee (Aug 9, 2005)

There's only one way to stop piracy (apart from a world domination scheme maybe)... give away your stuff for free. As soon as you put a price tag on it, regardless how small it is, piracy (the modern one without ships, which is actually called copyright infringement) will happen.

I like printed books better, anyways. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'm not going to withdraw that opinion though.




That's fine, but one should also respect the rules put up on this site. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Michael Morris (Aug 9, 2005)

Keep it civil everyone.  Some folks need to please dial down the rhetoric and namecalling a few notches.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> I think my post miscommunicated my intent.
> 
> I meant to say something along the lines of:
> 
> ...




Fair enough.
I agree.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 9, 2005)

And lets not steer into political waters again either, me hearties. Arrrrr?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Plane Sailing, would you say that any discussion of the rights & wrongs of copyright law (or any law, really) was inherently political?  It rather seems that way to me, although I suppose you could say that about any contentious issue really.  "If you don't do politics, there's not much you do do", those get-out-the-vote ads said before the 2005 UK election.  You once closed a thread because I discussed John Keegan's theories re military history & culture with reference to in-game cultures.  On the broadest interpretation isn't everything political?


----------



## Jacen (Aug 9, 2005)

Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Didn't Stephen King also try this? With a serialized novel called The Plant that didn't go beyond 6 installments. It seemed that $1 was too much for some to pay per installment.




First time I heard about this was couple of months ago here at EW - if I remember correctly. Guess if I did participate...


----------



## JBowtie (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I did ignore the difference between information and intellectual property. I believe intellectual property is a false construct of the modern age that will vanish in the future.




Hmmm....let's make some distinctions to be perfectly clear. IANAL.

Under current New Zealand law, there are four types of intellectual property.

1) Trade secrets. Basically, the way this works is you keep everything to yourself, and don't share the secret information with anybody ever. You can generally use contracts (NDAs, confidentiality agreements, that sort of thing) to control who knows it, and punish people for revealing it. However, once the secret is divulged, there is no protection whatsoever. Anyone can copy, publish, or use the information.

In today's world, trade secrets are generally reserved for information that is not actually copyrightable, such as recipies or typefaces (fonts). Hence the now-famous paranoia of the food industry (Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory was partially based on the industrial espionage rife in Britain in Ronald Dahl's time).

2) Copyright. For some period of time, you or your assignees have the exclusive right to reproduce a specific expression of an idea. This is what supported the rise of the professional artist and what most people here are familiar with.

Copyright has been extended quite extensively in the latter half of the twentieth century, both by creating secondary rights (derivative works springs to mind as a new invention), broadening the interpretation of some rights, and by extending the term of duration.

Copyright originally arose under English common law after the invention of the printing press, and saw some spectacular abuses early in its history - a number of classics were surpressed by heirs who considered writing to be frivolous or immoral. Conversely, many publishers profitted hugely but never paid the author a penny.

The US and several other jurisdictions have carved out 'fair use' exceptions to the general rule. For example, in Russia, you do not need the publisher's permission to make a Braille or audio version of a text (both are considered making it accessible to the disabled). In the United States, you do not need the publisher's permission to reproduce excerpts for educational or review purposes (though there are no clear guidelines on how big those excerpts can be).

Most activity in current law involve defining fair use, extending protection terms, and dealing with the problems introduced by digital works (Russia explicitly restricts copyright protection to physical copies). Note that under current law, some copyrights will outlive the actual works.

3) Patents. While copyright protects the concrete expression of an idea, patents protect an idea itself. Due to an obvious failure of the process, patents are currently a political hot potato right now and likely to stir up much debate.

Restricting ourselves to facts, a patent is a limited monopoly for a number of years on a novel, non-trivial and non-obvious idea; in exchange for such protection the inventor must publicly detail the idea. Once upon a time patents were restricted to mechanical devices and required a working model.  The lifting of these restrictions in many jurisdictions has flooded patent offices around the world; the US, for example, can only devote 10 hours to processing a given patent and, as a result, has issued patents twice in the last year on the kiddie slide and one on the peanut butter and jelly sandwich. The Australian patent office is under similar pressures, having issued a patent on the wheel.

The tricky thing with patents is that you can infringe even if you come up with the idea on your own. Oops.

4) Trademarks. Unlike copyrights, trademarks such as the d20 mark or Green Ronin's new True20 mark are protected forever. However, protection is lost if the holder does not take steps to protect it. For that reason, businesses aggressively (sometimes too aggressively) take steps to enforce proper usage of their trademark.

Trademarks are a tightrope; you want people to recognize you as the market leader, but you don't want them to use your name genericly (Google will be the next Kleenex). There are many things that cannot be trademarked and many ways you can lose the protection granted by a trademark. These vary by jurisdiction. Also, trademarks are weird in that they are granted on a per-jurisdiction basis; this means collisions are inevitable.

As examples, Burger King operates in Australia as Hungry Jack's and cannot open a franchise within 20 miles of Mattoon, Illinois. In New Zealand (perhaps also in Australia), the color purple is trademarked by Cadbury's (I have no idea how they police that!).


Going back to the original poster, I suspect he is talking about copyright and patents. As copyright came in with the printing press, there is reason to believe that it may go out with the printing press unless laws can adapt reasonably soon.  Patents are trickier; while they are not sustainable under the current model, I suspect reform will narrow the scope of patentable subjects to the point where patents are sustainable.

Trade secrets will always be around, and trademarks likely will continue until someone invents a successful and wholly new economic model.

The really deep challenge to IP laws will be when humans start being sued for infringing upon computer-generated works.  Several electronic circuits designed by genetic algorithms have already been patented and a recent conference paper was authored entirely by computer. When this becomes widespread, we may face a problem.


----------



## Barak (Aug 9, 2005)

King's model was not Ransom.  

He was "publishing" a novel through the 'net, chapter by chapter, for a cost (might very well had been 1$.  Everybody who wanted to read it had to pay (which, well, he has a right to demand).  Once some (well, probably all) of the chapters were found on a P2P network, he stopped.  

Under the Ransom model, he wouldn't have cared.


----------



## delericho (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> If anything, it's naive to claim the only way there will actually _be_ books/software/info is if someone gets paid to create it. How was the intellectual property laws when Shakespeare or Mozart did their thing? Did they suddenly stop creating because their work was copied and they were not paid royalties?




Many years ago, I studied the 'enlightened' despots while at school. In the textbooks associated with the subject, Joseph II of Austria was criticised for removing Mozart's court appointment, and the money that went with it, leading to the artist spending his last years with severe financial and creative difficulties.

My understanding is that the writers and musicians of history wrote/composed at the behest of patrons who liked the prestige of putting on shows by great artists (or making money from the performances). The artist generally received a one-off payment for work-for-hire, or was put on a retainer by the patron. (I guess the equivalents are the ransom model discussed in the thread, or WotC taking on Mearls and others full-time. As a business, however, WotC aren't doing it for the prestige of having house designers, they're looking to make money.)

However, as there was no such thing as recorded media, the only way to hear these things was in a performance, and the only way to experience a good performance was to pay.

The equivalent would be if Britney never produced an album, and made her money purely by putting on live shows. Oh, and ensuring that there was never a recording or broadcast of her 'work' ever made.

The problem is that the value of an RPG is in the use I put it to in my games. I like the fact that there exists a game called D&D, but it only has value in that I can use the rules myself. So, the pay-for-performance model just cannot work. (It can't work for music/movies/books either, but I don't care about them here.)



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Most full-time writers don't make a living.  A few do, but this is a recent phenomenon, and not one that has any inherent right to exist IMO.  If you want to write, you can write.  Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.




No, the world doesn't owe them a living. However, if the world wants them to continue writing, the world probably needs to compensate them for doing so. Here's the thing: I would quite like to write RPG books. However, I'm extremely busy, so can't do that and maintain a full-time job. That being the case, since I can't make anywhere near as much writing RPGs as software, I'll write software. Now, it's entirely possible that I am the RPG equivalent of Shakespeare, but we'll never know, because I won't be testing that.

Now, I know fine well that _I'm_ not the RPG equivalent of Shakespeare. But I'm far less certain that such a person doesn't exist somewhere out there, and it makes me sad to think that he'll most likely never reveal himself to the world, because he'll be better off doing almost anything other than writing RPGs.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Some do though, as you say.
> 
> And to say that I disagree with your opinion regarding this phenomenon is _certainly_ an understatement. For someone to pour time, care and effort into a written work is, to me, just as valuable (in every sense) a contribution as anything else.
> 
> ...




We need cars, and we need doctors, and we are willng to pay for both.  Willing enough to be able to underwrite both an auto industry and a medical industry.  This is happy tidings for doctors and labourers.  We are also, to some extent, are willing to pay for writers to write.  That we are not willing enough to make writing a viable industry for anyone besides the producers of those works in no way obligates us to cough up even more to keep individual writers in the black.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Aug 9, 2005)

DMR wouldn't have stopped this type of download either as there were already several sites with ways to bypasss the DMR. Nice to see that line of thought taken into account though. I'm surprised he didn't say, "And people wonder why we charge 70% of the MSRP for the PDF when we shouldn't be selling it at all." To which point someone else would merely point out that someone would take the physical copy and make an illegal PDF of it.

Yeah, the illegal stuff sucks and I'm all for companies trying to protect their IP and money but until the technology reaches that point, hand waving and wishing won't do it.


----------



## Jacen (Aug 9, 2005)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> So let me see... do you agree with any of the following?
> 
> If you want to make cars, you can make cars. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.



Yes, it does not mean that world owes you a living. If people want to buy your car they will. If they don't want then they don't buy. It is not world owning anything to you.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> If you want to heal the sick and injured, you can do so. Doesn't mean the world owes you a living.



Yes, it does not mean that world owes you a living. If you want to heal the sick and injured freely then do if you have the rights (education) to do that. But the world doesn't own anything to you. If you mean public hospitals etc at lest here in Finland they are payed by taxpayers money. I work and earn money and pay part of that as taxes. That money is used to education, sick care and a lot of other things. If govenment doesn't pay that with taxpayers money collected then in that country there are private ones where patients pay for you. 

You do something people are willing to pay you earn. If you do something that they aren't willing to pay then you don't earn and you have to do something people are willing to pay. That is kapitalisim. If you demand too much money people doesn't buy that.

Now a days I buy very few CDs. I do not D/L music from net. I just hear enough new music from radio to know that almost every big company is selling the same crap that is marketed because otherwise it doesn't sell. Or there is some idol that teens want to follow and thus buy all of them CDs. I don't want to listen that kind of music -> I don't buy it. All whining about piratisim doesn't make me to buy it. I don't support thivery not even it happens at _sea_. Even complains about people who copy music without paying doean't make me to buy it. Making good music I want to listen makes me to buy it because I want more of it. 

I don't like popular music, I like _good_ music.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 9, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> There's only one way to stop piracy (apart from a world domination scheme maybe)... give away your stuff for free.




Companies have tried to pirate Linux (which is free, and Free, but still does have some copyright restrictions)... so even giving stuff away won't necessarily prevent copyright infringement.

As long as no one but the copyright owner is actually making money off a product, I don't see a lot of harm in copying. But that's just me.

 -- N


----------



## philreed (Aug 9, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> As long as no one but the copyright owner is actually making money off a product, I don't see a lot of harm in copying. But that's just me.




But what if that copying has a measurable negative effect on the money the copyright owner is making? For example, what if we assume that 1 in 100 people that download a movie would have otherwise purchased the DVD. At what point does the copying go from no harm to causing harm? 1,000 downloaded copies? 10,000? 100,000?

Let's take the case of Eden's product that started this thread. Approximately 130 people downloaded it. If we assume that my 1-100 ratio is correct that's roughly 1 1/3 sales that were lost which translates to $37.24 of which Eden would have received about $26. Now $26 may not look like much money but lets translate that $26 into what a company could do with it.

$26 could be used to pay for roughly a 1/4 page piece of art.
$26 could be used to pay for about a 750-1,000 word manuscript. The perfect size for a PDF freebie.
$26 could be used to pay the office water bill (if any) that month.

After a year of downloads, assuming the rate stays constant, that $26 turns into $312.

$26 may not seem like much when you're thinking of a company but look at it this way: Eden is not Hasbro. How many full-time, PAID employees does Eden have? Any guesses?

And even if it was Hasbro $26 is still money. Money that any company could find a use for.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 9, 2005)

Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft.

You can try to justify it however you want, but you'll just be lying to yourself.

Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft.


----------



## JBowtie (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft.




Not according to the laws of most of the countries I am familiar with (assuming you mean copyright infringement). And, as I've pointed out, copyright infringement is not a criminal offense in certain jurisdictions.

There are in fact grey areas, both within the law and ethically. If the only copy of a film is decaying, and you cannot locate the copyright owner, can you make a copy to preserve it? Both legally and ethically, this is a grey area.

Not to mention that the definition of fair use in US law requires context to be taken into account and needs to be determined on a case-by-case basis, as per the legislation! How is that *not* a grey area?

Finally, certain types of copyright infringement are explicitly legal in some circumstances, even if the publisher does not give permission.  If I take Eden's PDF and make a Braille version, is that infringement?  Is that ethical? The answer depends on what country I'm standing in.


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

While I cannot speak to details there is currently a LOT of research being done on the demographic and psychographic makeup of P2P file sharing program users.  There are polls and focus groups in the field right now.

Without giving away sources, some of the research I've seen indicates that there seem to be 3 value 'clusters' into which the vast majority of filesharers fall.  

The first group are what I call the "lazy apathetics" -- a demographic that is young compared to the overall population yet a little older compared to the fiesharing community.  They are also a little more 'mainstream' (not necessarily integrated into hacker/computer culture). who are clearly and simply interested in something for nothing.  They like getting their movies and music for free, and don't even waste the energy considering the moral implicatios of their actions.  This group, however, is also the group most likely to be influenced by lawsuits, improved enforcement, or tougher penalties.

The second cluser are much younger...children, teenagers and college students who I call the 'tech empowered".  This demographic likes the feeling of mastery that comes with their expertise over technology that allows them to 'skip to the head of the line' and exist outside the rules of the game.  By and large these kids are computer gamers hackers, and generally come from a tech-heavy subculture.  It doesn't matter what they're stealing, it's the power they feel when they steal it (and can brag about it afterwords) that is important.  While this group is actually the most likely to recognize that their approach is 'wrong', they are among the hardest to deter from using this programs, as active deterrance actually increases their incentive to 'beat' the system.

The final cluster are people who I call "anti-establishment" are people who believe that the consumer market is unfair, big business is ripping them off, artists already get compensated too much, prices are too high, information is born free etc etc etc.  This demographic phrases their piracy activities in moral and political terms, and the range of justifications they use is staggering.  By and large though every excuse they use starts with "well, if only they would...I wouldn't"...or "the real problem isn't file sharers...it's XXX".  I use the word excuse because by and large, beneath the surface the majority of this cluser SEEM (research still very young) to be an attempt to justify their criminal acts by framing the victims as worse than the perpetrators.   Those with you with a background in criminology might see an analog to this mindset, I know I do.

What we absolutely categorically do NOT see, is any mass demographic consensus that any number of people are using P2P to sample new media for later purchase (the "if I like it I'll buy it").  While individuals may do this, such evidence is always anectdotal.  The vast majority using this technoloigy are playing for keeps.  To download and actively use filesharing technology are part of cultural subsets where "fair payment" is an alien sentiment.


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> The incorrect use of "theft" annoys me too. But perhaps that is because I'm a lawyer who took a class in IP in law school and used to do criminal defense.
> 
> Even if correcting the semantics is a common tactic of copiers, that doesn't mean others might not be annoyed by the term or that the usage is correct.




I am also a lawyer, and took several IP classes in law school, as well as serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law.

In my opinion, referring to copyright infringement as "theft" or "stealing" is justified. While it is not technically correct, it still describes the practice from the viewpoint of the victims.

For example, if Bert kills Ernie then Ernie's family is likely to refer to Bert as a murderer, and his actions as murder. But we know that Bert may only be guilty of voluntary manslaughter, or even justifiable homicide. Still, to Ernie's family he is a murderer. They may not be using the legally correct term, but they are describing the actions from the viewpoint of a layperson affected by the actions.

To those in the pdf business, the people who obtain illegal copies of their products are thieves. I can certainly understand that description.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft.
> 
> You can try to justify it however you want, but you'll just be lying to yourself.
> 
> Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft. Piracy is theft.




Stealing ships at sea is indeed theft.  However copyright infringement is not theft*.  You can claim otherwise however much you want, but you'll just be lying to yourself.

*In fact as the Economist pointed out recently, all reproduction creates more works, which are an economic good, so 'copyright piracy' is a positive-sum game economically that increases utility.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Aug 9, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> It made them sleep better, but it's utter crap too. If more than one person can be viewing it per purchased license, it's copyright infringement.




Funny, I don't think I've ever rented or purchased a DVD with the intent to view it alone.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I use the word excuse because by and large, beneath the surface the majority of this cluser SEEM (research still very young) to be an attempt to justify their criminal acts by framing the victims as worse than the perpetrators.




If by victims you mean groups like the MPAA & RIAA or corporations like Disney I certainly see them as worse than not-for-profit unauthorised downloaders, yup.  I do think there should be copyright law (and I would advocate paying for Eden's product rather than downloading a free copy, or preferably doing neither since their download price is ridiculously high) , but what we have currently is far worse than no law at all.  I'm not sure how anyone can say that executing copyright infringers, as apparently required by the US in WTO negotiations, is better than doing nothing.  I'd advocate a return to original Statute of Anne principles - copyright needs to be registered & lasts 14 years from publication.


----------



## jasper (Aug 9, 2005)

First let me said I an old gamer who is passed the age where stealing gum from the local stop and rob gives me a thrill. 

….That said, it's wrong. Copyright infringement is as wrong as theft, but they are not the same thing. Thanks….
Pea sonic test where I from we all don’t need no stinking lawyer talk to call a thief a thief. Let Barney and Andy pencil in the charges as they lock the thief up. (Can anyone tell I tried of nitpickers wanting to be specific when the general thing is the same.)

Gee some of people here know thieves who watch movies downloaded illegally from net. And if thieves like what they see after watching the movie fully, then the thieves may go buy it. Kind like sneaking into a theatre thru the exit door at the multiplex. The only difference is theatre has limited seating and the net has unlimited seating.  Nice to know D&D crowd still attract such fine citizens. 

Wings and sword. Not every illegal download is a "lost sale",.. but is a thief. 
A friend ( who is a thief) of mine downloaded a pirated .pdf … p2p.
Also, a lot of downloads on p2p are downloads of convenienence, (for thieves)

Turjan … The proper price is hat one that the producer deems the right one, but the market price is that one that consumers are willing to pay. Just made two changes here Turjan. Will add if producers do not change the proper price to market price the producers will be out of business.

Gilwen .. Cost of doing business. That what this is....no matter what you do your stuff is going to get stolen...period. Looks like we took the same business class.

Brent nail. I would not say that it is wrong for someone to make information, not property, available for free… but it is. The cost of pdf covers in part paying for the time of someone to collect the information. On bills especially plumber and car bills this is generally called labor and both of those guys charge a min hourly free. So next time don’t pay your plumber his full bill because he just used his specific information to do the job, the pipes were only $3 a foot from Lowes. 
… serious infringements on individual liberty.. you forgot the duty of individual not to harm other individuals because the liberty thief is stealing from the creator.  
… Um, that would be me . . . in response of some calling illegal download theft..
.. Information cannot be stolen. Only property can be stolen. Just because some people will pay for information, does not mean that information has an intrinsic value in and of itself. Furthermore, by obtaining information a person does not deprive another person of anything….. Hmmm I wonder what my ex co Captain Kirk would say if I uploaded the daily intercepts from Russia.  Or what both the state and Microsoft would do I upload the beta products I working on. 
Enworld meet Brent Nail. Brent Nail is at least an honest THIEF.  So lock up your D&D supplies.  Oh BN since information is free can you pm the numbers from the bottom of your check, after all that is just information you, the bank, and store used. It is no use for you. 

Bryon D. .. Information itself, really is free by its own nature. It can be replicated perpetually for no cost…. Um no.Even if I don’t include the hourly labor cost of your time to copy information unless like the perfect memory example. Cost of cd, floppy, or the small cost in hard drive space the information takes up and the power it takes to get to the information. My last batch of blank cds were about fifty cents each. So the information on that cd has a min cost of fifty cents.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2005)

JoeBlank said:
			
		

> I am also a lawyer, and took several IP classes in law school, as well as serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Intellectual Property Law.
> 
> In my opinion, referring to copyright infringement as "theft" or "stealing" is justified. While it is not technically correct, it still describes the practice from the viewpoint of the victims.
> 
> ...




Bad anology.  It isn't simply a matter of legal defintion of an equivalent result.
Murder vs. manslaughter both describe the equivlent result of a death.

Ten instances of infrigement results in some unknown number of lost sales.
Theft of ten items results in some unknown number of lost sales PLUS the loss of the ten physical items.

It isn't simply a layperson simplification of terms.  It is wrong.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2005)

Vandalism is theft. Vandalism is theft. Vandalism is theft.

You can try to justify it however you want, but you'll just be lying to yourself.

Vandalism is theft. Vandalism is theft. Vandalism is theft.




Running a red light is theft.  Running a red light is theft.  Running a red light is theft.

You can try to justify it however you want, but you'll just be lying to yourself.

Running a red light is theft.  Running a red light is theft.  Running a red light is theft.


----------



## BryonD (Aug 9, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> Bryon D. .. Information itself, really is free by its own nature. It can be replicated perpetually for no cost…. Um no.Even if I don’t include the hourly labor cost of your time to copy information unless like the perfect memory example. Cost of cd, floppy, or the small cost in hard drive space the information takes up and the power it takes to get to the information. My last batch of blank cds were about fifty cents each. So the information on that cd has a min cost of fifty cents.



None of the things you listed as having a cost are "information".

If there are two CDs, one with IP and one with Public domain data the value of material is equivlent.

If the IP is illegally copied, then the one with IP is also a case of infringement.
If I steal either one from you, I have stolen 50 cents.

Time and media are not free != information is not free


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Vandalism is theft. Vandalism is theft. Vandalism is theft.
> 
> You can try to justify it however you want, but you'll just be lying to yourself.
> 
> ...




I don't know you, and I certainly am not prejudging your motivations for making this case.  However, I have heard this argument before from others, and this is what we've found...

The problem with this semantic based debate is that it turns a serious debate into a shell game.  The concept of 'theft' is one of the oldest in society, almost every major religion somewhere has a admonition against it -- you say theft and most people can clearly place the action in moral context.

However societal concensus has yet to form around what 'handle' to put on the profiteering or exploiting the intellectual properity of another person.  While the consensus is in place that this action is wrong, there is no easy label, or niche in which this behaviour fits.  So people use the closest anaglog they can find -- theft.

Arguing that it's not theft, is a deft move whereby people try to confuse semantics with legality/morality.  By stripping away attempts at common nomenclature it is much easier to confuse people into thinking that the behaviour is not even commonly believed to be 'wrong', after all, if it was, we'd have a name for it.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> Honestly, publishers have to stop looking at pirated products as lost sales.  The vast majority of those who do pirate material likely would never pay for it if that were their only option.



personally, on a slightly different topic, i see downloaded copies of my music on p2p as free advertisement.
call me a stupid, but i really believe that those who like a product will buy it, even when they have the illegal copy.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

delericho said:
			
		

> No, the world doesn't owe them a living. However, if the world wants them to continue writing, the world probably needs to compensate them for doing so. Here's the thing: I would quite like to write RPG books. However, I'm extremely busy, so can't do that and maintain a full-time job. That being the case, since I can't make anywhere near as much writing RPGs as software, I'll write software. Now, it's entirely possible that I am the RPG equivalent of Shakespeare, but we'll never know, because I won't be testing that.




Same here. A lot of people have had a go at me for not doing Critical Miss anymore, but the fact is that I make my living as a computer programmer with all writing being done in my spare time - which I prioritise according to what I most feel like doing.

I must admit that I was pretty disappointed with the reaction when Mongoose bought out a compilation of my Signs & Portents articles in PDF form for $2. Given how many people had said how much they missed Critical Miss, and given that this was like a whole new Critical Miss (if not more) for a fairly reasonable price, I thought quite a few people would be happy about it. But there was pretty much no reaction whatsoever.

It was quite depressing really. It certainly didn't make me feel particularly inclined to do another Critical Miss because my feeling then was, "Well you can't be *that* desparate to get your hands on more stuff written by me!"


----------



## Numion (Aug 9, 2005)

TheGM said:
			
		

> This is the utter crap spewed by Piraters.
> Let's see there's the "Only reviewing it" argument.
> There's the "I wouldn't have paid for it" argument.
> There's the "I didn't pirate it, I just downloaded it" argument.




I don't know about RPG stuff, I buy the stuff I use in RPGs, but I never buy CDs, for example. It's much easier to listen to those on comp (mp3s) - winamp is superior to listening on your cd player. I got thousands of songs on different playlists, no switching CDs etc .. combined with copy protection, I doubt I'll buy CDs in a while. You can even get the CDs weeks in advance. For TV series it's also a better deal. See series from any country, not what your network CEO's are buying: (crap) four years late.

Those RPGs I decide to use in my game, I buy from the shop. Not to make me sleep better or to make me feel better - but to get a better product. It's too bad the current p2p's force you to share during DL, because DLing is legal, whereas ULing is not.



> Cracked downloads do not equate directly to lost sales, but there is an impact. I've seen it. I used to know one group that bought exactly one copy of anything and then sent electronic copies to the group. The claim was that they owned a legal copy, so could have backups.
> 
> It made them sleep better, but it's utter crap too. If more than one person can be viewing it per purchased license, it's copyright infringement.




It's not crap. Under the law it's legal to make "reasonable" amount of copies of the original for you, your family and to "people you know". Thats a free translation of the Finnish law. Fair use, baybee!


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

delericho said:
			
		

> If nothing else, they have managed to undo all the good work that had been done in persuading DTRPG and their clients to use watermarked PDFs in place of DRM.



honestly, i don't care about persuading anybody: if it's DRM, i don't even consider downloading it for free (and i mean legally free).

besides, things like copy protected cds (which, by the way it's a non-authorised break at the cd standard owned by phillips... funny that these guys don't need authorisation, when they have to do something themselves...), or calling their average customer a thief are making me unwilling to buy new cds much more than p2p networks, ridiculous prices, and crappy outputs...

i do believe that if i have respect for my customers, they will respect me. some people is dishonest and takes advantage of my good will? well, s do exist. everywhere.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'd say you have a right to privacy, to prevent other people reading your diary, which does not depend on monopoly ownership of the information in the diary.  If you publish your diary on the Internet but then tell other people they can't eg link to your diary page or quote bits from your diary, I'd find that offensive.




Okay, perhaps that was a bad example.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if I write a story, I have a really strong emotional feeling/belief that I *own* it. I don't see it as "information" that I "discovered", I see it as a "thing" that I created.

Now that's regardless of the law. That's just how I feel.

And regardless of privacy, I feel that because it's *mine*, I have the right to say who can see it. I think - for example - that I would have the right to give you a copy of my story, but tell you that I don't want you to give copies and to other people. (And if you're not happy with that, then you can say "no thank you" and not accept the copy).

And if I did give you that copy, and you then published my story on the Internet, I'd be really angry, because it was my story and so it should have been my decision as to whether or not it was published on the Internet.

Now I presume that those (not you, but I can't remember the guy's name) who say that a story is merely "information" would say that I'd have no right to be angry in that case.


----------



## JoeBlank (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I did ignore the difference between information and intellectual property. I believe intellectual property is a false construct of the modern age that will vanish in the future. Many great thinkers and artists existed long before intellectual property laws existed and we still had great music, poetry, literature and scientific discoveries (Mozart, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Plato, Socrates, etc.). The fact that someone can own a thought, idea or series of musical notes arranged a certain way is offensive to me, but that's the world we live in.
> 
> 
> I believe you are mistaken. See my previous post regarding open source software. As was already mentioned . . . ever hear of Linux? Also, see above . . . artists, scientists, etc. from times before intellectual property laws existed still created/discovered information and were well compensated for their efforts even though they didn't "own" their works.




Brent_Nail, while I disagree almost 100% with you opinions on intellectual property, I want to thank you for explaining your position so well. I have read and participated in a number of debates on internet piracy and the like, and you do a far better job than most of setting out the reasons behind your opinions. 

While I still do not agree, I at least understand your position. In fact, for the first time I think I actually believe someone is interested in something more than a justification for downloading for free.

On the other hand, I am a fan of a consumer economy, and intellectual property is a product that can be bought and sold. While you cite examples of IP that was created before the concept of IP, I think earning a living is the greatest motivator. By allowing people to sell the IP they create, we encourage to production of IP. Sure, there will always be those who prefer different modes of distribution, be they free, donation-based, or otherwise, and they should remain free to choose what they do with their creations. But those who prefer to make a living in the traditional method of selling works they create should have that right protected.


----------



## hexgrid (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> In the world we live in the cost of distributing information is nearly zero.




Heh. Try telling that to someone who runs a high-traffic web site.


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 9, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> I assume Shining Dragon meant Porsches, rather than porches. Of course, I could be wrong.
> 
> 
> glass.




LOL. That makes more sense than porches, i guess! I was too worked up see that possibility.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Joshua, this is Linus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds Linus, get out of your sports car and say hello to Joshua. Some people make money from open source software. If anything, it's naive to claim the only way there will actually _be_ books/software/info is if someone gets paid to create it. How was the intellectual property laws when Shakespeare or Mozart did their thing? Did they suddenly stop creating because their work was copied and they were not paid royalties?



A few things: 1) software and rpg material are not good analogs.  There is no secondary income derived from free rpg material as there is from Linux.  2)  How many open source success stories are there, anyway?  I only know of one.  3) That's also a completely different market for Shakespeare and Mozart; Shakespeare was as much about the production of the play itself as he was about writing it; he made money from ticket sales at the Globe Theatre, not from selling copies of his play.  And he wasn't really copied directly either; people weren't running "underground" versions of _King Lear_ and getting audiences to them that would otherwise see it at the Globe.  Intellectual property wasn't the issue then.  And Mozart was subsidized by the Austrian King, as I alluded to in my first post.

If you're going to call me naive, at least get your facts straight before you make the attempt.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

jgsugden said:
			
		

> #3: Foster an environment where people face more risk than reward for e-thefts.  For instance, if we implemented a USA federal system where you could turn in someone that was E-stealing copyrighted product off the internet and get a confidential reward, we might be able to nip this in the bud.  Imagine what would happen if there was a minimum $3,000.00 fine for being caught comitting an e-theft (up to $25,000 for multiple offenses) (plus 1 week minimum community service), with 25% of the collected fine being given to the person turning in the thief.  Heck, if that were available, I can imagine a nice niche cottage industry for being a narc ...




i suggest death penalty. i feel it's much more effective.

tell me, please, are you advocating that the USA laws should be "implemented" in other states, as well? the majority of illegal downloads might be in the USA, but if you plan to enforce your laws on non USA citizens who are not living in USA, then i see no moral difference between you and people who pirate stuff.

i really hope i'm overreacting (i'm very very touching about political stuff and useless draconian laws, lately... mostly because they are just unjust laws against joe the citizen and are utterly useless for people who really does harm... i have to stop before i start my political rant...), and that i am reading in your post something that is not there. else, you should take a step back and start considering the implications of your logic.


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i suggest death penalty. i feel it's much more effective.
> 
> tell me, please, are you advocating that the USA laws should be "implemented" in other states, as well? the majority of illegal downloads might be in the USA, but if you plan to enforce your laws on non USA citizens who are not living in USA, then i see no moral difference between you and people who pirate stuff.




Modern crime has no borders, that's why we need extradition treaties and the like.  The problem with IP cirmes stems from the ridiculously high American share of world cultural products (particulary from a revnue standpoint).  There is very little incentive to sign a treatie to surrender it's citizens when the threat is so assymetrical (not a lot of American priaters stealing Chinese movies, for example).  Hence getting this international framework requires som diplmoatic arm twisting...which is what we are seeing.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I think there's a lot of whining going on, and it's really kinda annoying. People will always buy stuff, people will always "steal" stuff.




amen. i find incredible how people forgets that, before cd burning and p2p, and before pdf swapping, there were tapes and photocopies.
i had hundreds of tapes, and i still had the best album collection this side of my town (i'm talking vynils... THAT was a secure medium, and it was cracked anyway...).
i didn't care for the reduced quality (as i don't care today), and if i did like something, i went out of my way to find a copy here. damn, i paid the equivalent of 25 dollars in 1996 to find a CD copy (i was looking for either that or vynil) of three imaginary boys (the first album by the cure), EVEN if i had it on tape.

it's normal that there's some people who will infringe laws, steal, and go out of their way to get what they want. and it's normal that the producers fight their battle. but, please, be honest and stop putting the whole question on moral ground. it *might* work for the RPG market (which, no offence, is so ridiculously small that it's not worth of notice), but the moral argument just doesn't hold water in the bigger scheme of things.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> And regardless of privacy, I feel that because it's *mine*, I have the right to say who can see it. I think - for example - that I would have the right to give you a copy of my story, but tell you that I don't want you to give copies and to other people. (And if you're not happy with that, then you can say "no thank you" and not accept the copy).




This right is protectable under contract law or the law of breach of confidence, again it doesn't depend on your monopoly control of the information, only on my agreement to you not to distribute your work.  The situation changes when you've published the work & anyone can access it.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Modern crime has no borders, that's why we need extradition treaties and the like.  The problem with IP cirmes stems from the ridiculously high American share of world cultural products (particulary from a revnue standpoint).  There is very little incentive to sign a treatie to surrender it's citizens when the threat is so assymetrical (not a lot of American priaters stealing Chinese movies, for example).  Hence getting this international framework requires som diplmoatic arm twisting...which is what we are seeing.




Crime may have no border, but thankfully the law does.  The notion that one country could make a law that applies equally to its own residents and to those who had nothing to do with electing the individuals who drafted it, is so abhorrent as to be nauseating.  If you're in Finland, Canada, the Netherlands, or a whole host of other countries in which downloading (for example) an .mp3 is legal, then it's legal.  And just because it's illegal in America doesn't make you a thief, immoral, or anything else.  You're an upstanding citizen of your own country operating in a legal fashion.

Anyway, extradition treaties are not intended to allow one country to prosecute an individual from another country because he breaks a law to which he is not obliged.  It is intended to allow for the removal of an individual from one country back to another country in which he broke the law and then subsequently fled to the first country.  Extradition is intended to eliminate the "run for the border" strategy of avoiding law enforcement, not to give a country the ability to apply its laws outside of its borders.  Not that it stops a few countries (which shall remain nameless, per the no politics rules) from acting like their laws apply universally.



			
				Spell said:
			
		

> It's normal that there's some people who will infringe laws, steal, and go out of their way to get what they want. and it's normal that the producers fight their battle. but, please, be honest and stop putting the whole question on moral ground. it might work for the RPG market (which, no offence, is so ridiculously small that it's not worth of notice), but the moral argument just doesn't hold water in the bigger scheme of things.




I agree.  For the greater part, this is an issue of conflict of interest, and not of ethics.  It's two groups (producers and users) working against each other for control of a valuable commodity.  It just happens that in the case of RPGs, it _might_ be true that the actions of P2P distributors affect the livelihood of the producers.  If so, then there might be an ethical aspect, but I think that ethics mostly comes into this situation because people enjoy pointing fingers and accusing each other of being blackguards.  Or thieves.  I'm just waiting for an author to claim to have been raped by P2P, so we can start calling them rapists too.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Not that it stops a few countries (which shall remain nameless, per the no politics rules) from acting like their laws apply universally.




They hate our freedoms...


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 9, 2005)

Interestingly, I've found a few cases where pirated files appear to be inside jobs. One of the pirated Epic Level Handbooks floating around a few filesharing networks is a late playtest draft.


----------



## francisca (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> A few things: 1) software and rpg material are not good analogs.  There is no secondary income derived from free rpg material as there is from Linux.  2)  How many open source success stories are there, anyway?  I only know of one.



No argument with #1.

If you consider making an honest living by supporting Open Source software on a day to day basis a success story, then their are countless examples.  Even before linux, people were making a living by support such software as sendmail and gcc, just to name a few.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> How was the intellectual property laws when Shakespeare or Mozart did their thing?




to be fair, though, life for *some* artists is much much easier these days.
that said, i find extremely unfair and infuriating that in my business, music, the industry at large takes advantage of draconic practices, unfair deals, scheming, plotting, illegal actions, ignorace of the artists and public, and even legitimate and ideally good laws (such as copyright) to earn money.
check the news. you'll find routinely stuff about payola, accounting frauds, unfair contracts, and so on.
why does a label request me to re-record my album? to have a better quality recording? to own the publishing on the sound recording? to make me recoupe even more money, so that, while they are making money i won't see a penny?

i never signed with a label, and worked my ass to produce my own albums, and to make them available, even for free.
now, what happens? all of the sudden whoever downloads stuff on p2p network is a pirate, a scun, the scourge of earth. so, even people who is LEGALLY downloading my stuff (which i uploaded myself), is a pirate and is breaking the law.
not really, but the general public has that idea, and that equation in mind. p2p=pirate.
that's why i'm so extreme in this regard. the "legitimate" and "legal" business is using his muscles to make sure that that little business i had is now disappearing.
thanks, majors!


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

JBowtie said:
			
		

> But, yes, as a precondition of WTO membership the US insisted most firmly that infringers be sentenced to death. I don't know whether to be more depressed about the request or the compliance with said request.



Please provide source.  I can find absolutely no evidence of this, and I've even read the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission report of earlier this year.

I don't believe this for a second.


----------



## Piratecat (Aug 9, 2005)

Please steer this thread away from overt politics. It's a little difficult considering the subject matter, but politics (international or local) is still a strict no-no.

Thanks!


----------



## francisca (Aug 9, 2005)

hexgrid said:
			
		

> Heh. Try telling that to someone who runs a high-traffic web site.



echoed for truth.

Not only is there the cost for the care and feeding of the bandwidth, if you are stuck supporting the servers these files are placed on, there is the cost for the additional storage needed and the costs associated with backing up the data, etc...

I work for a Univeristy.  We deal with the fallout of filesharing on a regular basis.  It is very costly both in time and dollars.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2005)

Er... nice weather we're having?


----------



## billd91 (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Information does not have an inherent value. Information is infinitely sharable at practically zero cost to anyone. If I acquire some information without paying for it I have in no way decreased your benefit if you acquired that same information via some effort on your part or by paying for it.
> 
> The effort that some person goes through to create or discover some information certainly has some value. I firmly believe that people that discover/create information can be fully compensated for their efforts even if the information they create/discover is made available at no direct cost. See above.




The effort that people go through to create information is exactly what copyright is about. They have the exclusive right to distribute their work as they crafted it for a reasonable period of time (then it does enter the public domain... unless they keep extending the dates so that Disney is appeased and Mickey Mouse is kept private). 
But there's a difference between information and IP. If your DM teaches a new player that he needs to roll a d20, add his modifiers, and tell him the result to make an attack roll, that's information. The exact wording distributed in the PH is IP. And if everyone were telling each other about the rules in one book or another, that wouldn't be infringing on IP. Making an exact copy of the PDF and putting it up for download is clearly infringing and is not distributing mere information. It's distributing someone's exact work when they are the only ones with the right to do so.

And on the subject of copyright infringement being theft... it clearly is. You are stealing the exclusive right to distribute that work (so maybe it's a civil rights violation?). It may not be legally theft, but the law revolves around convoluted semantics to distinguish between one thing and another (like grand theft and petty theft and so on, involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter... why that isn't murder I don't know...). We all know what we're really talking about here and it's theft of an exclusive right. 
As non-lawyers, we can certainly call copyright infringement theft even if the damage is unquantifiable and we aren't using the legalistic term.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I did ignore the difference between information and intellectual property. I believe intellectual property is a false construct of the modern age that will vanish in the future. Many great thinkers and artists existed long before intellectual property laws existed and we still had great music, poetry, literature and scientific discoveries (Mozart, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Plato, Socrates, etc.). The fact that someone can own a thought, idea or series of musical notes arranged a certain way is offensive to me, but that's the world we live in.




One thing to add to the comments about these historical figures and others of similar ilk. Not only did many of them have patronage, but a good many of them were pretty wealthy and didn't depend on their writing to pay the bills. 
Also, distribution of their works was much more complicated than in the world today. How would someone have distributed Plato's writings in his time? By laboriously hand copying the whole thing, not by spawning an infinite number of exact duplicates for little time or effort.
IP may be a modern construct, but it's hard to declare it a false one consider its intent is to protect the ability of people to exclusively benefit from their hard work.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Aug 9, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Maybe so. But I hope the people reading this are decent enough people not to participate in downloading and exchanging illegal PDFs. I pay my bills through PDF sales and every copy downloaded is potentially lost revenue.
> 
> I hope I can trust all of you to respect me, my work, and the other people who work in the game industry enough not to download or distribute illegal PDFs.




I would NEVER steal on of your PDFs, Phil....
say, what kind of car do you drive (and does it have an alarm on it)?


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> This right is protectable under contract law or the law of breach of confidence, again it doesn't depend on your monopoly control of the information, only on my agreement to you not to distribute your work.  The situation changes when you've published the work & anyone can access it.




So it's mine if I want to say no-one can read it... but it's not mine to sell?

I suppose what I'm saying is that I either own the work or I don't. Whether or not I own it is a matter of opinion, but if I own it then I think I should be able to set preconditions like, only myself being able to make copies of it.


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> I suppose what I'm saying is that I either own the work or I don't.




This is obviously a false dichotomy.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> now, what happens? all of the sudden whoever downloads stuff on p2p network is a pirate, a scun, the scourge of earth. so, even people who is LEGALLY downloading my stuff (which i uploaded myself), is a pirate and is breaking the law.
> not really, but the general public has that idea, and that equation in mind. p2p=pirate.



I think that will change slowly. Many companies have started using p2p networks for distributing their files in order to reduce their bandwidth costs. BitTorrent seems to become some kind of accepted standard, at least in parts of the industy.


----------



## philreed (Aug 9, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> I would NEVER steal on of your PDFs, Phil....
> say, what kind of car do you drive (and does it have an alarm on it)?




Lincoln Mark VIII and yes, it has an alarm.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> This is obviously a false dichotomy.




Why?

(I'm not being argumentative - I'm generously curious about your reasoning).


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> (I'm not being argumentative - I'm generously curious about your reasoning).



Just look at software. If you "buy a program", you actually just buy a license, not the program. You never own the software itself. You have a right to use the software under certain conditions. This is some clearly obvious example where there's something in between "owning" and "not owning".


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Okay, I'm not even sure what point I'm making here, but I guess what narks me about the whole "creative work = discovered information" argument is that it implies that if I write something creative I haven't made the world a better place by creating something that didn't previously exist, but have instead merely discovered words that were already there.

So maybe it's a really childish attitude, but I basically have a really strong feeling of "it's mine, not yours" so I get to tell you what can be done with it, and if you don't like it then you can go and create something similar yourself, because if I hadn't created it then it would never have existed.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Just look at software. If you "buy a program", you actually just buy a license, not the program. You never own the software itself. You have a right to use the software under certain conditions. This is some clearly obvious example where there's something in between "owning" and "not owning".




Yes, but the only reason the writers of the software could license it is because they owned it. If I own something but choose to loan it, or rent it, or whatever - that doesn't mean that I don't own it. I either own a work I've created or I don't. If I own it then I can sell it, rent it, lease it, whatever. If I don't own it then it's not mine to do any of those.

(I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who wrote the software. They own it. The person who bought a license doesn't. Either way, you either own it or you don't.)


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Modern crime has no borders, that's why we need extradition treaties and the like.  The problem with IP cirmes stems from the ridiculously high American share of world cultural products (particulary from a revnue standpoint).  There is very little incentive to sign a treatie to surrender it's citizens when the threat is so assymetrical (not a lot of American priaters stealing Chinese movies, for example).  Hence getting this international framework requires som diplmoatic arm twisting...which is what we are seeing.




i can agree with that. what i don't agree on is that we should all accept the USA law system as the best system in the world. or stand peacefully aside when the US megacorporation bribe our politicians to modify our laws, or to introduce taxes bacause of "theft".

in europe whenever we buy a blank cd, we pay a (small) tax that goes into the pockets of the music industry to fight piracy, or as a compensation towards piracy (it depends who you ask).
this NO MATTER what you do with that cd. you use it for store your music? you have to pay the music majors. you use it to make a back up copy of your manuscript? you have to pay the music majors. you just put it there and forget about it? guess where the money goes, anyway?

now, i find this incredibly unfair, ESPECIALLY since our politicians didn't take this step alone, but because they were bullied by the majors. you could argue that those are not good politicians, and i would agree, but i don't want to turn this topic into a political area.


also, i'm sorry to say it, but the idea that we should adopt your laws because "the ridiculously high American share of world cultural products" it's quite offensive to non USA citizens and a sign of ignorance, too.
just because you are not aware of it, it doesn't mean it's not there.


----------



## Turjan (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Yes, but the only reason the writers of the software could license it is because they owned it. If I own something but choose to loan it, or rent it, or whatever - that doesn't mean that I don't own it. I either own a work I've created or I don't. If I own it then I can sell it, rent it, lease it, whatever. If I don't own it then it's not mine to do any of those.
> 
> (I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who wrote the software. They own it. The person who bought a license doesn't. Either way, you either own it or you don't.)



Although you are principally right, the actual situation is a bit more complicated. In case of software, you often own a physical copy of the software, which in itself entitles you to further rights. This physical copy can be stolen. Your software key can be stolen. But here we come into areas that are vastly different even between western countries. The laws regarding these topics are still in flow.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 9, 2005)

> The fact that someone can own a thought, idea or series of musical notes arranged a certain way is offensive to me, but that's the world we live in.




And if you couldn't make money off of them, there would be no more published thoughts, ideas or series of msuical notes arranged in a certain way. Your philosophy has a complete lack of understanding of the human psyche. Open source is the exception, not the rule. Why do you think the vast majority of software isn't open source. It's not the road to success like you claim it is.

Not even communism goes as far as you do. Marx acknowledged that the effort a worker puts into something has value, your phillosophy claims that labor has no value at all.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It just happens that in the case of RPGs, it _might_ be true that the actions of P2P distributors affect the livelihood of the producers.  If so, then there might be an ethical aspect, but I think that ethics mostly comes into this situation because people enjoy pointing fingers and accusing each other of being blackguards.  Or thieves.  I'm just waiting for an author to claim to have been raped by P2P, so we can start calling them rapists too.




in case of RPG, it is true that ethics come a bit more into equation, but it is also true that it's a small and relatively tight community. while we don't personally know, say, monte cook or gary gygax (well, not all of us, and in 99% of the cases, not enough to call them "mates"), we do know enough about them and their business to be sympathetic about them.
that helps making piracy less of an issue, in my opition. it's easier to download stuff and hurt business X who i have never heard of. if you know the guy whose business you're damaging you do your best not to screw things up (unless you really want to, but that's another story!)


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> They hate our freedoms...




damn them aussies!


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Although you are principally right, the actual situation is a bit more complicated. In case of software, you often own a physical copy of the software, which in itself entitles you to further rights. This physical copy can be stolen. Your software key can be stolen. But here we come into areas that are vastly different even between western countries. The laws regarding these topics are still in flow.




True, but at each point you either own something or you don't.

You own the physical media, and you own a license that gives you the right to use the software. You don't own the software. But I take your point that it gets very fuzzy.

In the end though, I'm not really making a legal point so much as an emotional one. If I create a piece of creative work, I feel that I "own" the work itself (as opposed to merely owning the media that it is reproduced on).


----------



## drothgery (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> A few things: 1) software and rpg material are not good analogs.  There is no secondary income derived from free rpg material as there is from Linux.  2)  How many open source success stories are there, anyway?  I only know of one.




There pretty much aren't open source success stories. There are a handful of large, widely used open source projects, but the vast majority of development on those projects is funded by large corporations with other revenue streams. And there are some companies that have been modestly successful selling services or support or customization or add-ons to open source software (and using that to fund development of the core).


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Why?




Why? Because it's really not that simple.

"Either you own it or you don't"? Okay, what defines ownership? Even starting with that basic definition, you could come up with dozens of takes on not only ownership of physical property alone. Getting into the hoary subject of "intellectual property" makes the situation even worse. What makes something as intangible as an idea yours? Really, the only thing that enforces respect for something as intangible as an idea is a feeling of respect towards you for your contribution and a legal enforcement of the same. What exactly that entitles you to is far from ut and dried, either legally or ethically. If I think of something similar to you, why do you get precedence? But at the same time, don't you deserve some recompense for your work?

Indeed, if there is an incredible claim here, it is that the situation is dichotomous; I'd like to see your justification for why you think it is so.


----------



## interwyrm (Aug 9, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Yes, most people downloading free material don't actually use it. That's why pirated copies don't translate to lost sales.




I will confess to being guilty of being a p2p archivist. A while ago I tried to download every tsr product ever made. Have I read all of them? No. Have I read even 10% of them? Probably not. If they were available for sale would I have bought all of them? Absolutely not.

However, something positive came out of it that I think could come out of any p2p. I read some of the planescape books. I found them so incredibly cool that I would actually shell out money to get a copy of some of those books.

Pre-downloading days, the only rpg companies I knew of were wotc and palladium. Piracy has raised my awareness of other companies like green ronin and mongoose. I never would have bought anything from either of those companies if I didn't even know about them.

I think people need to take a step back and think about the good things that piracy brings to the market. It is free advertising. I think that it is entirely plausible that whatever a company loses in sales due to people downloading a product when they would have otherwise bought it, is made up by the increased awareness of the product and the creation of new fans.

Think of it this way, you have a consumer pool. A certain percentage will never pay for your product and always download it illegally (I realize this percentage is likely not static). When a product becomes widely downloaded, it increases the consumer pool, which may increase sales.

I think that the most effective method of quelling p2p distribution would be to take no countermeasures, except writing a little note on one of the first pages saying, if you like and use this product and acquired it without paying, please consider showing the authors a little appreciation by buying it.

The resulting guilt trip would have a much better effect IMO than offering a challenge to pirates.


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> There pretty much aren't open source success stories.




Let me guess: you don't work in the computing industry, do you?


----------



## drothgery (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Ever seen this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106049 ?
> It appears that an awful lot of people donated money to EN World . . . to the tune of over $13,000. I don't know if everyone that donated got something out of it, but I'm sure many people would have donated without getting anything in return.




So the largest, and most active d20 RPG site was able to generate less than $1 per user from voluntary donations, and you think this can be the basis for a viable economic model?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong - that fact that there's a law attached to it simply reinforces society's stand on the issue.




Unfortunately, this concept of "belonging," of ownership, is based in specific cultural norms that segments of society are trying to change today. 

I'm reminded of the dichotomy between the settlers in America and the Natives. Manhattan was sold for a few beads because there was no concept of ownership of an area of space (except maybe what was enclosed by your tent). It was utterly bizzarre that people would think of land as something you could buy, sell, trade, and negotiate for. 

Today, there are those who have come to the belief that it is utterly bizzarre that people could own ideas, concepts, and terms. Virgin records has attempted to copyright the word "Virgin." Leo Stoller claims to own the words "stealth" and "freedom of expression." If I have to pay some guy to use the term "freedom of expression" on something I sell, obviously whatever system of ownership and trademark we have now is FUBAR'd, and in desperate need of an overhaul, ne?

With regards to RPG products, it is simply a matter of acceptable losses. Pirating WILL happen. It is a fact of life. The people who do it are dedicated, idealistic, and infinately capable. No matter what you do, no matter how much you invest, your hard work will be available for free on some p2p program. 

Studies have shown, as far as I've seen, rather consistantly that file-sharers don't hurt your sales, and may, in fact, help them. And if they don't, well, bite the bullet. It's a business descision. The world is not a perfect place filled with gumdrop faries and lollipop unicorn princesses. If people can get away with doing the wrong thing, they will. And the law will always be playing catch-up to people more skilled in doing the wrong thing than the law is in stopping it. 

So screw 'em. It's like Nestle whining about how someone stole a candybar out of a convinience store. It's gonna happen. Deal with it, you crybaby!   

And FYI, that isn't directed against any one person in particular, just the general atmosphere of "OH NOES! FREE DOWNLOADS!" Suck it up, do what you can to encourage fair trade, and go on with your life. You can't put the tiger back in the cage.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> So maybe it's a really childish attitude, but I basically have a really strong feeling of "it's mine, not yours" so I get to tell you what can be done with it, and if you don't like it then you can go and create something similar yourself, because if I hadn't created it then it would never have existed.





if you're talking about novels, as far as i know, you do have the copyright of the work and you can do whatever you want with it. you can prevent people from print your book, you can prevent them to put adds into it, you can do as you like. (naturally, the price you have to pay is that you might find yourself without a publisher, but that's your business).

if you're talking about music, then you are wrong. if i write a piece of music i do have the copyright on it. all i have is a piece of paper with notes, lyrics, and chord changes.
then i go to [music label] and sign a deal to record the music. they own the recording in 99.9999999999% of the cases. it means that i have no power on:
1. who will use the recording
2. what use he/she will make of it

i have some power to decide the way the recording will be presented (CD art), but that is inversely proportional to my contractual bargain power, meaning that if i have a name in the industry, i can dictate the clauses in my contract with the label. if not, my bad, and i have to dig whatever condition the label want to put on the contract (of course, i still have the power not to sign the contract, but, obviously, i sign the contract BEFORE i go recording, so if the label wants to take advantage over me they can very easily).

ever wondered why you hear beatles covers in some commercial, but not the actual beatles recording? that happens because michael jackson bought the publishing rights of the beatles' songs, while paul mccartney managed to buy back the original recording. so paul mccartney has no power to stop michael jackson from selling phillips or whoever the right to use a beatles song for their commercial. after that all it takes is a cover band.

it is my knowledge that, at the beginning of the century, the publishing market for novel and other writings was run in the same way the music market is run now. all it too for an overnight switchover was ONE big publisher starting to offer contracts which left the copyright to the writers to get the best at their stables.

also notice that it is possible to run your own label and produce your own records. it takes 15,000 dollars to make a very good recording (i'm talking about studio time, mixing, mastering, paying a producer), not the millions metallica routinely spend every time they make an album.
of course you will have to be able to play the songs (sorry, no 93 takes for each chorus), but it's possible. in fact, as somebody pointed out, people at cdbaby are already doing it.
i'm considering joining them soon... if only they were more popular here in europe...


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And if you couldn't make money off of them, there would be no more published thoughts, ideas or series of msuical notes arranged in a certain way.




this simply isn't true. you would have more labours of love, and a higher perchentage of non-professional (whatever that might mean), but, trust me, you wouldn't see a sudden disappearance of new music, literature, physics analysis, and so on.
i, for one, would go on composing even if i had another 30 day jobs and if nobody would ever listen to my music.
i turned into a job because i liked it too much, not because i wanted to become rich and famous overnight. (that doesn't mean that i don't want to become rich and famous! )


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Why? Because it's really not that simple.
> 
> "Either you own it or you don't"? Okay, what defines ownership? Even starting with that basic definition, you could come up with dozens of takes on not only ownership of physical property alone. Getting into the hoary subject of "intellectual property" makes the situation even worse. What makes something as intangible as an idea yours? Really, the only thing that enforces respect for something as intangible as an idea is a feeling of respect towards you for your contribution and a legal enforcement of the same. What exactly that entitles you to is far from ut and dried, either legally or ethically. If I think of something similar to you, why do you get precedence? But at the same time, don't you deserve some recompense for your work?
> 
> Indeed, if there is an incredible claim here, it is that the situation is dichotomous; I'd like to see your justification for why you think it is so.




Okay, fair enough. I accept that the situation is not dichotomous. I suppose a better way of putting it (though still perhaps too definite) might have been: "either you can own intellectual property or you can't".

As to your question of what if you have a similar idea to me, the answer is very simple: you own your expression of the idea and I own mine. Unless you copied my actual expression of the idea, in which case you're a plagerist.

And I don't believe that I *deserve* recompense for my work, but simply that I have the right to ask for payment from those who want it.

i.e. If I make chairs and tables I don't deserve recompense for the work of making them. But I have the right to say that you can't walk off with them without paying me first. Whether you choose to purchase them is entirely up to you.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I don't know you, and I certainly am not prejudging your motivations for making this case.  However, I have heard this argument before from others, and this is what we've found...
> 
> The problem with this semantic based debate is that it turns a serious debate into a shell game.  The concept of 'theft' is one of the oldest in society, almost every major religion somewhere has a admonition against it -- you say theft and most people can clearly place the action in moral context.
> 
> ...




So my annoyance at the incorrect use of the term theft is actually a deft move to confuse semantics with legality and morality. Thank you for pointing out my motives were obfuscation instead of an honest desire to see the actual merits of the issues discussed without terminology that obscures relevant points, I was not aware of that before. Allow me to continue with my now understood master plan now.  

Copying and sharing protected IP is like theft in some ways but different in significant ways.

Therefore calling copying theft seems like a misleading semantic argument simply to get the moral and legal connotations of the term theft while obfuscating the moral and legal differences from theft.

I have no problem saying calling it theft annoys me because that seems an incorrect usage of the term that does not aid analysis of the issues.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> I think that the most effect method of quelling p2p distribution would be to take no countermeasures, except writing a little note on one of the first pages saying, if you like and use this product and acquired it without paying, please consider showing the authors a little appreciation by buying it.
> 
> The resulting guilt trip would have a much better effect IMO than offering a challenge to pirates.




i second this. this way you are making the pirate doing a moral call. and since i believe that most people behave in a good way (despite what the current laws in their country allow them to do), i believe that most people *would* pay back the publishers if they liked the product.


----------



## drothgery (Aug 9, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Let me guess: you don't work in the computing industry, do you?




I'm a programmer who works in the biotech industry, actually.

There are some very popular open source products. But none of those exist in the sort of idealized Open Source world where the vast majority of work is done by programmers working on the project for free in their spare time. They exist in a world where the vast majority of the work is done for pay, by people who work for companies that weren't able to compete with their commercial products. So I don't consider Linux an open source success story as much as an IBM success story.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> Snipped lots interesting stuff about the recording industry




To be honest, I'm not quite sure whether you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. It sounds like quite a nasty situation in the recording industry; but I wouldn't want that to be used to take away my rights as a writer. I'd rather that people in the recording industry had more rights (although I'm guessing that it's not a problem of legal rights so much as an unfair prevailing business model).

Basically, it seems that some people on this thread are arguing that if I choose to publish a work of mine then I should as a consequence lose all rights to it, because the only right to "information" they recognise is privacy.

I obviously disagree.


----------



## glass (Aug 9, 2005)

PJ-Mason said:
			
		

> LOL. That makes more sense than porches, i guess! I was too worked up see that possibility.



I think got it because I was thinking about making a similar coment (only with Porsche spelt correctly ).


glass.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> So the largest, and most active d20 RPG site was able to generate less than $1 per user from voluntary donations, and you think this can be the basis for a viable economic model?




i do.
and since the site is still up, despite the incredible amount of hassle that it does create to morrus and to the people running it (i do remember some acidic comments on the front page some time ago), there must be something in it.
also, keep in mind that is is a fan site. i don't think that morrus is making a lot of money out of it (if any), but that was never the purpose of the site to begin with.
also, keep in mind that most registered users do not actually use the site. just because joe gamer registered for free to post a random rule question ONCE, it doesn't mean he would have paid to access the forums...


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong



But acquiring information does not take that information from someone else. If I acquire information without paying for it I have not removed that information from any other person's possession. I may have deprived that person of potential income by not paying him/her a fee for use of the information.



			
				Shining Dragon said:
			
		

> Didn't Stephen King also try this? With a serialized novel called The Plant that didn't go beyond 6 installments. It seemed that $1 was too much for some to pay per installment.



Sort of . . . he actually attempted to charge people for each viewing of the chapters which is effectively the same as selling the book per copy. Had he instead agreed to publish each chapter after he received a specified amount in donations he could have followed that model and been happy. Also, if I recall correctly, that particular work was crap (according to people's who's opinion I respect), so people were not willing to pay for it.



			
				Kem said:
			
		

> Based on how much Mozart I hear, how much artwork from Leonardo, how much calculus I see being used, I will say outright, right in the open, that they where NEVER compensated for what they made, based on the popularity, and value placed on their items today.



So, the value of a person's effort to create information, art, etc. should be based on the number of people that make use of the information, art, etc., not on the effort required to produce it? That's how we try to do things today, but it doesn't work. Those damn pirates screw it up!

The gist of my argument is that the information, art, etc. does not have value in and of itself, but the effort to create/discover the work does. If the creator receives reasonable compensation for his/her initial efforts that is sufficient. Recurring income for later use of the information is not necessary to ensure "proper" compensation to artists, et al.



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Value is a relationship between availability and need/desire.



But information/intellectual property is highly available. The supply is effectively infinite regardless of the level of demand. Therefore the equilibrium price of information, art, etc. approaches zero. The concept of intellectual property (ownership of information) skews the supply and demand relationship.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> So, is a printed book just 'information' too? Just need that cleared up, first.



The physical book itself is indeed property and one could reasonably charge a consumer for providing information in that physical medium. Some people will prefer their information in such formats and will always be willing to pay for such formats. Others will be satisfied with an electronic medium that should have (practically) zero cost.



			
				Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> And how would a full-time writer (for example) make a living, if this belief system were to become dominant in the world?




A full-time writer could demand a pre-determined amount of donations before publishing his/her work (see the Ransom Method above).
A full-time writer could request donations/charity before or after publishing his/her work.
A patronage system could develop in which interested parties (EN World members, for example) pay the writer an annual salary to provide them with his/her works.
A patronage system could develop in which individuals pay a writer an annual salary to publish good works.
Writers could become much like research professors at universities. The university pays a salary. The professor does research and publishes the information (usually) at no charge to the public.



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> If I kept a diary, and said that it was *my* diary, and that I didn't want anyone else to read it - would you find that offensive?



Absolutely not. But if you later published that diary and told me that I couldn't reproduce it . . . yeah, that would bother me. Your right to privacy is in no way threatened by this idea.



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> The cost of pdf covers in part paying for the time of someone to collect the information.



Under current intellectual property models that is the method by which we attempt to compensate artists, et. al. I'm simply proposing an alternative method of compensation.



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> On bills especially plumber and car bills this is generally called labor and both of those guys charge a min hourly free. So next time don’t pay your plumber his full bill because he just used his specific information to do the job, the pipes were only $3 a foot from Lowes.
> … serious infringements on individual liberty.. you forgot the duty of individual not to harm other individuals because the liberty thief is stealing from the creator.



If I entered into an arrangement with a laborer to fix my sink then I have to pay him for that work. I have not entered into any agreement with any artist, author, etc. to pay them for their work. I don't have a moral obligation to pay them for their efforts. I would gladly pay them (and do on a regular basis) for their work. In a world where intellectual property law did not exist they would have to get their payment from some means other than charging per copy. I have propsed several such options.



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Oh BN since information is free can you pm the numbers from the bottom of your check, after all that is just information you, the bank, and store used. It is no use for you.



Ah, but you see, KNOWING those numbers is not a problem. If you choose to use those numbers to deprive me of my wealth . . . then you have actually committed a crime: theft of some sort; probably wire fraud. Hell, I don't know.



			
				JoeBlank said:
			
		

> while I disagree almost 100% with you opinions on intellectual property, I want to thank you for explaining your position so well.



Well thank you! Just wait til I get drunk and start ranting!  



			
				JoeBlank said:
			
		

> you cite examples of IP that was created before the concept of IP, I think earning a living is the greatest motivator. By allowing people to sell the IP they create, we encourage to production of IP.



Do you really believe that the current environment *encourages* the production of IP to a greater extent than we had during the Renaissance period in Western Europe? I believe that the current publication environment very much *discourages* production of IP. How many artists, muscians, etc. will you NEVER hear about because major publishing houses don't believe they could sell? If, on the other hand, it was common place for people to make donations/give charity to artists they prefer you would see thousands (millions?) of people publish their works in an effort to earn fame (probably first) and income (probably second).



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> software and rpg material are not good analogs.



True, but that doesn't mean it's not POSSIBLE to make money publishing "freeware" RPGs. Again, I refer to donations made to keep EN World up and running as a perfect example of paying for a service when you don't have to pay for. I'm sure people would pay for RPGs as well.



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> How many open source success stories are there, anyway? I only know of one.



In addition to Linux, there's the Eclipse Project (software development environment), JBOSS (Java web development suite) and many others. I posted a link to Source Forge earlier. There are dozens of projects there that people have earned a pretty good living developing without charging for the product.



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Okay, I'm not even sure what point I'm making here, but I guess what narks me about the whole "creative work = discovered information" argument is that it implies that if I write something creative I haven't made the world a better place by creating something that didn't previously exist, but have instead merely discovered words that were already there.



No, I don't believe that is the case. A person that creates art (in any form) almost certainly makes the world a better place and deserves some compensation for his/her efforts. I just believe that the current method of compensating artists for their efforts is asinine and immoral.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> And if you couldn't make money off of them, there would be no more published thoughts, ideas or series of msuical notes arranged in a certain way. Your philosophy has a complete lack of understanding of the human psyche. Open source is the exception, not the rule. Why do you think the vast majority of software isn't open source. It's not the road to success like you claim it is.



Hmm . . . you haven't read the whole thread . . . that's ok. People will continue to create art even if they are not compensated for each copy of their work. They absolutely should be compensated for their effort in creating, conceiving, etc. the work. After the work is published it should be free to anyone to use as they see fit.



			
				drothgery said:
			
		

> So the largest, and most active d20 RPG site was able to generate less than $1 per user from voluntary donations, and you think this can be the basis for a viable economic model?



I don't think there are nearly that many active users on this system. I would wild-assed guess that there are probably somewhere less than 3,000 unique users of this system each week. So, now we're talking nearly $5.00 per user donated. Of course, most people probably didn't donate. That's fine. If $13,000 was the amount required to run the site, and that's what they got . . . so be it. If they needed more I bet they would have gotten more. If they didn't get the amount needed then that would be clear evidence that EN World is not a viable enterprise.

The current publishing paradigm pretty much ensures that the proliferation of art, music, literature, and scientific knowledge is controlled by a relatively small group of people in major publishing houses. Were most people to reject the idea of Intellectual Property we would come to understand that we must still compensate artists, musicians, writers, etc. for their work, but that a per copy compensation model doesn't work. So instead we would see voluntary payment arrangements made between artists and fans that would probably benefit both parties significantly.

When you buy a CD for $15.99 how much of that cash goes to the artist? I don't know the answer, but I would guess somewhere less than $2.00. Wouldn't it be cool if you could just sign on to the artist's web site and pay him via PayPal $2.00 or $5.00 or whatever you thought the music was worth . . . or not pay anything if you really don't value the music.

I could make similar arguments about books, RPGs, etc.


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i second this. this way you are making the pirate doing a moral call. and since i believe that most people behave in a good way (despite what the current laws in their country allow them to do), i believe that most people *would* pay back the publishers if they liked the product.




I hope you're right.  However there is little empirical evidence to support the notion that, if we ask nice, people will behave inherently 'good'.  Morality seems to be too contextual.  In too large a segment of the population ethics seems to lose out to interest.

Not that I believe in flogging ilegal filesharers either.  I'm more of a supporter of third-way enforcement.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

interwyrm said:
			
		

> I will confess to being guilty of being a p2p archivist. A while ago I tried to download every tsr product ever made. Have I read all of them? No. Have I read even 10% of them? Probably not. *If they were available for sale * would I have bought all of them? Absolutely not.




Its not an if. Check out www.rpgnow.com TSR product as pdfs available for $5 or $6 each. And legal.

Many were and are also available from WotC for free from when they were starting up their pdf sales. They have been available legally for years now.

Have I read all of the dozens of free or cheap ones I bought? No, but I wanted them and I got them. Legally. You can too.


----------



## Psion (Aug 9, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> I'm a programmer who works in the biotech industry, actually.
> 
> There are some very popular open source products. But none of those exist in the sort of idealized Open Source world where the vast majority of work is done by programmers working on the project for free in their spare time. They exist in a world where the vast majority of the work is done for pay, by people who work for companies that weren't able to compete with their commercial products. So I don't consider Linux an open source success story as much as an IBM success story.




I wouldn't allocate all accolades on Linux itself either... but it's amazing in the defense idustry how Linux and (perhaps even moreso) GNU have been at the center of major efforts to create cost-saving open models that let the government earn a degree of freedom from the icky world of proprietary solutions.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Aug 9, 2005)

I've always wondered ... what are the sales like for the core D&D books?  The DMG, PHB, MM, etc?  

The content of those books, by and large, is available online for free download ... from multiple sources ... and in some cases available for not-free download, or physical purchase in stores, in "prettier" or "more useful" formats.

But folks still buy the core books.  Some folks don't, and use the SRD at all times, but many people still purchase and use the core books on a regular basis.  The 'information' is there, but alot of the rest of it isn't.

What I'd like to see, on DTRPG and other type sites, is cheap or free download of products in distinctly reduced-quality or alternative formats.  I would probably buy those products if they were utilitarian.  I know I would.

The SRD is probably the most-used RPG product at my table.  Not the PHB, not the DMG, but the free SRD.  But I own all of the core books.  They look good, they're good for reading, and I'm sure I can get them for free in full scans somewhere, but I've never looked for them because I have a utility version of the product and a pleasure version of the product.

Like BAEN books ... some of their books are available online, free, to read.  It's up to the authors to put them up.  I've actually found several authors whose books I've bought by reading from their free library when I'm bored and poor and have a connection.  I think it's sound, forward-thinking business sense.

I think DRM and various protection schema are a bridge technology of a changing business model.  They'll always be broken, and people will always do so in methods that eventually become widespread, automated, and easily available, where-upon the methodology will have to be changed again, starting the cycle anew.  When producers become comfortable with the technology as it is and refigure business models to take advantage of it, we'll see DRM die off.  

Unless they get enough corrupt laws passed to artificially protect a certain business model, which is what they're hot and heavy to do ... which, really, might not be THAT big of a deal to the larger economic whole, but might be a crippling blow to America's economic majority if another culture figures out how to take advantage of it.

--fje


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> To be honest, I'm not quite sure whether you're agreeing with me or disagreeing with me.




i'm not doing either. i tend to sympathise with what you say, because, being an author myself, i do know where you're coming from. nevertheless, what you say often does not have any place in the current intellectual industries, good or bad as that might be.




			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> It sounds like quite a nasty situation in the recording industry



man, ever since i started my musician job, i have started revaluating the crime industry! 
just a thing that hit me lately... http://www.justiceforkurt.com/ 
read that, and you'll have a nice image of courtney love...

it's not completely bad, and awful, but you do find a good percentage of people who is acting naively, or ignorantly, and those are screwed up hard by the (not so few) opportunists that are out there.
there is also a majority who doesn't want to record because they don't trust the system, and end up playing with their bands (either original or covers) and earning their lives with a day job or teaching music.




			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> but I wouldn't want that to be used to take away my rights as a writer.




as i said, nobody is forcing you to sign any contract and you can record your stuff and keep complete artistic direction with your stuff. be prepared to starve, though, and to be extremely unpopular with your family, and with your "friends" who will never lose the opportunity to remind you that you have to grow up and get a "proper" job.



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Basically, it seems that some people on this thread are arguing that if I choose to publish a work of mine then I should as a consequence lose all rights to it, because the only right to "information" they recognise is privacy.
> 
> I obviously disagree.




and you are entitled to.
i think nobody said so. if you publish a work, there is no such thing as a state law telling you what rights you "have" to lose and what you keep. it is all stated in the contract. you don't like the contract? you move your business elsewhere. there are normal expectations, however, and you shouldn't be surprised if you find yourself without a publisher if you don't want to give some things up.

in addition, it all depends on what kind of publishing you are talking about. are you publishing a novel on the internet? then chances are that the general public is more likely to plagiarise you and to get away with it, just because of the way internet works and is perceived.
apart from that, the same processes apply. you want to publish a novel, and make it available for free, no adds on the website, no registration, no nothing? cool. you can do it. chances are that you have to start your own website and pay for that, though.


----------



## Ace (Aug 9, 2005)

drothgery said:
			
		

> So the largest, and most active d20 RPG site was able to generate less than $1 per user from voluntary donations, and you think this can be the basis for a viable economic model?




excellent point


The real issue in play here is free vs. cost anyway -- the copyright stuff adds complexity but it is just a sideshow 

One major reason many D20 PDF's arent selling  better (beyond percieved value) is you can't beat free -- even when they aren't infringed there are tons and tons of free legal alternatives. I have enouh free legal stuff to run 5 or 10 campaigns myself -- preview bits, OGL bits, homebrew, tons of fanstuff, the SRD. The hugely reduces the value of the commerical work -- scarcity raises cost -- low scarcity means low cost in most cases 

real world examples 

FREX -- the BBC gave away LEGALLY 9 of  Beethoven's symphonies. You can guess what the record companies action was --  shut them down with a lawsuit 

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050711/2013234_F.shtml

something similar happened in France to a pair of old ladies who built a car exchange (I don't have a link sorry) they were sued by the muni bus company as parasites 

heck look at the fear of Linux displayed by Microsoft -- I remember who was it, Balmer I think, complaining about Linux hampering software and the like 

Something tangental to that is here 

http://www.linuxpipeline.com/business/46800443

You can't compete with free unless you offer more value (name recognition, special features etc) with infringement being so easy -- you can't guarantee that your "for cost" product won't be forced free. Worse you can't fix it without making it too hard for lawful users to use it.

Not a nice boat to be in --


----------



## Rasyr (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> The physical book itself is indeed property and one could reasonably charge a consumer for providing information in that physical medium. Some people will prefer their information in such formats and will always be willing to pay for such formats. Others will be satisfied with an electronic medium that should have (practically) zero cost.




The medium in which a product is delivered should have no effect upon whether or not a person should charge for their own works.

Let's look at a PDF versus a book.
Writers? Both required.
Artists? Yup for both.
Layout software - yup, required for both
PDF creation software - yup, required for both
Editors - yup, required for both
Other things not mentioned (overhead, advertising, etc..) - yup, required for both.
Printing a physical book - only required for the physical book, not for the PDF

From what you have been saying, it sounds like you think that PDFs should be free, or nearly so. Yet from the short list I give above, it is quite obvious that there is only one or two things that physical products require that PDFs don't.

I also really think that you need to more fully define some of the terms you are using as you are apparently interchanging the word "information" (AND using it incorrectly in the first place) with the term "intellectual property". They are not the same thing.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Same here. A lot of people have had a go at me for not doing Critical Miss anymore, but the fact is that I make my living as a computer programmer with all writing being done in my spare time - which I prioritise according to what I most feel like doing.
> 
> I must admit that I was pretty disappointed with the reaction when Mongoose bought out a compilation of my Signs & Portents articles in PDF form for $2. Given how many people had said how much they missed Critical Miss, and given that this was like a whole new Critical Miss (if not more) for a fairly reasonable price, I thought quite a few people would be happy about it. But there was pretty much no reaction whatsoever.
> 
> It was quite depressing really. It certainly didn't make me feel particularly inclined to do another Critical Miss because my feeling then was, "Well you can't be *that* desparate to get your hands on more stuff written by me!"




Well, I'll add my voice to thosr that thought Critical Miss was a laugh riot

How come you never responded when I tried to get you to submit it for the ENnies?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> The physical book itself is indeed property and one could reasonably charge a consumer for providing information in that physical medium. Some people will prefer their information in such formats and will always be willing to pay for such formats. Others will be satisfied with an electronic medium that should have (practically) zero cost.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





_Thank you! _

My god, someone actually took my posts in their original context.




You've also cleared up the points I was seeking clarification on. Thanks.

Actually, a couple of those alternatives you've listed look quite sound to me. . . and come to think of it, some (at least) are already in place here and there, aren't they? - and working well, what's more.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> When you buy a CD for $15.99 how much of that cash goes to the artist? I don't know the answer,





unfortunately, the price the average customer pays for a cd has absolutely nothing to do with what the artists put in their pocket.
by contract they are entitled a percentage from roughly 9% to 20% (some exceptions exist) on the sale price. that, of course, AFTER they have paid back the label to all the recording costs (and even some tour costs, if the label is supporting that) out of that 9-20%. all the albums given for free or stolen do not count. since nobody but the record label is allowed to account how many copies of the album have actually being sold, most of the times the numbers are "adjusted" to the best interests of the labels, unless you go to court and can provide sensible proof that a scam is going on.

please note that this is an *extremely* simplified model. there are so many other variables that people have written thick books on the subject.

so, if you pay 20 dollars for a cd, and the artist is lucky, with an average of 14,5 points, he gets 2,9 dollars in his pocket.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> The gist of my argument is that the information, art, etc. does not have value in and of itself, but the effort to create/discover the work does. If the creator receives reasonable compensation for his/her initial efforts that is sufficient. Recurring income for later use of the information is not necessary to ensure "proper" compensation to artists, et al.




But that means that the artist has to earn their entire income for the work "up front" rather than having it spread over the period in which the work is "used" as happens nowadays.

This doesn't (IMHO) make much economic sense, because it requires that the money be generated in one big lump *before* people actually use the work, rather than being generated as and when they use it.

i.e. The reason why authors get a continuing income stream is because they don't get paid for writing the book, they get paid only when people read it, because it's the reading that generates a desire in the reader to reward the author, not the writing.

(That's assuming that you want them to earn the same ammount of money as before - if you're talking about them getting merely a token fee upon publication rather than a reasonable wage through a continuing period then it does make economic sense).



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> A full-time writer could demand a pre-determined amount of donations before publishing his/her work (see the Ransom Method above).
> A full-time writer could request donations/charity before or after publishing his/her work.
> A patronage system could develop in which interested parties (EN World members, for example) pay the writer an annual salary to provide them with his/her works.
> A patronage system could develop in which individuals pay a writer an annual salary to publish good works.
> Writers could become much like research professors at universities. The university pays a salary. The professor does research and publishes the information (usually) at no charge to the public.




There seem to me to be a number of problems with that:

1) I doubt it will raise much money. When there is no connection between how much you donate and how much you get back (i.e. you get the book regardless of whether or not you donate) I think that while many people might donate, it will be relatively token amounts.

2) How many rich people are there out there who want to donate $30,000 a year to fund an RPG writer? 

3) I dislike the whole charity idea. It's like having to beg and is (IMHO) perhaps even demeaning. I'd rather it be on the basis of me saying I have something you might want, do you want to buy it? (i.e. no suggestion that either side is doing the other side a favour). 



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Do you really believe that the current environment *encourages* the production of IP to a greater extent than we had during the Renaissance period in Western Europe?




Actually, yes. When you consider that we reward our artists enough that you have tens of thousands of people in a country that make a living entirely from artistic endeavours I'd say we're doing pretty well. Whereas when you consider that even someone like William Shakespeare led a pretty hand-to-mouth existance I think things were pretty hard then. I doubt many people in those times made their living purely from artistic endeavour.



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I believe that the current publication environment very much *discourages* production of IP. How many artists, muscians, etc. will you NEVER hear about because major publishing houses don't believe they could sell? If, on the other hand, it was common place for people to make donations/give charity to artists they prefer you would see thousands (millions?) of people publish their works in an effort to earn fame (probably first) and income (probably second).




That assumes that whichever business model these guys would use (presumably releasing their works as PDFs or MP3s or whatever) *isn't* available now.



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> True, but that doesn't mean it's not POSSIBLE to make money publishing "freeware" RPGs. Again, I refer to donations made to keep EN World up and running as a perfect example of paying for a service when you don't have to pay for. I'm sure people would pay for RPGs as well.




As people have pointed out, ENWorld is a hugely supported Internet site, and yet it's not even capable of supplying enough money to pay even one full time worker. (Morrus runs it in his spare time, and the $13,000 was to pay for a new server).



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> No, I don't believe that is the case. A person that creates art (in any form) almost certainly makes the world a better place and deserves some compensation for his/her efforts. I just believe that the current method of compensating artists for their efforts is asinine and immoral.




Again, the whole "deserves" smacks of charity, and "throwing the artist a bone".



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I don't think there are nearly that many active users on this system. I would wild-assed guess that there are probably somewhere less than 3,000 unique users of this system each week. So, now we're talking nearly $5.00 per user donated. Of course, most people probably didn't donate. That's fine. If $13,000 was the amount required to run the site, and that's what they got . . . so be it. If they needed more I bet they would have gotten more. If they didn't get the amount needed then that would be clear evidence that EN World is not a viable enterprise.




People don't work that way. Otherwise you'd never have the tragedy of the commons.

The point is that the larger the group of people, the less people trust others in a group, and the less they are prepared to cooperate. Once I get to the point where I feel that I'm donating more than my fair share, and that others are freeloading, I'll stop donating - even if it means that the thing I'm supporting (website, author whatever) goes under. Because I don't want to feel that I'm being ripped off by freeloaders who are taking advantage of me.

That basically puts a cap on the mass donations model. (It's different where it's one rich patron, because he or she gets the glory - but how many rich patrons are there out there)?



			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> The current publishing paradigm pretty much ensures that the proliferation of art, music, literature, and scientific knowledge is controlled by a relatively small group of people in major publishing houses. Were most people to reject the idea of Intellectual Property we would come to understand that we must still compensate artists, musicians, writers, etc. for their work, but that a per copy compensation model doesn't work. So instead we would see voluntary payment arrangements made between artists and fans that would probably benefit both parties significantly.
> 
> When you buy a CD for $15.99 how much of that cash goes to the artist? I don't know the answer, but I would guess somewhere less than $2.00. Wouldn't it be cool if you could just sign on to the artist's web site and pay him via PayPal $2.00 or $5.00 or whatever you thought the music was worth . . . or not pay anything if you really don't value the music.
> 
> I could make similar arguments about books, RPGs, etc.




But your argument is totally irrelevent to what this thread is about: the ripping off of RPG PDFs, in which in nearly all cases 100% of the money goes to the creators.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Ace said:
			
		

> FREX -- the BBC gave away LEGALLY 9 of  Beethoven's symphonies. You can guess what the record companies action was --  shut them down with a lawsuit
> 
> http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050711/2013234_F.shtml





sorry to say it, but the labels are right. unless the bbc put online their own recordings (which i assume it didn't, else NOBODY IN THE WORLD could have filed a lawsuit).
you see, beethoven might be in the open domain, but the recording aren't. so you can put your own transcription of his music online for free ( scanning a book and doing the same is also problematic... it has to do with the fonts and layout, i think... so something equally meaningless and stupid), put your own recording for free, start you own symphony quoting the first 100 bars of beethoven's ninth, and be happy with it.
and that's it.
the BBC should have known it. my guess is that they knew and they knew they couldn't ask the labels for permission without getting a no, so they tried anyway, hoping that the good publicity and the general approval of the public would have shelthered them from the stupidity of the labels... how naive...


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Well, I'll add my voice to thosr that thought Critical Miss was a laugh riot




Cool! That's good to hear. I didn't think anyone on ENWorld ever read it. Don't recall anyone mentioning it, anyhow.



			
				Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> How come you never responded when I tried to get you to submit it for the ENnies?




Erm... when did ask me to submit it for the ENNies? I honestly don't recall that.

(Have a horrible feeling this might be one of those "spam filter ate important mail" stories).


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> sorry to say it, but the labels are right. unless the bbc put online their own recordings (which i assume it didn't, else NOBODY IN THE WORLD could have filed a lawsuit).
> you see, beethoven might be in the open domain, but the recording aren't. so you can put your own transcription of his music online for free ( scanning a book and doing the same is also problematic... it has to do with the fonts and layout, i think... so something equally meaningless and stupid), put your own recording for free, start you own symphony quoting the first 100 bars of beethoven's ninth, and be happy with it.
> and that's it.
> the BBC should have known it. my guess is that they knew and they knew they couldn't ask the labels for permission without getting a no, so they tried anyway, hoping that the good publicity and the general approval of the public would have shelthered them from the stupidity of the labels... how naive...




No, it was their own recordings, which was why the labels looked pretty stupid. I don't think they actually sued (how could they?) but I think they basically tried to argue that the BBC was undercutting the recording industry by releasing them for free - in much the same way as SCO tried to argue that giving people a free license to use software was in breach of the US constitution. (An argument that annoyed me, because as far as I'm concerned, if I own something, then I have every right to give it away).


----------



## sjmiller (Aug 9, 2005)

I will freely admit that I have received electronic copies of copyrighted material.

Several such items were copies of products that are long out of print and the intellectual property has been abandoned by the rightsholder.  Attempts have been made to contact the rightsholder and obtain permission to reproduce the product, all of which have proven fruitless.  If recent legislation regarding orphaned intellectual property is passed, the above would not only be perfectly legal, but would allow me to create and sell products based on this property and set up a compensation fund in case the owner shows up.

Several items were obtained for review purposes.  These electronic copies were read/examined and more often than not I have later purchased the item in question.  This has been the case with several CDs of music, two RPG books, and one DVD set for a TV show.  In all those cases the electronic copies I obtained were most likely not legally reproduced.  With those files, however, I was able to make a much more informed purchase than I could have without them.  After reviewing them I made my decision regarding purchasing and then deleted the file.  Why clutter up my harddrive with files that are useless to me?

To be perfectly honest, given the chance I would download the Army of Darkness RPG file.  I would take a look at it, see if I like it, then decide if I want to buy it or not.  If I decide not to buy it, it saves me the trip to a game store that may or may not let me read through the book before buying it.  If I decide to buy it I can be assured that I will have a product I want and won’t be in for any disappointing surprises.

Not everyone who obtains an electronic copy of a product is doing so for nefarious purposes.  Some just want to look before they buy.  I am sorry if you do not like this, but I am becoming an old dog and I don’t learn new tricks as easily as I used to.  I look before I buy.  I always have, and I always will.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> I suppose what I'm saying is that if I write a story, I have a really strong emotional feeling/belief that I *own* it. I don't see it as "information" that I "discovered", I see it as a "thing" that I created.
> 
> Now that's regardless of the law. That's just how I feel.
> 
> And regardless of privacy, I feel that because it's *mine*, I have the right to say who can see it. I think - for example - that I would have the right to give you a copy of my story, but tell you that I don't want you to give copies and to other people. (And if you're not happy with that, then you can say "no thank you" and not accept the copy).



I hope this isn't too political, but here goes.  I will speak only for US law, since that is where I live and that is the law I am familiar with.  Obviously, different regions of the world have slightly different laws...

*Copyright* is just that - the right to control the creation of "copies" (including "derivative works").  That's all it is.  Things get tough because we use "copy" as both a verb and a noun and sometimes the noun usage is unclear - if I say I have a copy of a book (for instance), it is not clear whether I mean a single instance of a physical book printed with approval of the copyright holder or a (probably illegal) xeroxed copy, loose-leaf of the same.  

To help us keep track of the distinction, I will use copy(a) and copy(b) to describe nouns where copy(a) is used in the sense of a "professionally created and distributed" copy and copy(b) is used in the sense of something created by copying copy(a).

Copyright law does not give the holder *any* rights as to the disposition or use of any copy(a) except prohibiting (in most cases; there are exceptions) the creation of a copy(b) of copy(a).

This means I can go to Amazon.com and buy a book, a CD, a DVD, a software package, or download an e-book.  In each of these instances, I legally receive a copy(a) of the material.  What I do with that material is completely up to me, so long as I do not use it to create a copy(b) - and even then, I may be allowed to.  If I want to use the book as a doorstop for my bathroom, I can do that.  If I want to use the CD as a frisbee, I can do that.  If I want to give the DVD to my friend, I can do that.  If I want to sell the software package (unopened) to someone over E-bay, I can do that.

More relevant to the discussion at hand - if I want to put the CD in my CD deck and play it in a random order, rather than the track order, I can do that.  If I want to read the book back-to-front, I can do that.

I think the creators' emotions come into play at this point - you wrote a great murder mystery and I'm SPOILING it by reading it back to front!  How DARE I do such a thing!  Or worse, I'm not even reading it, I'm using it as a doorstop!  How could I have such audacity!  I'm clearly a heathen!  I'm EEEEVIL!

Guess what... when I paid money for that copy(a), you gave up all right as to how I use it, so long as I do not make a copy(b) of it.

Of course, now we have technological measures in place, backed by the teeth of law, that are giving content creators control that they never had before - and I firmly believe "shouldn't have at all."  For instance, my in-laws recently purchased a copy(a) of "Shark Tale" on DVD.  When you put the DVD into the DVD player, you are forced to sit through about 10 minutes of previews, because the DVD and DVD player disable the "skip" and "menu" functions.  Not just the first time - EVERY time.  If I accidentally bump the "eject" button, I get to sit through 10 minutes of previews AGAIN.  *Why?*  This is analagous to a book forcibly keeping me from flipping directly past the "author's dedication" page and "prologue" in a book to start reading at Chapter 1.  Or, if I stop after Chapter 2 to take a break, I have to read the author's dedication page and prologue AGAIN before going to Chapter 3.  

As far as I can tell, from my reading of copyright law, Dreamworks has no right to force me to sit through their commericals under copyright law... and since I signed no contract when I purchased my DVD player... and my DVD... they have no right to control the DVD under contract law either.  And yet they force me to do it anyway!  Why?  Because the technology of DVD players allows them to grab these "extra rights" that basic law does not grant them.  

Emotionally, they want the right to display *their* work in the way they want it displayed (and let's be honest here, in the case of commercials, they want to keep burning their freakin' movies into my skull - or more likely, into my kids' skulls - there's no artistic integrity at stake there, only a raw money grab).  But they don't have the moral right to do it, nor do they (under existing law) have the legal right to do it... so they make an end run around morals and legality to slip it in anyway.  I believe it is asbolutely unethical to act in this fashion - that is, to attempt to take away my "right" to dispose of the copy(a) and view it as I choose.

In other words, DVD studios are acting unethically when they attempt to exercise power they are not entitled to by law.  Which leads to this question: is it unethical for me, in turn, to modify my DVD player to ignore the "lock" signals and/or to rip/burn a copy(b) which does not include the "lock" signals in order solely to restore my own use of those rights that were mine to begin with?

You're probably wondering how all of this relates to piracy at this point... it doesn't, exactly, except to point out to you that once you sell/give a copy(a) to someone else, absent a separate contract, you lose control of that copy(a).  Emotionally, you don't like that.  But that's what happens.  In your specific example, you mentioned that "you would give me a copy and that I would agree not to give copies to other people."  But you made no prohibition against me taking that copy(a) you gave me and giving (not copying it) to someone else.  Would you be mad if I took the original stack of papers and loaned it to my friend to read?  And if he loaned it to his friend?  And so on, and so on, provided no copy(b) was made of your copy(a)?  Over infinite time, the result is the same... everyone reads your stuff (oh, yeah, and nobody pays you for a second copy)!

Anyway, getting back on track as to piracy... I'm of two minds here.  Obviously, I'm a PDF publisher, so I do keep an eye out for "pirated" copies of my stuff... not so much to get upset about it (it's kind of like getting upset at the sky for raining when I planned a picnic - there's nothing I could do to stop it and nothing I can do to fix the current problem; all I can do is adjust for the future) as to ask the piraters (when I find them) to please stop.  I don't threaten legal action, I just ask them (nicely) not to do it as a favor to me.  Usually they ignore me, but at least I try.

However, I feel that the "copyright cartel" on the whole has grossly violated the original social contract that goes with copyright.  Copyright was NOT intended as a means to enrich the individual (or corporate entity); rather, it was intended as a means to enrich society by giving society access to information ("*To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts*" is the clause of the Constitution that justifies the creation of copyright in the first place - not "to enrich the creators of copyrighted material" - and the Constitution states that these should be "for limited times").  

I have heard it said that when framing laws, you should not ask, "what will the current political entity (presumably benign) do with this power?" but rather "what kind of havoc could the biggest rat bastard on earth do if given this power" on the theory that even if things are controlled by a benign entity at present, eventually the biggest rat bastard on earth is going to get his hands on it.  Copyright is intended as a balance between the greedy rat bastard creators (who want people to pay, preferably through the nose and in perpetuity) and the greedy rat bastard masses (who want it all for free as in beer and as in speech and want it now).  Obviously, we can't have NO copyright or the greedy rat bastard creators will have no incentive to create in the first place.  On the other hand, we can't have perpetual copyright, either, because the greedy rat bastard masses won't tolerate that.  

In the words of Lord Thomas Macauley in Britain's house of commons in 1841 (link: http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html ) - I use him because he's more eloquent than I:

"It is good that authors should be remunerated, and the least exceptionable way of remunerating them is by a monopoly. Yet monopoly is evil. For the sake of the good we must submit to the evil: but the evil ought not to last a day longer than is necessary for the purpose of securing the good"

We establish copyright in order to make sure that authors get justly renumerated for their works.  However, copyright in and of itself establishes a monopoly, and monopolies are, for the most part, evil (not because they are inherently evil, but because a monopoly gives all power over a certain thing to one entity, and absolute power tends to corrupt).

As to arguing about whether information is property, I agree with Macauley: "It is not necessary to go, on the present occasion, into a metaphysical inquiry about the origin of the right of property; and certainly nothing but the strongest necessity would lead me to discuss a subject so likely to be distasteful to the House. I agree, I own, with Paley in thinking that *property is the creature of the law, and that the law which creates property can be defended only on this ground, that it is a law beneficial to mankind.*"  After all, in terms of physical property, we can argue about scarcity, but without laws, the "natural limits" of the property one can attain is simply that which you can hang on to and/or defend by physical force and that's not much.  

Macauley brilliantly sums up copyright in this way:


> "The question of copyright, Sir, like most questions of civil prudence, is neither black nor white, but grey. The system of copyright has great advantages and great disadvantages; and it is our business to ascertain what these are, and then to make an arrangement under which the advantages may be as far as possible secured, and the disadvantages as far as possible excluded.
> ...
> The principle of copyright is this. It is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax."



And with considerable foresight, has this to say:


> I will only say this, that if the measure before us should pass (lengthening copyright from 28 to 60 years), and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, *there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind.* Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will *this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers.*
> 
> At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains.
> ...
> ...



I personally think a lot of the problem stems from the fact that, by and large, by continually lobbying to extend and extend and extend and extend copyright, "big business" (and here I am thinking of Disney, the RIAA, and the MPAA) has mucked things up as far as copyright goes - for everyone.  People are pissed at "the man" for lengthening copyright to, essentially, perpetuity (my *father* hasn't seen anything fall out of copyright in *his* lifetime, and I don't honestly expect to see anything enter the public domain in 2018... I fully expect lobbying for yet another extension).  

The anger that people feel at "The Man" (in the big media congolomerates) then poisons their feelings toward RPG companies, too.  Yes, RPG companies are small outfits.  Yes, they are, for the most part, manned with good people.  But "The wholesome copyright... (shares) in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright" because "the public seldom makes nice distinctions."

Those who infringe copyright of the little guy do so because the whole copyright concept has been poisoned by the "big guy."  And you know, I can hardly blame them.  Even though I myself have tried to be respectful and open with my work (heck, all my text except the titles of my works, my name and email address are 100% OGC), I can still get a sense of... "hey, copyright holders broke the contract first by getting extension after extension, by getting huge and ridiculously harsh penalties (a typical file-sharer with 200 files on his share directory is liable for more damages and jail time than a serial murderer), and changing copyright from a civil matter to a criminal matter (so big companies don't have to spend their own money pursuing folks; instead, they can spend the governement's money by reporting to the FBI or police)... since you broke your side of the bargain, why should we be expected to keep ours?"

I'm not saying it's right (two wrongs don't make a right).  I'm not saying it's properly directed (again, I think it's misdirected anger in the case of RPG publishers).  I *am* saying there are some darn good arguments that ethically, the "pirates" are really no worse off than big-time copyright interests (though most RPG publishers have a better "high horse" to stand on).  After all, I think big-time copyright interests have trampled the social contract and original purpose of copyright, and having watched them do that, who's to blame the masses for disrespecting copyright altogether?  After all, if one side doesn't respect the contract, why should the other side honor it? 

That my copyrighted stuff happens to get caught up in the resulting explosion is unfortunate (yes, I didn't trample copyright by demanding extensions, and my stuff is still pretty new, but if "all copyright is to be ignored" I can't expect them to treat me any different just because I'm nice and my stuff is new), but I don't place *all* the blame on the filesharers, either.  If we had "Founding Father" copyright, everything published before, what, 1991 would be in the public domain anyway (except stuff that had been renewed, but even that would only go back to 1977)!  That would be a boatload of stuff that people love that would be legally out there, and I think would *drastically* reduce the amount of bad feelings we see toward the institution of copyright today.

"The whole nation *is* in on the plot."  Look at the sheer numbers on P2P networks.  Look at how many people have rip/mixed/burned.  Look at how piracy is bringing the copyright industry down - or at least forcing them to drastically change their business model (iTunes, anyone).  Slowly, perhaps, but it's happening.  *The problem is not necessarily the price point on any given book, but rather the attitude in general towards copyright*.  Clearly, if the whole nation is in on the plot, it's not a reflection of the price of a single book, but rather on the terms of copyright as a whole.  I really doubt piracy will go away, no matter WHAT people do, DRM or otherwise, until we see huge and massive copyright reforms that slant things much more favorably toward the public and away from the copyright holder.  Given the amount of money copyright holders spend on lobbying, that means "never."

I happen to think the piracy of RPG books is a symptom of a much larger problem.  That's why I don't worry myself overmuch about it... the problem, as I see it, is a social/political one - not a technological one - and truly out of my control as a publisher.

--The Sigil


----------



## GMSkarka (Aug 9, 2005)

EDIT:   Never mind.    Not worth it.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I hope this isn't too political, but here goes.  I will speak only for US law, since that is where I live and that is the law I am familiar with.  Obviously, different regions of the world have slightly different laws...




I just wanted to say that's a good post. I'm not saying I agreed with every single thing you said, but you made a load of damn good points. (So much so, that I don't really have any response).


----------



## El Ravager (Aug 9, 2005)

I've been thinking on this subject and it ocurred to me -- there is this place in town where I can freely get a hold of copyrighted materials.  Not just electronic, real printed materials.  Thats right, I can take them home and read them, and get this, the author doesn't get any money from me at all!  I pay nothing and but I get to read full works of copyrighted material.  

So I did a little research, and I found that these places are all over the country.  Nearly every town and city has one.  Think of all the millions of people reading copyrighted stuff/information and all for free.  Sure one copy is bought and each location, but hundreds of people get to read it.

I think the government should look into shutting them down.  How can authors make a living with this much theft happening.  I mean, if I read it I don't have to buy it, so clearly I have deprived the publisher of a sale.  I just can't believe this kinda theft, or "freedom of information" as some would call it, is allowed to exist. 


==================
El 'yes this is a troll' Rav


----------



## Morrus (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I don't think there are nearly that many active users on this system. I would wild-assed guess that there are probably somewhere less than 3,000 unique users of this system each week. So, now we're talking nearly $5.00 per user donated. Of course, most people probably didn't donate. That's fine. If $13,000 was the amount required to run the site, and that's what they got . . . so be it. If they needed more I bet they would have gotten more. If they didn't get the amount needed then that would be clear evidence that EN World is not a viable enterprise.





You're quite a bit off there.


Ignore the "registered users" bit.  Only a handful of visitors actually register here.  The bulk are unregistered visitors - and we're currently averaging *29,000 unique users per day*.  I don't know how many that works out to per month, but the stats seem to indicate that Mr. Average visits once every 4 days.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Erm... when did ask me to submit it for the ENNies? I honestly don't recall that.




By email, about 2 years ago I think.



> (Have a horrible feeling this might be one of those "spam filter ate important mail" stories).




Sounds like. For anyone who wants a glimpse into what my early years of RPG were like, a very comparable example is presented in Johnny's playtest review of *Cyborg Commando* on Critical Miss.

It will have you in tears (both kinds)


----------



## PJ-Mason (Aug 9, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Sounds like. For anyone who wants a glimpse into what my early years of RPG were like, a very comparable example is presented in Johnny's playtest review of *Cyborg Commando* on Critical Miss.
> 
> It will have you in tears (both kinds)




Hey now. I thought that the whole D10 x D10 was...interesting. 

Believe it or not, I still have those books!


----------



## Falkus (Aug 9, 2005)

> this simply isn't true. you would have more labours of love, and a higher perchentage of non-professional (whatever that might mean), but, trust me, you wouldn't see a sudden disappearance of new music, literature, physics analysis, and so on.




A good computer game requires a crew of dozens of highly talented and trained people and millions of dollars to make up front. How the hell would anybody be able to make a good computer game in your 'idealized' society?



> Hmm . . . you haven't read the whole thread . . . that's ok. People will continue to create art even if they are not compensated for each copy of their work. They absolutely should be compensated for their effort in creating, conceiving, etc. the work. After the work is published it should be free to anyone to use as they see fit.




Who will compensate them? The magic money fairies? If they don't charge people for their work, who exactly is going to pay them? And don't BS me about donations, people are not going to donate more money than the producer would have made by selling it. Donations is, farnky, an imbeclic response. Very few people are going to donate, humans are greedy and self-centered. If we're given something for free, only a few of us are going to choose to donate money for it.


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> unfortunately, the price the average customer pays for a cd has absolutely nothing to do with what the artists put in their pocket.
> by contract they are entitled a percentage from roughly 9% to 20% (some exceptions exist) on the sale price. that, of course, AFTER they have paid back the label to all the recording costs (and even some tour costs, if the label is supporting that) out of that 9-20%. all the albums given for free or stolen do not count. since nobody but the record label is allowed to account how many copies of the album have actually being sold, most of the times the numbers are "adjusted" to the best interests of the labels, unless you go to court and can provide sensible proof that a scam is going on.
> 
> please note that this is an *extremely* simplified model. there are so many other variables that people have written thick books on the subject.
> ...





It seems rather popular in internet-lands to pile on to major record labels, financial institutions or any other corporation where the 'suits' stick it to the 'little guy'.  To a layman, the role of up-front capital, or access to distribution channels may seem less important than the artistic content of what's being written/preformed.

However the role of the 'suits' is extrememely important.  Vital, even.  If I offer you access to my distribution channels (with the corresponding tertiary financial benefits that come with them), as well as providing you with the best possible production infrastructure and/or up front money...it's within my right to expect a healthy ROI.  The only money an artist loses from producing a dud comes from the time they could have been doing something else -- the record companies are the ones with the real financial stake.

And besides, if the artist has something worth selling, they can always shop around to different labels, and different distribution channels.  That's the beauty of cmpetition.

Now...as major media companies continue to consolidate...we approach monopolistic competition environments which does, in fact, take it's toll both artistically, ethically, and economically.  That might be a fear down the road, but we're not quite there yet.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 9, 2005)

The same old discussion...

Question: How morale is it to pay $28 for the pdf when you already bought the paper book and payed $40 for it? Is it still immoral to download the pdf if you already own the paper version? Just curious, what people think, not making any accusations...

Danger of watermarking: If i really don't like someone i could find out what he bought at DTRPG, remove the watermarking from a pdf and insert the watermarking that points the finger at the person i don't like and distribute it through a P2P network. That someone then gets prosecuted for something he didn't do. Trojans on that persons pc could give me access to pdfs he downloaded. Insecurity of the DTRPG webshop could give me access to someone elses account. Using PayPal i could masquarade as anyone...

The future: Comming HD-DVD standards require me to buy a new MS Windows OS (Vista) and a monitor that works with the encryption, otherwise i won't be able to play my store bought HD-DVDs. Last year i bought a new computer and spent 1300 euro on a new TFT monitor, i'm also moving to Linux. So in the end i won't be able to play store bought HD-DVDs with this encryption on my home entertainment system (which my computer is). This motivates me to buy HD-DVDs, how? I'm already frustrated by the unskipable legal notices that now a days take five minutes or the bloody annoying THX intros, etc. Not to mention the mind numbing tv commercials that downgrade my IQ by atleast ten point for te next hour or so...

You want people to give you money, earn their respect, make things they want to pay for (even if you don't require payment), don't piss people off by being an ass and act all hysterical. Someone mentioned the money raised for this site, OSS projects, i'm curious if RPG products could work on a similar basis.

And i won't touch the rest of this piracy crap because it generally makes me say nasty things in the end and i don't feel like getting banned... Again...


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> Not everyone who obtains an electronic copy of a product is doing so for nefarious purposes.  Some just want to look before they buy.  I am sorry if you do not like this, but I am becoming an old dog and I don’t learn new tricks as easily as I used to.  I look before I buy.  I always have, and I always will.




I doubt the copyright police spend much time worrying about you then.  While the ethics debate around your downloading material can continue chugging along - the market-based arguments against it evaporate.

The problem is that, if what you say is true, you are very much an outlier.  
As I mentioned a few dozen posts back, the primary users of P2P filesharing programs are a somewhat diverse lot...however what they share is a common disdain for ever having to pay for what they take...ever.


----------



## Crothian (Aug 9, 2005)

sjmiller said:
			
		

> Not everyone who obtains an electronic copy of a product is doing so for nefarious purposes.  Some just want to look before they buy.  I am sorry if you do not like this, but I am becoming an old dog and I don’t learn new tricks as easily as I used to.  I look before I buy.  I always have, and I always will.




There are legal ways of doing this though.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Who will compensate them? The magic money fairies? If they don't charge people for their work, who exactly is going to pay them? And don't BS me about donations, people are not going to donate more money than the producer would have made by selling it. Donations is, farnky, an imbeclic response. Very few people are going to donate, humans are greedy and self-centered. If we're given something for free, only a few of us are going to choose to donate money for it.




Agreed. And LOL.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> By email, about 2 years ago I think.




Dammit.  

What category were you suggesting that I enter it for?


----------



## Lazarous (Aug 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> A good computer game requires a crew of dozens of highly talented and trained people and millions of dollars to make up front. How the hell would anybody be able to make a good computer game in your 'idealized' society?
> 
> 
> 
> Who will compensate them? The magic money fairies? If they don't charge people for their work, who exactly is going to pay them? And don't BS me about donations, people are not going to donate more money than the producer would have made by selling it. Donations is, farnky, an imbeclic response. Very few people are going to donate, humans are greedy and self-centered. If we're given something for free, only a few of us are going to choose to donate money for it.




The cost to make computer games is rising astronomically, just look at some of the talk on budgets for next gen console games (specifically how much higher they are than current games).  The way that games are made is just being upscaled with higher graphics rather than changed fundametally, for the most part.  Something like wil wright's spore is an example of a totally different take on how to create content for games. 

Basically what all this is saying is that perhaps games _shouldn't_ cost millions and require dozens of highly trained operatives to see them to fruition.  That's point #1, point #2 is that piracy for games absolutely dwarfs piracy for rpg's.  Much bigger market, much more active fan base.  Yet major game companies aren't in any obvious danger of bankruptcy; even though things like GTA:san andreas are pirated a lot, they're also _sold_ a lot.  Thus, given the choice many people will actually pay money for a product they feel is reasonably priced and doesn't have onerous copy protection (or at least has easily removed onerous copy protection).


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Roudi said:
			
		

> The usual argument here is "did you really think those 136 people would have bought the PDF if it wasn't available on a peer-to-peer network?"
> 
> Honestly, publishers have to stop looking at pirated products as lost sales.  The vast majority of those who do pirate material likely would never pay for it if that were their only option.




Are you really trying to say that stealing something is okay because you wouldn't have bought it anyway?


----------



## El Ravager (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Are you really trying to say that stealing something is okay because you wouldn't have bought it anyway?





Nope, but he may be saying that committing _copyright infringement_ is okay because you wouldn't have bought it anyway...

Then again, he might not be saying that.  I don't want to put words in his mouth...


=====
El Rav


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> _Copyright infringement_ people. Not theft, they are not thieves, they don't steal. If you download something from the internet, you do not steal it, and therefor you are not a thief.




Legally maybe. Morally, it is theft - you have aquired property owned by another illegally.



> _For example, according to DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), the judge explicitly said you shouldn't refer to copyright infringement as theft. I quote:_





Unfortunately for you, he didn't say "copyright infringement is not theft", he said "they don't easily mesh together as legal concepts because of the nature of intellectual property". That is a very different, and far less strident statement than the one you attribute to the court.



> _That's a precedent people. You can legally call copyright infringment whatever you want, but if you do it in court prepare to be corrected. And if you decide to argue about having the law on your side etc, use the correct term, because the laws regarding theft of physical property will surely not help you._





This isn't court. These aren't legal documents. Calling it theft is a moral condemnation of the actions. It is also a shorthand method of describing the action in question that is relatable to people who are not law school graduates that is less opaque than the term "criminal copyright infringement".


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Sigil: I appreciate your post, even if i tend to think that the problem with the copyright law does not lie much in the extension of the copirighted time, by, as you point out as well, in the general attitude of the big corporations, which are effectively exploiting their money and the loopholes in the law to enforce whatever they wish on the consumer.
you example of the 10 mintues of commercial on the dvd tells a lot in this regard.

i feel that if the law would be re-worked in order to prevent such unfair exploiting, most people wouldn't really care if the copyright were 30 years or 100 (well, to a certain extent, at least!). unfortunately, given the current state of our world, i seriously doubt this is something that will happen in the near future... but you never know... i like surprises!


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> I've bought lots of stuff that I never used after buying (book and PDF, both). Are the publishers "thieves" who "stole" my money by advertising dirty, rotten lies? Will they return the bucks I've spent if I return their PDFs?




No, because you engaged in a voluntary transaction - you shelled out the money for a product. The person who has their copyrighted material taken without their consent, by definition, didn't engage in a voluntary transaction.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> jgbrowning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The supply isn't infinte, only the access— there's a big difference.

Let's take _A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe_ as a gaming example. There is only one "supply" (the people who wrote and produced it originally) but there is infinite access through piracy.

If I never made it, there couldn't be any access to begin with. This is the difference between access and supply. Supply is the people and businesses that produce something that pirates create infinite access to.

If piracy ever makes it not worth my while to write something new, piracy with it's infinite access has destroyed supply. All piracy does is make the supply unable to control the access.

The idea behind copyright and IP is that it's something designed to *increase the supply* of new ideas/processes/thoughts. The places in the world where copyright and IP are (somewhat) obeyed are the places that have had the greatest tech/art/wealth creation in the world. Although there's obviously more than just copyright/IP involved in such growth, it is an important aspect of that growth.

Also, this is the idea behind public domain. Every creation eventually become publicly available for the benefit of humanity and IP/copyright is designed to make that public domain pool grow at a much faster pace than were there no IP/copyright. However, I'm sure you're aware of the mockery some large corps *cough Disney cough* are trying to make of public domain.

joe b.


----------



## Cergorach (Aug 9, 2005)

Lazarous said:
			
		

> The cost to make computer games is rising astronomically, just look at some of the talk on budgets for next gen console games (specifically how much higher they are than current games).  The way that games are made is just being upscaled with higher graphics rather than changed fundametally, for the most part.  Something like wil wright's spore is an example of a totally different take on how to create content for games.
> 
> Basically what all this is saying is that perhaps games _shouldn't_ cost millions and require dozens of highly trained operatives to see them to fruition.  That's point #1, point #2 is that piracy for games absolutely dwarfs piracy for rpg's.  Much bigger market, much more active fan base.  Yet major game companies aren't in any obvious danger of bankruptcy; even though things like GTA:san andreas are pirated a lot, they're also _sold_ a lot.  Thus, given the choice many people will actually pay money for a product they feel is reasonably priced and doesn't have onerous copy protection (or at least has easily removed onerous copy protection).



Take a look at some of the mods out there, a lot are of professional quality. Counterstrike is a very good example of how a mod can be more popular then the original game. Or take a look at the fan created content that's being created for Neverwinter Nights, the only reason that's still selling is because of user created content for free. Some might say that a Mod does not equal a game. That's true, your missing your game engine, and you know what, there are Open Source game engines. The Quake 1 and 2 engines are Open Source, those might not be cutting edge, but still serviceable to make fun games (i still play the original civilization so once in a while). But there are cutting edge Open Source engines out there and they are gaining on their commercial competition, because there are peeople that 'donate' their time and effort. Take a look at: www.crystalspace3d.org or www.sauerbraten.org or www.ogre3d.org to name a few...


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Are you really trying to say that stealing something is okay because you wouldn't have bought it anyway?



No, I think he's trying to say that publishers shouldn't look at it as 136 x $28 = $3,808 out of their pockets.

While the analogy is imperfect, because a library is legal, I don't think the Encyclopedia Brittanica thinks that the 50 people who use a $20 volume of the Encyclopedia in the library each week are costing them 50 * $20 = $1,000 in lost sales.

The point is not to justify that these people now have a copy of a book that they didn't pay for.  The point is to make sure publishers realize that it's not a loss of $3,808 but probably more on the lines of $28-30.

It's a reminder of simple economics.  As price decreases, demand increases.  The demand at the price point "free" was 136 copies.  You cannot say that because demand at free was 136 copies, demand at $28 was 136 copies, therefore a loss of $3,808 was sustained, because simple economics dictates that as you increase the price from free, demand naturally goes down.

Do the downloads reprsent a figure of "$3,808 worth of stuff?"  Perhaps, since there are that many copies now times the price (we can quibble about "worth" I guess).  Does it represent "$3,808 in losses?"  No... again, because the demand wouldn't be the same at $28.  And it's this dichotomy that makes piracy a little hard for people to wrap their head around.  

If I steal $1,000 of CDs from a store, that represents $1,000 in losses, because the CDs are no longer available to the store to sell.  That's "shrink" in the business community - the business paid to buy and stock the physical CDs.  If I instead download all the songs on those CDs from P2P networks, is that $1,000 in losses?  No... because the CDs are still on the shelf and in inventory, the business did not pay to buy and stock my copies, so they're not "out" anything.

As others have pointed out, IP is curious because it is a positive-sum game, while "physical" property is a zero-sum game - if I take your car, you don't have it any more.  If I use my "magic molecular rearrangement machine" to scan your car and then re-arrange the dirt in my front lawn into an exact copy of your car, I haven't stolen your car... and yet I now have a car I can drive!

--The Sigil


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> You're exactly right. We must educate the public that information should be free to any and all people at anytime.




Which would be well and good if we were talking about "information". We aren't. We are talking about the expression of such information, which is an entirely different thing. And which is also property, which makes your whole diatribe about how "only property can be stolen" silly.



> _Information cannot be stolen. Only property can be stolen. Just because some people will pay for information, does not mean that information has an intrinsic value in and of itself._





Nothing has an intrinsic value in and of itself. Things only have the value that people will pay for it, no matter what you are talking about, even information.



> _Furthermore, by obtaining information a person does not deprive another person of anything._





Actually, you do. You deprive me of my legally protected right to compensation for the use of my work.


----------



## Sebastian Francis (Aug 9, 2005)

delericho said:
			
		

> Doesn't matter. However you slice this, it's wrong.




Umm...in whose opinion? According to whose beliefs?

If *you* believe it is wrong, fine.  But not everyone believes that.  If the guy who stole the book and put it on P2P believes it *isn't* wrong, then for him, it isn't.

It's all a matter of personal belief.  It almost sounded like you were trying to force your moral beliefs on others.  (I'm not saying you were, I'm just saying it sounded like that).


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 9, 2005)

We are gamers, we know full and well there is a difference between what is moral and what is ethical (Law/Chaos Good/Evil here folks, we've seen this debate before in other contexts).  It is fully possible for an act to be perfectly law abiding, but highly immoral, or for an act to be morally upstanding but completely illegal.  We are raised to equate Law=Morality and Illegal=Immoral, but when we grow up, we realize there is a gulf between the two.  As it has been pointed out, copyright rules vary widely throughout the world, and it can be completely legal to make a copy in a way that is highly illegal in another country?  Is it moral in one place and not another, because the laws change?  

"Copyright infringement" is a legal violation, a technicality.  It doesn't strike an emotional chord, as it is a relatively new addition to our culture.  Copyright infringement can be something as minor as pushing a few buttons on your computer, and now you have two copies of a file where before you had one, or scanning in a neat illustration from a book to use as computer wallpaper.

"Theft" carries more moral weight.  For millennia stealing has been wrong.  People know it's wrong to take a CD or DVD off the shelf at a local store and walk out without paying, or to sneak into a movie theater without paying.  

There are many people who would never in a thousand years steal a physical product from a store would not think twice about downloading a copy of that.  Why?  Because morally they view the physical media as the purchase, that they are paying money for the physical copy of the object.  People in everyday language don't go say "I'm going to go buy a license of that new game", they say "I'm going to go buy a copy of that new game", even though legally they are only buying the license to use it, in their minds they are _buying_ a copy of the game.

Equating "Copyright Violation" with "Theft" is newspeak.  Even American legal precedent, one of the stronger forms of copyright law in the world, is clear that they are not identical (despite what the RIAA and MPAA may want you to think).  As Orwell said "Control the langauge and you control the thoughts".  The idea is to get people to equate p2p with some shady black market in the bad part of town full of "hot" merchandise bought out the back of a truck.  Use the same word to describe somebody who picks your pocket or robs your store to describe somebody who ends up with a copy of a file in contravention of copyright laws, and thus you try and change the cultural norms to meet their corporate desires.

Somebody who downloads a copy of a new game, decides they like it and goes and buys it at their FLGS is a "thief", despite the fact the download produced a sale for the company.  Someone who downloads an mp3 of a new act, decides they like it and go to a concert, and they are a "thief" because they discovered a new concert to go to through downloading.

The real problem is that our culture, and laws, were not created with this new technology.  It's the ability to create copies cheaply and easily, almost effortlessly.  If somebody invented Star Trek level Replicators that could just make almost anything in the blink of an eye, you could imagine the huge demand to have them banned or regulated.  Food companies would be pushing for copyprotected foods, so you still have to buy their products.  Copyprotected furniture, copyprotected clothes.  There is a serious disconnect between the available technology, the underlying culture, and the business models and laws that exist within that culture to use that technology.  I can imagine that a similar controversy happened at the dawn of the printing press, or with the advent of radio or records.  This happens every time a new technology changes the way something that is created is distributed to the masses.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Elephant said:
			
		

> Calling it a "tactic" is rather inappropriate, given that equating copyright infringement with serious crimes (commonly theft, sometimes rape and serial murder) is a common tactic on the part of a sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry that makes the most voracious of downloaders look like paragons of virtue.




Of course, it is those companies that make the material you want available _at all_. Without that "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry" there wouldn't be nearly as much of the stuff you want in the first place.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> As others have pointed out, IP is curious because it is a positive-sum game, while "physical" property is a zero-sum game - if I take your car, you don't have it any more.  If I use my "magic molecular rearrangement machine" to scan your car and then re-arrange the dirt in my front lawn into an exact copy of your car, I haven't stolen your car... and yet I now have a car I can drive!



By the way, this is actually one of the things that vexes me about copyright law.  Would you object if the "magic molecular rearrangement machine" became available?  That is to say, would you say I was "stealing from Ford/GM/Toyota/insert company here" by using my "magic molecular rearrangement machine" to create an exact copy of their car?  It was my dirt.  It was my machine.  I did not take away my neighbor's car, he can still drive it, and enjoy it.

But I have "stolen" a potential sale from Ford/GM/Toyota, though... I'm so unethical!

Yes, I understand that Ford/GM/Toyota will have less incentive to create cars if the MMRM existed, because once they sold their first car, everyone else would just start popping off copies from all their excess dirt.

However, from an ethical/moral point of view, isn't the point of civilization to provide maximized benefits to all?  If we had an MMRM machine, everyone on earth would be able to live like a king, with whatever gizmos, gadgets, and food they wanted... just add dirt (or air, or whatever)!  Society becomes completely egalitarian because nobody is poorer or richer than anyone else... because if you're poorer, just set your MMRM to replicate the stuff of someone who's richer and you're done!  

At this point, there is no way to exert "alpha-ness" due the amount of stuff you HAVE, because any idiot can set their MMRM to duplicate it.  There's no need to accumulate "stuff" because you have whatever you need at your fingertips thanks to your MMRM.  Now "alpha-ness" and your worth to society is related to the new things you can invent... i.e., since everyone can have all the toys, the name of the game changes from "he who dies with the most toys wins" to "he who dies having created the most new toys for others to copy" wins.  You become famous not because you HAVE the cool stuff, but because you INVENTED the cool stuff that everyone else uses.

Does that sound a bit utopian to you?  Where everyone has everything they want and the incentive to create is not money-based, but rather "societal pressure" - you prove your worth through the very act of creation and making that design available to others!

It is fantasy utopian, of course, in that an MMRM eliminates the need for remuneration.  Everyone's wants and needs are met... since we need to eat, etc., we remove the "must feed creators so they can keep creating" problem with the MMRM.

However, in some sense, Computers are to Intellectual Property as the MMRM is to Physical Property... and I don't think it's entirely out of line to hope that at some point down the road, the "value" and "worth" lies in the creation and making IP freely available in the same manner that making Physical Property innovations freely available in an MMRM society.  I don't, however, think that can happen until everyone is guaranteed food, shelter, etc.  But it's a nice thought experiment.

--The Sigil


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> 2) How many rich people are there out there who want to donate $30,000 a year to fund an RPG writer?




Randy Milholland, creator of the webcomic Something Positive said to his readers, "readers, I have lost my job and I'm at a crossroads.  Either I can devote myself to making this webcomic, or I can set it aside until I've got my bills paid and then come back to it, which might lose me a lot of my readership and result in the collapse of the comic.  But if I'm going to do the former, I'll need money.  If you can give me an income of (I think) $20,000, I'll do this webcomic every day for a year without asking for any more money."

And they gave it to him.  And he did.  Now, he's so well established that I think he gets by on a combination of donations and sales of items related to the comic (t-shirts, etc.) that aren't what you'd call media.  The IP he gives away for free, and people give him money so that it keeps coming.  Personally, I find his comic to be a bit boring, but I can't argue with his ability to get people to give him money.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Sebastian Francis said:
			
		

> It's all a matter of personal belief.  It almost sounded like you were trying to force your moral beliefs on others.  (I'm not saying you were, I'm just saying it sounded like that).




Of course, one of the reasons for the existence of a law is to impose moral beliefs in a general manner. We condemn rape as illegal, because we have (correctly) evaluated it as morally wrong. We condemn misappropriation of property (whether through theft, conversion, trespass, detainer, embezzlement, or infrongement) as illegal, because for the most part, he have evaluated it as morally wrong (to a lesser degree).


----------



## jasper (Aug 9, 2005)

Like BAEN books ... some of their books are available online, free, to read. It's up to the authors to put them up. I've actually found several authors whose books I've bought by reading from their free library when I'm bored and poor and have a connection. I think it's sound, forward-thinking business sense.
This correct Heap. Some authors have volunteer to release their works on the net in hopes a read will by a hardcopy. Or at least pay for a download. Brent Nail reads their works, uses their works, and then decides maybe to pay for the download. One is advertising the other is thief. 
So using BN model it okay for me to read Eric Flint books from online sources since I don’t like his work especially those books who are currently in hardback and not legally available for download. 
But musicians are SELLING their works to the big bad recording industry to get the exposure of their works. Since the big bad recording industry does have a pipeline to millions of people thru advertising, radio, mtv etc. Speaking of artists getting their money how many of you know of the following artists. Waylon, Willie, Britney, Cip, the Bubbas, and Gareth. Hint the first 3 have contracts with recording industry the last three are artists who I know and occasionally throw a beer too. On of the last three has seen his works stolen and placed on the net and some times submit as original works in competition. 

Writers could become much like research professors at universities. The university pays a salary. The professor does research and publishes the information (usually) at no charge to the public. The benefits of the research goes back to university either thru patents, pr, etc. So this is another form of both patronage and advertising. 

The ravager is talking about libraries who have gotten a mother may I either from the authors or the publishers to lend their works out. Again pr campaign. 

If *you* believe it is wrong, fine. But not everyone believes that. If the guy who stole the book and put it on P2P believes it *isn't* wrong, then for him, it isn't. Hmm Situational ethics at it best. So it okay for me to shoot people who bother me.

We are gamers, we know full and well there is a difference between what is moral and what is ethical (Law/Chaos Good/Evil here folks, we've seen this debate before in other contexts). Sorry Wing and sword from what I seen here and at the game table at cons where my stuff was stolen you need to add in “some” in a few places.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> A good computer game requires a crew of dozens of highly talented and trained people and millions of dollars to make up front. How the hell would anybody be able to make a good computer game in your 'idealized' society?




a good computer game TODAY requires such a stuff, because if you have to pay 50$+ for a game, you expect something like flashy graphic, patches update, a reasonably long and complex game, and so on.

i have owned a computer of some sort ever since i was 4, and i can remember very well the days i have spent playing computer games whose graphic would make you throw up by today's standard.
kick off 2 for amiga, my all time favourite to this day, was programmed by one man alone, mr dino dini.

keep also in mind that the same model could be applied to films: do you really need to spend 100 millions to make a film? do you really need to see those perfectly rendered special effects on screen?
the answer is no. and the real world example is hitchcock's psycho, who was filmed using substandard equipment by that time (for example, colour was fairly common in all but the cheapest b-movie productions, in USA), and without big names and with no special effect. i don't think you need me to tell you that the film had an enourmous success.
what about woody allen's films? you might not like them, but the guy himself told times and again to the press that he is allowed to make any film he wants because he works with a ridicolous budget, so he recoupes the costs very very quickly.

what about literature? music? arts? i don't know about my idealised world, but guys like poe, shakespeare, mozart, bach, giotto, leonardo da vinci, and so on, existed in this world, so they would stil exist without copyright law. you might argue that they would be rare and far between, and i can tell you that i agree. i don't see how the copyright law makes leonardos more likely to happen... as a matter of fact, we had just as many geniuses in the 20th century as they had in the previous ones.

please, don't assume that since today the world goes in a direction that has always been the way things stood, or that it's impossible to have another model of existance. you would be guilty of the same sin of medieval commentators who objected scientific research because the world had always been the same, just as written in the bible... (and i have to bite my tongue not to make a political remark here... i guess you know what i'm pointing at, though!)



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Who will compensate them? The magic money fairies?



no, the magic money of their public, or that of their protectors (sorry, i'm tired and my english is starting to slip... it's not the best term to describe them... )
it has happened for millennia. why should it stop all of the sudden?



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> If they don't charge people for their work



i never ever advocated that artists or authors should give everything for free if they don't want so. if you read that in my posts, please read again, because you got it wrong.
what i have been saying is that one thing is protecting the right of an author, another is putting the p2p on moral ground when the big corporations that are doing it are the ones to blame if the situation got out of hand, and yet another is to claim that without copyright we would all grab a club and return to the caves. sorry, this is simply not going to happen.

my source? just 6000 years of human history, during which, copyright or not, men created works of art that take breaths away even today (pyramids, anyone? venus of milo? [you name it here]?).
you don't have to believe my logic, you simply have to go to the library and open an art book.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> people are not going to donate more money than the producer would have made by selling it.



donations wouldn't make anybody rich. but, perdon my blasphemy, there's people who does their work not just because of the money, you know...
or you believe that gary gygax started to design dungeons & dragons because he wanted to become filthy rich? or that no game designer had a "normal" day job before getting lucky and having the opportunity to work all the time for his favourite hobby?
who's the naive one now?



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Donations is, farnky, an imbeclic response. Very few people are going to donate, humans are greedy and self-centered. If we're given something for free, only a few of us are going to choose to donate money for it.




i might live in a fairy land, but, man, you live in a very sad world...
if it's dog eats dog, i think it doesn't make much difference who wins... in the end, at best, he would still be just a dog.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> *the best post in the thread*
> 
> --The Sigil




Damn.  Well, that pretty much says it all then.  Those quotes from 1841 were eerie.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> By the way, this is actually one of the things that vexes me about copyright law.  Would you object if the "magic molecular rearrangement machine" became available?  That is to say, would you say I was "stealing from Ford/GM/Toyota/insert company here" by using my "magic molecular rearrangement machine" to create an exact copy of their car?  It was my dirt.  It was my machine.  I did not take away my neighbor's car, he can still drive it, and enjoy it.




They may, as they have a property right in the design of the car, but that gets into some very esoteric issues concerning copyright of designs and patent law.

Leaving that aside, the problem with your analogy is that it is fatally flawed. Part of the legal framework is the ability to act in reliance upon certain expectations. That is, for example, why we have rules against ex post facto laws - you should be able to judge your behaviour based upon the nature of the law, and adjust your decisions accordingly. The creatirs of copyrighted material have a certain expectation with regard to the product of their work. They have relied upon the legal framework to provide them with certain rights in that work. Circumventing that deprives the author of what he (quite reasonably) believed he would be entitled to when he set about working on his creation.

As a result, the author is less likely to act in that way in the future. By making the intellectual property environment less lucrative, he will be less willing, and possibly less able to create more stuff for us to enjoy. He may decide to get out of the intellectual property creation business. He may decide not to offer .pdfs any more. Whatever he does, it is likely that less intellectual property will be created in the future. Is this a result that is desirable?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> People are pissed at "the man" for lengthening copyright to, essentially, perpetuity (my *father* hasn't seen anything fall out of copyright in *his* lifetime, and I don't honestly expect to see anything enter the public domain in 2018... I fully expect lobbying for yet another extension).



Edgar Rice Burroughs and H.P. Lovecraft's works (or at least some of them) have entered the public domain in my lifetime.  For what that's worth.


----------



## Numion (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, one of the reasons for the existence of a law is to impose moral beliefs in a general manner. We condemn rape as illegal, because we have (correctly) evaluated it as morally wrong. We condemn misappropriation of property (whether through theft, conversion, trespass, detainer, embezzlement, or infrongement) as illegal, because for the most part, he have evaluated it as morally wrong (to a lesser degree).




How come it's illegal to steal a guys TV, but legal to steal his girlfriend? Both are immoral, methinks


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Randy Milholland, creator of the webcomic Something Positive said to his readers, "readers, I have lost my job and I'm at a crossroads.  Either I can devote myself to making this webcomic, or I can set it aside until I've got my bills paid and then come back to it, which might lose me a lot of my readership and result in the collapse of the comic.  But if I'm going to do the former, I'll need money.  If you can give me an income of (I think) $20,000, I'll do this webcomic every day for a year without asking for any more money."
> 
> And they gave it to him.  And he did.  Now, he's so well established that I think he gets by on a combination of donations and sales of items related to the comic (t-shirts, etc.) that aren't what you'd call media.  The IP he gives away for free, and people give him money so that it keeps coming.  Personally, I find his comic to be a bit boring, but I can't argue with his ability to get people to give him money.




True, good point. But that's one pretty popular comic, and he wasn't exactly asking for what I'd consider a living wage. (If I only earned $20,000 a year the bank would come and take my house away). I was deliberately picking what I'd consider to be a minimal figure when I picked the $30,000.

So that only proves that as a business model, it can be sort of almost viable for certain popular items where it's a one man band.

I guess that given that the RPG market has lots of products and niches, what I should have asked is whether there are a hundred rich people willing to pay 100 RPG writers $30,000 a year each.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> no, the magic money of their public, or that of their protectors (sorry, i'm tired and my english is starting to slip... it's not the best term to describe them... )
> it has happened for millennia. why should it stop all of the sudden?




I believe the term you are looking for is "patron". But is it really desirable to throw the production of intellectual property back into the hands of the very wealthy? Do we really want to rely upon the largesse of the well-connected and well-heeled for our future intellectual property? It was done that way for centuries, and produced some fine art and a tiny amount of literature, but in far less volume, and with far less diversity than has been since the development of copyright laws to support the development of works of authorship.

Do you really want the available range of music to be determined by guys like George Soros? Or the availabale range of literature to be determined by guys like William F. Buckley, Jr.?


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> How come it's illegal to steal a guys TV, but legal to steal his girlfriend? Both are immoral, methinks




I don't think you have property rights in your girlfriend. I believe we even have a Constitutional amendment that makes that clear.


----------



## Numion (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> As a result, the author is less likely to act in that way in the future. By making the intellectual property environment less lucrative, he will be less willing, and possibly less able to create more stuff for us to enjoy. He may decide to get out of the intellectual property creation business. He may decide not to offer .pdfs any more. Whatever he does, it is likely that less intellectual property will be created in the future. Is this a result that is desirable?




If the copyright laws were designed to stimulate creativity, stuff would enter public domain much sooner than 75 years after the authors demise. Under the current situation an artist isn't really motivated to create more stuff if he can earn for the rest of his life from single product. If that product gave him earnings for, say, 10 years, he might be more motivated to create more. 

But the laws aren't there to do this like you say. They are there to keep mickey copyrighted for infinity 

The sweet spot isn't in zero ip protection, and it isn't in infinite (the most lucrative for artist) ip protection. Something inbetween.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Lazarous said:
			
		

> The cost to make computer games is rising astronomically, just look at some of the talk on budgets for next gen console games (specifically how much higher they are than current games).  The way that games are made is just being upscaled with higher graphics rather than changed fundametally, for the most part.  Something like wil wright's spore is an example of a totally different take on how to create content for games.
> 
> Basically what all this is saying is that perhaps games _shouldn't_ cost millions and require dozens of highly trained operatives to see them to fruition.



The same thing happened to movies over the last two decades or so.  What used to be the entire budget of a movie in the late 70s or early 80s now barely pays the star's salary.  True, some of that is due to inflation, but most of it is not.

The reason movies (and games) cost more is because the ones that have a lot of money spent on them are usually more popular.  People really like what those big budgets can bring in terms of effects, stunts, etc.  And if there's a strong demand for that, then yes, games (and movies) _should_ rise to meet that demand.  In fact, it's probably inevitable that they will.

So I completely reject your hypothesis that games shouldn't cost as much as they do or require the staff that they do.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Lazarous said:
			
		

> The cost to make computer games is rising astronomically, just look at some of the talk on budgets for next gen console games (specifically how much higher they are than current games).  The way that games are made is just being upscaled with higher graphics rather than changed fundametally, for the most part.  Something like wil wright's spore is an example of a totally different take on how to create content for games.




I hear tell that Katamari Damacy was made by a programmer in his spare time because he thought that most of everything his company was producing was crap.  It's one of my favourite games.  They just slapped a slick soundtrack on it, cleaned it up a bit, and Bob's your uncle.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Lazarous said:
			
		

> A thought about this matter - voluntary payments *really* scare modern corporations.   You're pretty much destroying the underpinnings of a consumer society, that being you need to keep buying stuff.  Economics is always about ways to deal with scarcity, and with modern information distribution methods, scarcity doesn't exist.




Actually, scarcity does exist. Try making the creation of intellectual property unprofitable and you will see the supply dry up considerably.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Are you really trying to say that stealing something is okay because you wouldn't have bought it anyway?




It seems to me as if he's saying that the histrionics about piracy are unwarranted since there is no demonstrated connection between volume of piracy and loss of sales.



> This isn't court. These aren't legal documents. Calling it theft is a moral condemnation of the actions. It is also a shorthand method of describing the action in question that is relatable to people who are not law school graduates that is less opaque than the term "criminal copyright infringement".




Perhaps some of us are still of the opinion that copyright infringement should still be a matter for the civil courts, and that equating it with theft is a cheap way of trying to make an emotional play for advantage, and we don't appreciate people attempting to manipulate us by using emotionally-charged language.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> It's a reminder of simple economics. As price decreases, demand increases. The demand at the price point "free" was 136 copies.




Hmm...I wonder if some kind of review system could be devised based upon this premise.  As in, if Book X were free, how many people would bother downloading it?  If Book X would have more downloads than Book Y, and we can quantify this difference, do we have a relative quality measure?


----------



## El Ravager (Aug 9, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> The ravager is talking about libraries who have gotten a mother may I either from the authors or the publishers to lend their works out. Again pr campaign.




I assume that this is referring to me.  And, at least I thought, I was just talking about normal regular public libraries.

When you think about it, some of the legal ways of getting a hold of copyright works (libraries, renting videos, barrowing from a friend, using Tivo,etc)  are in effect no different than the illegal way(ie viewing or reading the product without compensating author -- denying them a sale), but when you talk about a library nobody thinks about it, but when you talk about online 'piracy' people come out of the wood work going OMG!1!!TEHHAXXXORS!!TEHTHIEVESOMG!z!1!!

I think my point is that there are tons of ways, legal and illegal, that people can view/read/use works without paying, or at least without paying the original author.  And yet these industries survive.

Weird.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> The real problem is that our culture, and laws, were not created with this new technology.  It's the ability to create copies cheaply and easily, almost effortlessly.  If somebody invented Star Trek level Replicators that could just make almost anything in the blink of an eye, you could imagine the huge demand to have them banned or regulated.  Food companies would be pushing for copyprotected foods, so you still have to buy their products.  Copyprotected furniture, copyprotected clothes.  There is a serious disconnect between the available technology, the underlying culture, and the business models and laws that exist within that culture to use that technology.  I can imagine that a similar controversy happened at the dawn of the printing press, or with the advent of radio or records.  This happens every time a new technology changes the way something that is created is distributed to the masses.



Actually, I can think of one great example off the top of my head that survives in copyright law today... the advent of player pianos.

Old technology: a musician playing sheet music on a piano.

New technology: a piano playing itself thanks to a "digital translation" of the music (as expressed on basically a large punchcard wrapped end-to-end).

Suddenly, you didn't have to hire a musician any more.  You could buy a player piano instead!  That's a big difference!  Of course, the musicians (who were often also composers) wanted to restrict technology and would have refused to sell their music to the player piano companies.

Both sides lobbied government and we wound up with "compulsory licensing" for music - which survives today.  It is a provision in copyright law that allows a musician (or player piano) to perform and sell *their own rendition* of *any* song without express permission from the copyright holder... in exchange for paying a nominal fee for each copy created (last I checked it was 8.5 cents per copy for a 5-minute or less song).

The player piano companies could make their own rendition of a copyrighted song (on those punchcards) and stick it in their pianos.  In exchange, they had to pay a nominal fee to the songwriter for every copy they produced.  The musicians got paid.  The player piano companies could put music in their pianos.  The masses got access to piano music.  Everybody won.

Today, your garage band can make a recording of you playing 12 Beatles hits and (if each is less than 5 minutes in length) pay $1.02 in compulsory licensing fees to the copyright holder (probably Michael Jackson) for each CD you sell... and you cannot be denied the right to do this by the copyright holder (this is why it's called "compulsory" licensing - it compels the copyright holder to allow anyone who pays the license fee to play his songs).

The problem is that technology is evolving so fast that we don't yet have an analogue to "compulsory licensing" in other areas of copyright.  Actual hard copy books are still somewhat tedious to copy, but not impossible... with some practice, you can scan a good-size book in under an hour.  And of course, thanks to computers, software, movies, DVDs, CDs, etc. are super-easy to copy.

Some companies (Canada) have a "blank media levy" - similar in concept to a compulsory licensing scheme (you pay when you buy the media, with the assumption that you're going to record copyrighted stuff onto it and in theory the money from the levy goes back to the copyright holders), but not nearly as far-reaching.  Of course, this hasn't stopped copyright holders from trying to "double-dip" (e.g., music companies wanting a levy on blank media AND suing for copyright infringement when in theory, the levy is to pay the "cost" incurred by copyright infringement in the frist place).

Until the law manages to "catch up" to the technology - and though I dislike it because of the extra bureaucracy involved and inability to truly track who should REALLY get what share of the pie - a "blank media levy" seems to be about the only solution that looks similar to compulsory licensing.

Honestly, I think it's the only real way of finding a compromise between copyright holders' interests and technology... otherwise copyright holders will legally crush technology into submission (we see some evidence of this as major technology lines up behind copyright holders with things like Intel's embedded DRM and "Secure Monitors" for HD-DVDs and so forth) or technology de facto crushes copyright holders into submission (which I think is ultimately more likely, as all it takes is one manufacturer - or even software writer - who refuses to "play" with the copyright holders and makes available stuff that ignores or bypasses the copyright stuff).  I really think there are only three possible outcomes: (1) perpetual copyright enforced by technology and with no public domain to speak of, (2) no copyright at all thanks to the proliferation of technology, or (3) a "compulsory licensing" system the government puts into place to stof the fighting between copyright holders and technology.

Because technology is a many-headed hydra, and "big copyright" is not, I think (1) is not really likely as an outcome.  I think (2) holds the problem of cutting off the supply of new content, which is why I hope both sides will see (3) as the solution which can, long term, provide the benefits of technology (which tech wants) without killing the supply of content (which copyright wants).  However, given the rat-bastard-greedy levels on both sides, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the Prisoner's Dilemma surface and watch both of them fight until one side or the other is destroyed - and either way, Joe Average (all of us) loses, either by emasculation of technology or evaporation of content.

--The Sigil


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> It seems rather popular in internet-lands to pile on to major record labels, financial institutions or any other corporation where the 'suits' stick it to the 'little guy'.  To a layman, the role of up-front capital, or access to distribution channels may seem less important than the artistic content of what's being written/preformed.




you are completely right. in fact, the whole napster bubble originated when the labels realised that napster had the potential to win the distribution of music for the new generation of consumers.

besides, it's not just a question of internet-land angast. if you want to learn more about the mechanics of music business, you could do much worse than checking out donald passman's excellent "all you need to know about the music business". the book is a killer!




			
				nothing to see here said:
			
		

> However the role of the 'suits' is extrememely important.  Vital, even.




i agree. the role it's invaluable when there is a real open market, with real competition. the way things stand today, there are 4 or 5 (it was 5, but i think there was a merger at some point... though i might be wrong!) major labels. then you have a number of sub labels that are owned by the majors. then you have independent labels which don't distribute their records themselves, and use the major labels distribution system to do it.
then you get the small minority of truly indepentent labels, which, in near all cases are very small and very local, and care for niche market the major labels couldn't care less for.

you see, IF you manage to get a good contract with a major, and you are lucky enough for the label to believe in you, you have done it. you could only screw up your career if you start putting out real crap. else, with the push a major label gives you, you sell. there's no other way to look at it. that's why most artists choose to abide to this system. there is the (quite fake) belief that if you get lucky (notice that every artist is sure that (s)he's coller and more talented than mozart, elvis, the beatles, beethoven and the spinal tap all rolled together), you win.
sure, you will never see a penny from an album sale, unless you sell like britney spears... but then again, who cares? you are on the magazine covers, and you make deals with sponsors, make moneys with gigs in stadiums, wake up one morning, decide to tell the world that you believe in the flying spaghetti monster and you are in the breaking news...

ehm... i have a feeling i should stop this "music industry insight" stuff... do you find it interesting or relevant or am i just rambling on? 



			
				nothing to see here said:
			
		

> The only money an artist loses from producing a dud comes from the time they could have been doing something else -- the record companies are the ones with the real financial stake.



in the ideal world, maybe. in the real music business, it maybe happens 1 time in 100. you check the internet for some horror stories... i'm sure you can find them by the dozen... artists who should be filthy rich filing for bankrupcy because the label srew them up, artists forced to take a producer or a sound because the label said so, artists forced to put out crappy records because christmas time (or the end of the fiscal year) was approaching...



			
				nothing to see here said:
			
		

> And besides, if the artist has something worth selling, they can always shop around to different labels, and different distribution channels.




i'm afraid it's not so simple. the only band i was aware of that had that bargain power from the start, was pink floyd, because they caused a sensation in 1966 london wit syd barrett. after (and before!) that le diluge. the scenario you are painting is more feasible if you are an affirmed artist... but at that stage, you could as well force your label to accept your conditions, or start your own label to begin with.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> If the copyright laws were designed to stimulate creativity, stuff would enter public domain much sooner than 75 years after the authors demise. Under the current situation an artist isn't really motivated to create more stuff if he can earn for the rest of his life from single product. If that product gave him earnings for, say, 10 years, he might be more motivated to create more.




Most authors don't make nearly enough from a single work to support them for a lifetime. Or even close. Even with copyright extending to the life of the author + 75 years. That is a red herring of an argument. The laws are designed to stimulate production of intellectual property by making doing so financially lucrative. Sure, you can reach the point where someone has made enough money that they trade off "more work" for "more leisure", but those are generally corner cases. Just because J.K. Rowling could retire tomorrow and never make another book doesn't mean that most authors are in that position. Of course, for her, the tradeoff of "more work" for "more leisure" is quite high, because of her extreme money-making potential, so it costs her _a lot_ to rest on her laurels, meaning even she is given more incentive to create more stuff by the nature of copyright law.

(Also, people frequently want more money than they can spend in a lifetime, they value their kids well-being and want to provide for them).


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Cergorach said:
			
		

> The future: Comming HD-DVD standards require me to buy a new MS Windows OS (Vista)




i know... i'm switching to linux soon...


----------



## rgard (Aug 9, 2005)

Catavarie said:
			
		

> Well first off I'll say that I'm not going to quote every post that I have a coment about directly, because well I'm lazy. That said here's my take on the discussion...
> 
> Ok someone took a copy of the game which they may or maynot have paid for in the first place, and scanned it into thier computer and decided that they would offer it up for p2p sharing and 136 people saw it and said to themselves "Self, that looks good I think i'll download that" well in my experience with the p2p world 136 is small potatoes...not to say that its not unethical (I refuse to say immoral because that would be incorrect, look up the differences in a dictionary if you like).  Only because 9/10 files on any p2p are downloaded by the thousands.  But if it were my project that someone had stole and put on p2p I'd be upset as well.  And before you all try to damn me for using p2p lets just straighten things out by saying that the files I upload I am the sole author of and hold all rights to.
> 
> ...




Wrong.  Theft is immoral.  I don't need a dictionary to confirm or contradict that.

BTW, you CAN do something about piracy other than complain about it.  You can tell your friends who like to download movies and cds that what they are doing is wrong.  Apply some peer pressure.  It may not do any good as they may ignore you, but at least you did more than complain on some message board.

Also, can you really be certain that your friends erase whatever they downloaded?  

Finally, you are to be commended for only loading p2p items that you have the rights to.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Teflon Billy (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Dammit.
> 
> What category were you suggesting that I enter it for?




I'm not certain, but I would suspect t was "Best Fansite" or somesuch.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 9, 2005)

> Basically what all this is saying is that perhaps games shouldn't cost millions and require dozens of highly trained operatives to see them to fruition.




That's the eight most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Are you trying to say that they're making computer  games wrong now?



> That's point #1, point #2 is that piracy for games absolutely dwarfs piracy for rpg's. Much bigger market, much more active fan base. Yet major game companies aren't in any obvious danger of bankruptcy;




Looking Glass ring a bell? They went out of business because of piracy.



> i have owned a computer of some sort ever since i was 4, and i can remember very well the days i have spent playing computer games whose graphic would make you throw up by today's standard..




You're talking to the wrong guy. I love old games, but I don't want to see a return to them either. I like high quality graphics and realistic physics. You're saying that I'm wrong for enjoying that.

Oh, and thank you for backing up my main argument. That the reduction and elimination of IP laws would drastically reduce the quality of published and recorded media.



> no, the magic money of their public, or that of their protectors (sorry, i'm tired and my english is starting to slip... it's not the best term to describe them... )
> it has happened for millennia. why should it stop all of the sudden?




Because only in the last ten years or so has it actually been possible to easily acquire nearly every form of written and recorded media without paying anything for it? Times change, and hte laws need to adapt.



> donations wouldn't make anybody rich. but, perdon my blasphemy, there's people who does their work not just because of the money, you know...




This site, with the tens of thousands of people visiting it, after being requested to provide donations, raised 13,000 dollars. That's not even enough to surivive on, as has been pointed out.



> i might live in a fairy land, but, man, you live in a very sad world...
> if it's dog eats dog, i think it doesn't make much difference who wins... in the end, at best, he would still be just a dog.




It's called the real world. People are greedy, it's the goddamn basis of the western world. Capitalism.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 9, 2005)

El Ravager said:
			
		

> I assume that this is referring to me.  And, at least I thought, I was just talking about normal regular public libraries.
> 
> When you think about it, some of the legal ways of getting a hold of copyright works (libraries, renting videos, barrowing from a friend, using Tivo,etc)  are in effect no different than the illegal way(ie viewing or reading the product without compensating author -- denying them a sale), but when you talk about a library nobody thinks about it, but when you talk about online 'piracy' people come out of the wood work going OMG!1!!TEHHAXXXORS!!TEHTHIEVESOMG!z!1!!
> 
> ...




Libraries and people who lend out their materials are different, however, from pirates. They are distributing their own personal copies but the number of copies does not increase. If the borrower wants their own copy, they have to buy one or commit piracy themselves.
So in this instance, the information encoded in the work is pretty much free to absorb and discuss. The medium is not. Someone still has to buy it. And someone still has to buy it for there to be more copies available.
And for what it's worth, there are publishing consortiums trying to make things difficult for libraries. So it's not like they aren't trying to squash this way of sharing the materials. Same for used book outlets.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Of course, it is those companies that make the material you want available _at all_. Without that "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry" there wouldn't be nearly as much of the stuff you want in the first place.




1. This assumes that "stuff you want" depends on the industry being "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing".  This is obviously untrue.  We could have instead a forthright, ethical, fair industry making our entertainment media.  Anyone out there not think that would be an improvement?

2. I don't buy things from these people.  For the most part, they make crappy products.  I usually buy my entertainment from smaller companies, quite often direct from the producer over the internet (Don Hertzfeldt!).  I also don't like to support sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industries, and my sentiment is shared by a lot of people.  I believe that if these sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industries disappeared overnight, by the next morning there would be a whole host of new small businesses opening up to fill the yawning gap left by the megaproducers, and that they would produce better stuff.  Why?  Because I also believe that 90% of everything is crap.  So if you have two or three production companies with particular business strategies concerning what they'll put money behind, there's a pretty good chance that they're all crap.  But if you have a thousand, there will probably be about a hundred that aren't crap.  And that will be more stuff than I'll ever be able to buy anyway.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> if you're talking about music, then you are wrong. if i write a piece of music i do have the copyright on it. all i have is a piece of paper with notes, lyrics, and chord changes.




Actually, you do have a copyright in the piece of paper. Once it is fixed in a perceivable form (like being written down), you own a copyright in a work of authorship, and written music certainly qualifies.



> _then i go to [music label] and sign a deal to record the music. they own the recording in 99.9999999999% of the cases. it means that i have no power on:
> 1. who will use the recording
> 2. what use he/she will make of it_





This is a function of _contract law_, not copyright. You owned the copyright to the song when you wrote it. What happens when you make a deal to record it is a function of the contract says - and only your ownership of the copyright in the peice of paper with notes, lyrics, and chord changes allowed you to have any bargaining power at all.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 9, 2005)

> 1. This assumes that "stuff you want" depends on the industry being "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing". This is obviously untrue. We could have instead a forthright, ethical, fair industry making our entertainment media. Anyone out there not think that would be an improvement?




It would also be an improvement if criminals, instead of fleeing from the law, turned themselves in at the local police station after they commited a crime. What you're asking requires the a complete revamping of modern capitalism, and a rewiring of the way the human mind operates.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 1. This assumes that "stuff you want" depends on the industry being "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing".  This is obviously untrue.  We could have instead a forthright, ethical, fair industry making our entertainment media.  Anyone out there not think that would be an improvement?




The stuff you want depeneds on the existence of the industry. Vilifying them for existing is counterproductive.



> _2. I don't buy things from these people.  For the most part, they make crappy products.  I usually buy my entertainment from smaller companies, quite often direct from the producer over the internet (Don Hertzfeldt!).  I also don't like to support sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industries, and my sentiment is shared by a lot of people.  I believe that if these sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industries disappeared overnight, by the next morning there would be a whole host of new small businesses opening up to fill the yawning gap left by the megaproducers, and that they would produce better stuff.  Why?  Because I also believe that 90% of everything is crap.  So if you have two or three production companies with particular business strategies concerning what they'll put money behind, there's a pretty good chance that they're all crap.  But if you have a thousand, there will probably be about a hundred that aren't crap.  And that will be more stuff than I'll ever be able to buy anyway._





If it becomes less profitable to make money via selling copyrighted material, who do you think is going to suffer first? Here's a hint: it won't be the big, sleazy, unprofitable companies.


----------



## El Ravager (Aug 9, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> And for what it's worth, there are publishing consortiums trying to make things difficult for libraries. So it's not like they aren't trying to squash this way of sharing the materials. Same for used book outlets.




I do know that libraries are different.  But I don't think that publishers necessarily do because I totally believe what I quoted above and it makes me sick.  

It also makes me think that if publishers are willing to go that far, then maybe they are completely wrong on the entire paradigm of IP and copyright and that electronic information sharing might not be that bad of an idea.  Maybe not as it currently does, but the entire notion what is protected and what isn't needs to be changed.  Businesses might need to adapt.

Either way, both exist currently -- info sharing and publishing companies.  I don't think 'info sharing', 'piracy' whatever, is going to drive the other one out of business.  I think businesses might need to redefine what it is that they can provide.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i might live in a fairy land, but, man, you live in a very sad world...
> if it's dog eats dog, i think it doesn't make much difference who wins... in the end, at best, he would still be just a dog.



When you start appealing to some mythical, Utopian, anti-cynical moral high ground, that's a clue that you've lost the argument badly.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

I should note one other thing.

There's a reason I've tried to steer clear of the "theft/infringement" debate here (which goes back and forth, etc.).

I think it's because of the way I look at problems.  When there is a problem, we resort to the six basic questions:

Who?  What?  Where?  How?  When?  Why?

However, I like to play a "meta-question" game in terms of "can I change the answer to any of the above questions and if I can, changing the answer to which of the above questions will change/eliminate the problem?"

In copyright infringement I see:

Who?  Lots of people the world over.
What?  Various forms of copyrighted material.
Where? On IRC, Usenet, P2P, FTP, CDs, and many other channels. 
How? Via the use of computers.
When? Constantly.

Can I change the answer to any of the above?  Not really.  Even if I could, would it stop things?  Probably not.

Why? Well, that was the point of my first post in this thread.

Can I change the answer to "why?"  Probably not, but it is theoretically possible.  But if I change the answer to "why" would things stop?  I think so.  If there is no more "why" then there is no more piracy.

I think too many people on the publishing end - big and small - spend a lot of time on the "who" (suing) and the "what/how" (with DRM implementations that get cracked anyway) and no time at all on the "why."  And I think that's the wrong way of going about it.  

Then again, the reason the industry at large isn't interested in the "why" is probably because if they DID look at the "why" they would realize that *step one is the "copyright industry" making a change to respect the bounds and limits of where copyright ends (instead of trying to grab more and more control with technological features - see my DVD example - and longer copyright lengths), rather than forcing consumers to make the first change*.  After all, consumers, by and large, have reacted to copyright holders, not the other way around!  Consumers, by and large, already feel (and rightly so!) that their relationship to copyright is a lot like Lando's relationship with Darth Vader ("I am altering the deal.  Pray that I do not alter it again!").

Of course, that's probaby because I have kids, and when trying to change their bad behavior, I don't focus on the behavior itself as much as on the reason the kid is doing what he's doing.  Of course, I am a believer in the theory that "*talking about principles (and how to apply them) will change behavior faster than talking about behavior will change behavior*" (and yes, Joshua Dyal, you probably DO recognize the source of that sentence).

The music/movie industry is talking about behavior.  "It's so easy to download a movie, but it's wrong."  They should be talking about principles instead.  "It is just and ethical to remunerate someone for their work if you derive a benefit from it and they did not offer the work freely."  If you put the principles in place, the behavior naturally follows.  (Of course, that would require the music/movie industry adhering to the same principles for fear of being labelled hypocrites, but that's another discussion)

--The Sigil


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> However the role of the 'suits' is extrememely important. Vital, even. If I offer you access to my distribution channels (with the corresponding tertiary financial benefits that come with them), as well as providing you with the best possible production infrastructure and/or up front money...it's within my right to expect a healthy ROI. The only money an artist loses from producing a dud comes from the time they could have been doing something else -- the record companies are the ones with the real financial stake.




You're right.

But there is, at the moment, a major disconnect between what the suits should be doing and what they are doing. They are not providing the best possible infrastructure. They are not enabling the artist to reach new audiences. They are not providing anything that, especially with much of modern technology, can't be done almost by the artists themselves.

In essence, the companies should not be the ones with the finanical stake. The artists should be. If Local Rock Band 3a creates a piece of crap CD, they shouldn't be inured to the consequences, and if they make one that goes gangbusters, they shouldn't be only pulling down $3 a copy. 

And technology is rapidly advancing to the point where the artists don't really need the companies if they want to produce works and sell many copies. They may need hard work, dedication, fear of loss, and part-time jobs, but they do not need the suits. It hasn't quite reached that stage yet, but it is getting steadily closer. Internet phenomenons. Blogs. "All Your Base." These things aren't the major powers in consuming today, but give it a decade or two. 

The companies, in many cases, seem to have this relationship backwards.They view themselves as the only way that art can be made, and that position has been abused to the point where the companies are dictating what art is made. You can't do something experimental and daring without being "indie industry" these days. Alien Hominid is a side-scrolling shooter game that no major company would touch. The "safe" d20 companies stick to fantasy and prestige classes and ninjas. Music is what is on the top 40 radio stations, and when they introduce a new song, it is remarkably similar to the other songs already playing.

This is only the backlash against this abuse of power by those corporations who hold copyright. Rather than being the middlemen between the artist and the public, they are the designers of prepackaged, plastic art themselves, art designed to sell. And sell it does. But every major Hillary Duff CD release is one less "where the hell do I need to go to find the latest Decemberists album around this small town?!" They tell you what you are supposed to like. They don't choose your opinion for you, but they do limit your choices between Lindsay Lohan and Tool.

Yes, the suits can be valuable allies to the struggling artist. But they are decimating to the advancement of art as a cultural object. Because "good art" (e.g.: commentary, social platforms, contentious images) is rarely the most popular, but the suits aren't interested in quality, just in quantity of dollars. Now, the masses can turn to their computers for the latest Tool top 40 hit, and while that's downloading they can look at this website of a guy who is releasing his music for free as mp3's (or you can pay $10 to get a CD of his stuff, which he just burns in his mother's basement).

The artists cannot "live like rockstars," which will leave creating to the creative as opposed to the opportunistic. The suits have been an important method of distribution and risk-minimization. But they are becoming either unnessecary or drastically changing in form, and the current form doesn't like it at all.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Legally maybe. Morally, it is theft - you have aquired property owned by another illegally.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> Unfortunately for you, he didn't say "copyright infringement is not theft", he said "they don't easily mesh together as legal concepts because of the nature of intellectual property". That is a very different, and far less strident statement than the one you attribute to the court.




Or morally it is not theft because the original is left with the owner. It is only copied, not taken away.

Do you have a page citation for your quote? I was typed in your quote on a find command on the linked case and it didn't come up. I'm not saying you made up your quote, I'm just saying a quick search did not turn it up.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Or morally it is not theft because the original is left with the owner. It is only copied, not taken away.




Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.



> _Do you have a page citation for your quote? I was typed in your quote on a find command on the linked case and it didn't come up. I'm not saying you made up your quote, I'm just saying a quick search did not turn it up._





Which quote do you refer to? The case citation was made by another poster.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.



Best point in the theft/copyright infringement battle I've seen in a LONG time (here and elsewhere).  Mind if I file that away for future use?  And may I reproduce it?

--The Sigil


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Best point in the theft/copyright infringement battle I've seen in a LONG time (here and elsewhere).  Mind if I file that away for future use?  And may I reproduce it?




Sure. I disclaim any copyright I may have in any statements made in this thread.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The stuff you want depeneds on the existence of the industry. Vilifying them for existing is counterproductive.




No it doesn't.  I already said I don't want their crappy stuff, so quit calling it "the stuff you want".  I buy my stuff from people who make good stuff.  I vilify them for existing because they're taking away market share from the people who make good stuff.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.




I believe the idea is that "the exclusive right to make copies" is an immoral infringement upon the rights of everyone else. It is wrong and unethical to make that property. It would be like making a law that described a special set of people who had the exclusive right to breed. Copying things -- diseminating information -- is a natural human feature, not something that should be forbidden by law. Heck, even artists themselves aknowledge that their own work is often derivitive of something else. "Good artists create, great artists steal" is the phrase? We're all suckling from the Gygax/Arneson teat that invented the concept of an RPG, why doesn't Gary get paid whenever something at DTRPG sells?


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I believe the term you are looking for is "patron".



indeed it was... 
thanks. sometimes, not being a native speaker doesn't help...



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But is it really desirable to throw the production of intellectual property back into the hands of the very wealthy?




it depends who you ask. at the end of the day, mr. patron and mr. EMI or mr. SONY music provide exactly the same thing: money to put out music they want to listen.

personally, i would rather deal with mr. patron. it's a matter of taste, of course, but mr. patron is one guy. mr. big label is a pyramid of yes-men, most of which won't work there for their lifetime.
with mr. patron, i have to please 1 individual. for all i care, there's nobody else. he likes me and my stuff, he pays, i'm happy.
with mr. big label, i have to please all the yes-men, the head of the corporation, the marketing people, the media (by giving interviews, smile all the time, being politically correct, and so on), AND the general public.
in the first instance i might get much less money... but at least i should compromise my ideals up to a point, and sell myself to just one person. in the second case, i'm virtually doing the same job a prostitute does. only the prostitute doesn't have to tour the world on a crappy van (or a beautiful jet plane, depending on who you are).

i think the problems with patrons are that:
1. we have a distorted view of who they were, and what they asked for. we see them in films as fat stupid morons who can't tell art from farts, and we assume that's the way it was. in fact, that was the exception, not the norm. check reinassance italy. classical rome. illuminist europe. you will find that the majory of the patrons were men and women of taste, who were genuinely interested in art and sometimes even in learning.
2. our society puts freedon on the top of the value pyramid. there are other societies, both today and historically, that have worked differently. freedom is good, but if i have to risk way too much to have just a chance to be free... well, i would personally think twice before leaving my patron!

both systems have their pros and cons. in the ideal world, we would have disinterested patrons and a truly competition driven market. instead we have patrons that are willing to pay as long as you work for their interest and you do what they want, and a monopoly de facto.




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It was done that way for centuries, and produced some fine art and a tiny amount of literature



some fine art? just because it got vandalised/ lost, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. just have a stroll in rome. i find some parts of the city boring because all that columns, churches, statues, and stuff are yesterday's news (i'm italian, so i do tend to appreciate those things less than some other people, for the simple fact that they are all over the place here).
and that is after half a dozen sacking, bombings of the city, pestilences, famines, revolutions...
as for the "tiny" amount of literature produced, just check project gutenberg.
that, of course, is just a tiny part of what was available. i was recently reading "a criminal history of mankind" by colin wilson, and in the 1800s section he started to talk about a number of novels i had never ever heard of. that's despite the fact that i have studied english literature at university and high school (and that i do read a lot of classics).

the range of available books, arts might be narrow... but keep in mind that sometimes we are only allowed to read what the publishers decide to reprint. shakespeare's work? you bet. a dodgy horror/ erotic novel? why? there's already a thousand on the market, written yesterday...

honestly, how much novels or music that today are considered the rage will be remembered in 100 years? what about 200? 1000?
we suffer from a prospective problem, and we think that our society is the best ever. it might be for some respects (health and clealingness, for example... you have to go back to rome during the empire day to find an efficient network of plumbings...). for some other stuff is just the same as ever. and for some other stuff it might even be worse. jsut because we are not aware of it, it doesn't mean it does not exist.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 9, 2005)

> No it doesn't. I already said I don't want their crappy stuff, so quit calling it "the stuff you want". I buy my stuff from people who make good stuff. I vilify them for existing because they're taking away market share from the people who make good stuff.




You don't get it, do you? The vast majority of consumers think that the evil big industry is making good stuff, because they keep buying it. You're in a minority, the exception, not the rule.



> I believe the idea is that "the exclusive right to make copies" is an immoral infringement upon the rights of everyone else. It is wrong and unethical to make that property. It would be like making a law that described a special set of people who had the exclusive right to breed. Copying things -- diseminating information -- is a natural human feature, not something that should be forbidden by law.




And I believe that this philosophy, if it were applied to the real world, would result in the desctruction of the media industry, printed, recorded and programmed. No more decent books, no more decent computer games, no more decent movies, no more roleplaying games. You believe that the work of people who produce IP has no value, and I am going to oppose this, because I find it destructive and insulting to real authors, musicians and producers.


----------



## El Ravager (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Then again, the reason the industry at large isn't interested in the "why" is probably because if they DID look at the "why" they would realize that *step one is the "copyright industry" making a change to respect the bounds and limits of where copyright ends (instead of trying to grab more and more control with technological features - see my DVD example - and longer copyright lengths), rather than forcing consumers to make the first change*.  After all, consumers, by and large, have reacted to copyright holders, not the other way around!  Consumers, by and large, already feel (and rightly so!) that their relationship to copyright is a lot like Lando's relationship with Darth Vader ("I am altering the deal.  Pray that I do not alter it again!").
> 
> Of course, that's probaby because I have kids, and when trying to change their bad behavior, I don't focus on the behavior itself as much as on the reason the kid is doing what he's doing.  Of course, I am a believer in the theory that "*talking about principles (and how to apply them) will change behavior faster than talking about behavior will change behavior*" (and yes, Joshua Dyal, you probably DO recognize the source of that sentence).




This sums up a lot of how I feel about this issue.  And until publishers seriously start to consider and act on the bolded part of your post, I really won't loose any sleep about piracy.

Note though, this is how I feel about the issue on a large level.  Closer to the original topic, I don't believe that what I quoted from Sigil represents RPG companies.  I don't think that the damage is great, but RPGs are a smaller industry and smaller damage has more effect on RPGs.  But it is still a fact of life and, I believe, good RPG companies who put out good product will make it dispite this and the many other problems they face.

=====
El Rav


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Of course, that's probaby because I have kids, and when trying to change their bad behavior, I don't focus on the behavior itself as much as on the reason the kid is doing what he's doing.  Of course, I am a believer in the theory that "*talking about principles (and how to apply them) will change behavior faster than talking about behavior will change behavior*" (and yes, Joshua Dyal, you probably DO recognize the source of that sentence).



 Yes, I do.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

IMHO, the biggest problem with patronage is that it creates art for the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful. I can't be a pauper and also have the ear of high society any better in today's world than I could back then. It defines people too much by the jobs they do, and echoes too much of a class conciousness for me. I don't want some rich hipster paying me for my art. I just want to create and have it seen and ideally have people know it as my creation.



> And I believe that this philosophy, if it were applied to the real world, would result in the desctruction of the media industry, printed, recorded and programmed. No more decent books, no more decent computer games, no more decent movies, no more roleplaying games. You believe that the work of people who produce IP has no value, and I am going to oppose this, because I find it destructive and insulting to real authors, musicians and producers.




No. Posted above are just a handful of ways that real authors and muscisians make money on the "cutting edge" today, and they do work. How many webcomics survived, even for a time, based on donations?

The decent books, games, movies, and RPGS are not the product of the industry. They are a product of those artists who occur because it is the nature of humans to create art. Industry has no hand in it. Cave paintings existed before patrons, and we will be wistling dixie long into the postapocalyptic wastland. You cannot destroy the artistic desire of humanity. Though you can certainly attempt to manipulate it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It is wrong and unethical to make that property.



Well, that's the crux of this whole debate, isn't it?  I could be cynical and say, "of course you believe that; because believing otherwise would put limits on your own personal freedoms to take unabashed advantage of the artists who own that property," and that would effectively sum up the two endpoints of the spectrum of belief on the issue.


----------



## Arnwyn (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Some companies (Canada)



I hate that company. Their thermostat is on the fritz all the time.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I believe the idea is that "the exclusive right to make copies" is an immoral infringement upon the rights of everyone else. It is wrong and unethical to make that property. It would be like making a law that described a special set of people who had the exclusive right to breed. Copying things -- diseminating information -- is a natural human feature, not something that should be forbidden by law. Heck, even artists themselves aknowledge that their own work is often derivitive of something else. "Good artists create, great artists steal" is the phrase? We're all suckling from the Gygax/Arneson teat that invented the concept of an RPG, why doesn't Gary get paid whenever something at DTRPG sells?



From the beginning, it has been noted that "copyright" is a form of abridgement of "Free Speech."

As to whether it is wrong an unethical to make that "property"... a tough call.  I'll go with MacAuley (again)...


> (Copyright) is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax.



I have to agree in that I am willing to submit to some form of copyright in order to receive the bounty of genius and learning.  Call it an "enlightened disavowal of certain rights" because I think the benefits I will receive by a limited waiver of some of those rights outweight the benefits I receive by keeping them.  I should note however, in the strongest language possible, that I do NOT feel that the current sytem of copryight strikes the proper balance and I do not feel that the current system is inherently ethical, so I am NOT saying I am willing to submit myself in an unqualified matter to copyright law as it presently exists (I feel it is too weighted in favor of the author/publisher).

I am definitely in favor of a 7-year copyright.  I am definitely NOT in favor of a life+70 copyright.  I am not exactly sure where the "sweet spot" is between the two where I go from "approval" to "disapproval."

But I am enlightened enough to forgo some free speech rights to receive the bounty of the genius and learning of others.  I don't think the current system is one I would willingly choose to submit to if it were offered up for vote now (of course, we're NOT given the choice; the laws are what they are, though I'd like to see them change, but you get the idea).

--The Sigil


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.
> 
> [/i]
> 
> Which quote do you refer to? The case citation was made by another poster.




post 249

You said:

Unfortunately for you, he didn't say "copyright infringement is not theft", he said "they don't easily mesh together as legal concepts because of the nature of intellectual property". 

The linked case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> But I am enlightened enough to forgo some free speech rights to receive the bounty of the genius and learning of others.




If I'm giving the other side of the argument as I know it correctly...

You don't need to give up free speech to benefit from others' creativity. You do not need an industry for artistic creation. The idea that we won't have the next Motzart or Copernicus if we don't copyright is a fallacy. For most of human history, we have not had copyright, and art has still been generated, and powerfully so.

Personally, I'm not nessecarily against copyright, because I certainly believe some form of copyright could certainly help foster this natural tendancy of humanity. But to posit it as an essential component of generating creative works is wrong. It isn't. It's a side-product of the fact that we as human beings produce art.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Suddenly, you didn't have to hire a musician any more.  You could buy a player piano instead!




sorry, that example doesn't work. the piano player didn't sell to the household who could afford hiring a musician... they were too crappy to aim to that. any well rehearsed musician (i'm not talking about monster of technique and execution) could beat a player piano playing with a hand tied to their back.

the piano sold to the household who did had some money, but that didn't have a good pianist. in the old day, in well to do families, there was at least one person (usually female) able to sight sing parts and/ or play the piano. you did your music yourself, in the evening.

player piano changed that. as did records. the final blow was the radio.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> Of course, the musicians (who were often also composers) wanted to restrict technology and would have refused to sell their music to the player piano companies.




now you know why they didn't oppose. on the other hand, some of them were quite unwilling to record their performances, when somebody devised a way to make copies out of a single master recording (in the very early days, you had to play again and re-record the performance, if you wanted another copy!).
all of the sudden, they were afraid that nobody would have paid them a dime, if they could get their performance on record for much less (notice that i'm talking about songs. early records were too short to accomodate most classical pieces).
then they realised that was a way to reach new audiences, and everybody started to record.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> Today, your garage band can make a recording of you playing 12 Beatles hits and (if each is less than 5 minutes in length) pay $1.02 in compulsory licensing fees to the copyright holder (probably Michael Jackson) for each CD you sell... and you cannot be denied the right to do this by the copyright holder (this is why it's called "compulsory" licensing - it compels the copyright holder to allow anyone who pays the license fee to play his songs).




i think that doesn't apply to europe, but just to north america... too bad i did my law classes in boston! :_(.



			
				The Sigil said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think it's the only real way of finding a compromise between copyright holders' interests and technology...




i think the only way that could happen is if people really stopped buying. but that is not happening, for good or bad, so...


----------



## El Ravager (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I believe the idea is that "the exclusive right to make copies" is an immoral infringement upon the rights of everyone else. It is wrong and unethical to make that property. It would be like making a law that described a special set of people who had the exclusive right to breed. Copying things -- diseminating information -- is a natural human feature, not something that should be forbidden by law. Heck, even artists themselves aknowledge that their own work is often derivitive of something else. "Good artists create, great artists steal" is the phrase? We're all suckling from the Gygax/Arneson teat that invented the concept of an RPG, why doesn't Gary get paid whenever something at DTRPG sells?




I agree with this as well.  Some here say that copyright infringement is stealing or immoral.  I think that the very notion of copyright as it exists is immoral.  Certainly creators should have a way to be compensated for their work, but the way it works now is wrong.  

Authors should sell a book, not a text, not a story.  

Musicians should sell CDs and live performances, not songs.



All this IMHO, of course.

Anyway, I think I have now fully expressed my opinion now.  I doubt many are paying attention to little me anyway.  So I think I am done with this thread.

=====
El Rav


----------



## Falkus (Aug 9, 2005)

> You don't need to give up free speech to benefit from others' creativity. You do not need an industry for artistic creation. The idea that we won't have the next Motzart or Copernicus if we don't copyright is a fallacy. For most of human history, we have not had copyright, and art has still been generated, and powerfully so.




And for the most of human history we haven't had what I like to call the internet. Times change.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> The idea that we won't have the next Motzart or Copernicus if we don't copyright is a fallacy. For most of human history, we have not had copyright, and art has still been generated, and powerfully so.



You conveniently forget to point out that for most of human history we also didn't have the Internet or p2p filesharing clients.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> If I'm giving the other side of the argument as I know it correctly...
> 
> You don't need to give up free speech to benefit from others' creativity. You do not need an industry for artistic creation. The idea that we won't have the next Motzart or Copernicus if we don't copyright is a fallacy. For most of human history, we have not had copyright, and art has still been generated, and powerfully so.
> 
> Personally, I'm not nessecarily against copyright, because I certainly believe some form of copyright could certainly help foster this natural tendancy of humanity. But to posit it as an essential component of generating creative works is wrong. It isn't. It's a side-product of the fact that we as human beings produce art.



"For most of human history, we have not had copyright, and art has still been generated, and powerfully so."

And the "counter-counter-argument" to this goes, "that's because they had patrons."  And thus art is monopolized by the rich and only generated through their largesse; there is no way for the common folk to access high-quality art except as beggars who take the table scraps of the rich.  Certainly there is no mechanism for an independent artist to live and produce whatever he wants, as he will be beholden to the rich.  

I can argue either side with equal verve... which I think is essential to true understanding of an issue... if you can argue both sides equally well, you understand it; which side you agree with will depend on which set of "first principles" you accept.

--The Sigil


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> 1. This assumes that "stuff you want" depends on the industry being "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing".  This is obviously untrue.  We could have instead a forthright, ethical, fair industry making our entertainment media.  Anyone out there not think that would be an improvement?
> 
> 2. I don't buy things from these people.  For the most part, they make crappy products.  I usually buy my entertainment from smaller companies, quite often direct from the producer over the internet (Don Hertzfeldt!).  I also don't like to support sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industries, and my sentiment is shared by a lot of people.  I believe that if these sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industries disappeared overnight, by the next morning there would be a whole host of new small businesses opening up to fill the yawning gap left by the megaproducers, and that they would produce better stuff.  Why?  Because I also believe that 90% of everything is crap.  So if you have two or three production companies with particular business strategies concerning what they'll put money behind, there's a pretty good chance that they're all crap.  But if you have a thousand, there will probably be about a hundred that aren't crap.  And that will be more stuff than I'll ever be able to buy anyway.




I wonder, in your hypothetical scenario what would happen if the big boys dissapeared.  The most agressive (ruthless) small businesses would start eating up the more 'honourable' small businesses, and the cycle would repeat anew.  On the plus side, success brings resources, and while resources cannot guarantee quality on a case by case basis, it does tend to provide progress, however glacially.

One person's "slezy, unethical, moneygrubbing" behaviour is another person's "competitive" behaviour.   High stakes and intense competition does not have a common byproduct of improving ethical standards.  It sucks, but, it's life...and I've yet to hear a better market model than the competitive one.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.




So you are saying partially taking away the right to control making copies is the same as taking away a physical object so the use of the term theft is appropriate. I'm saying it is a bad analogy, the differences between taking away a right to control an aspect of a thing and a thing itself are significant.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

I should just quite posting and let Falkus do my talking for me; he's saying exactly what I would, and now we literally post at nearly the same time nearly the exact same post.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> And for the most of human history we haven't had what I like to call the internet. Times change.




Is your position that we need Copyright now more than we did before the Internet?

We need a system that was designed a hundred years ago to help enable creativity now more than ever because a system has been introduced that has changed the way that creativity reaches the public?

Times change. Copyright as it is today is quickly becoming obsolete. It's lack of justice is becoming quite evident. The "suits" are trying to guard against that, protect their own business model, and stagnate the world, manipulating the people to stay within their pre-defined and profitable boundaries.

Copyright obviously was a useful tool for its time. But its time has quite evidently passed. Creativity is being produced on a collossally mass scale above and beyond the bounds of copyright. Copyright is now more of a hinderence to creativity than a boon to it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

El Ravager said:
			
		

> IAuthors should sell a book, not a text, not a story.
> 
> Musicians should sell CDs and live performances, not songs.



Well, isn't that the problem?  People aren't buying the CDs, they're just downloading the songs from someone else who did.

I mean, it's all well and good to point to some principle and say, "yeah, that's what I agree with" but when you ignore the obvious problem with it, you fail to say anything meaningful about it.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Copyright obviously was a useful tool for its time. But its time has quite evidently passed.



Problem is, I have yet to see anyone of your general belief system propose an alternative that really made any sense.  You can't just get rid of a system like copyright law and not replace it with something else.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 9, 2005)

What I love about these threads is how they bring the moral relativists and nihilists out of the woodwork.

"Theft is only considered wrong because society has a law against it!"
"Piracy is perfectly moral -- it's copyrighting things that is immoral!"
"Creating things for profit is immoral!"
"All constructs of what is moral/immoral are meaningless!"

And so on, and so forth.

I feel like I am back in college in a freshman philosophy class where none of the students has read the assignment and all are just spewing forth their alcohol and marijuana fueled opinions.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Times change. Copyright as it is today is quickly becoming obsolete. It's lack of justice is becoming quite evident. The "suits" are trying to guard against that, protect their own business model, and stagnate the world, manipulating the people to stay within their pre-defined and profitable boundaries.
> 
> Copyright obviously was a useful tool for its time. But its time has quite evidently passed.



Here's one of the quirks I find amusing about copyright in its current incarnation:

Copyright was originally created to protect "the little guy" - a writer/publisher - from the "piratical booksellers" - the big corporate conglomerates that would get a copy of his work and then reprint it en masse and sell it without compensating him... or alternatively, the bookseller who approached a "starving artist" and bought the copyright to an excellent piece of work for a pittance, then turned around and made huge profits selling copies of it.

In other words, it was a law protecting the little fish from the big sharks.

Now, of course, copyright has been turned on its head - it's used by large conglomerates to smack down the "little guy" for making just a few copies of a widely sold work.  Computers - and especially the internet - have given the little fish teeth and the big sharks are trying to use copyright law to protect themselves from dying the death of 1000 cuts.

Now, copyright is a law protecting the big sharks from the little pirannhas (sp?).

Not saying either way is "right" or "wrong" - just that I find it ironic that it's been turned on its head. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Numion (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.




No I haven't. I may or may not have infringed on your right. I've stolen nothing.

Why the "pro-copyright" side needs to resort to mispresentation like this is beyond me. But thats what the recording industry is using in the propaganda. It makes me cringe that they've directly brought the infomercials based on US law to finnish movie theaters. "Copying a movie is stealing"; it isn't anywhere. "Copying a movie is a crime"; when it isn't in Finland.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> You're talking to the wrong guy. I love old games, but I don't want to see a return to them either. I like high quality graphics and realistic physics. You're saying that I'm wrong for enjoying that.




where did i say that, exactly?
you are very well entitled to have your tastes, whatever they are. but it is you who are assuming that:
1. the majority of the market demands high quality graphic, and would demand it even if not having it would produce a consistent drop in the final price.
2. if, for argument sake (which is what i was doing), all of the sudden there was no copyright, and developers would have no money to create games with high quality graphic, the majority of the market would stop buying any game, no matter how fun and innovative it is.
sorry, this is not my view. i don't know about the market, but i know about myself. i stopped buying computer games because i can't be asked to pay that much, to spend loads of money to have the last graphic card which is virtually useless to me in every aspect but playing games, and because, quite frankly, i find them quite boring.

i would rather play 20 dollars to buy a copy of wacky wheels or kick off 2, than 10 to play the last ps2 horror game.
am i saying you are crazy not to share my view? no. but i'm entitled to my opinion as well, and since we're living in orc-land, i don't care what the rest of the market says. i'm not buying.




			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Oh, and thank you for backing up my main argument. That the reduction and elimination of IP laws would drastically reduce the quality of published and recorded media.




oh! you mean i could not enjoy great films like star wars 3, alone in the dark, and similar stuff? man, that would kill me!
i think you are trying to be a bit too ironic and smart.

the general quality of products would probably drop down. so what? it would also cost a fraction of what it costs today. your argument is that, by spending 100 million dollars the film, on average, would be crappier. i'm saying that there wouldn't be a budget of 100 million dollar to begin with, so no flashy (and useless, at least as far as i'm concerned) special effect, not another crappy schwarznegger film, not another copycat film made just because that other production firm has done the same style, and we have to have a share of the market, not another britney spear, and so on.

of course it would have negative sides, too. it can't be all that good.
i might have an idealist view of the world, granted, and a very personal one (oh, what a surprise! we all had 100% personal views of things, last time i checked) but you are saying that, without copyright law, there would be nothing, nada, zero, niente.
sorry, you are wrong. simple as that.





			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> It's called the real world. People are greedy, it's the goddamn basis of the western world. Capitalism.




funny, i prefer my fairy land. you know, when years ago, i stopped acting as if everybody was trying to stabbing in my back, i realised that nobody was. also, when i started to be nice to people and give them credit, they turned out to be pretty decent and nice guys, in the vast majority.
maybe i'm in fairy land, but i suspect that if all the big corporations (be it food, films, music, you name it) would start to act responsibly and treat their customer as if they were living beings with a brain, as opposed to spoon-fed midgets, who can only find their ass because somebody else has nicely pointed it to them, maybe they would find the profit would go up.
or maybe not. but at least they would be whining less and be less bitter and draconic.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Is your position that we need Copyright now more than we did before the Internet?
> 
> We need a system that was designed a hundred years ago to help enable creativity now more than ever because a system has been introduced that has changed the way that creativity reaches the public?
> 
> ...




Whoa.... so you mean that copyright is now reducing creativity?

The internet is letting anyone be creative and diseminate their ideas and make money from those ideas. Every one that is realising their own work (music/art/rpging) on the net is experience *the full benefit* of copyright in that have a guarantee that those "suits" *can't steal their ideas* without running the risk of legal repercusions. The low cost of entry into various markets previously controled by "suits" makes the fact that copyright exists that much more beneficial to "non-suits."

I simply don't understand this. Copyright as written is not LIMITING creativity it is INCREASING creativity. You can be as creative as you want. Just come up with your own idea and not someone elses. Regardless of wether or not that someone else is Disney or your neighborhood garage band.

joe b.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Here's one of the quirks I find amusing about copyright in its current incarnation:
> 
> Copyright was originally created to protect "the little guy" - a writer/publisher - from the "piratical booksellers" - the big corporate conglomerates that would get a copy of his work and then reprint it en masse and sell it without compensating him... or alternatively, the bookseller who approached a "starving artist" and bought the copyright to an excellent piece of work for a pittance, then turned around and made huge profits selling copies of it.
> 
> ...




Yeah, but you switched the "little guy" role midway through your argument. In the first half the little guy was the author; in the second half he was the reader. Which (IMHO) means that it hasn't been turned on its head in quite the way you imply.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 9, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Now, copyright is a law protecting the big sharks from the little pirannhas (sp?).



I will ignore your use of the loaded term "shark" to refer to a _publisher of a PDF for a D&D game_ (because let's not forget -- that's what this thread is about), and simply ask this:

Why should only "the little guy" benefit from copyright law? Why shouldn't the big guy also benefit?


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Problem is, I have yet to see anyone of your general belief system propose an alternative that really made any sense.  You can't just get rid of a system like copyright law and not replace it with something else.



I'm not sure what the alternative is.  I know the current system is horribly broken, however, and that something needs to change.  I personally think copyright law - at least in its present incarnation - is unworkable.

From my vantage point, there are four major changes that can be made to make the system workable.  They are not mutually exclusive, and not necessarily all required.

1 - Shorten copyright duration.  Drastically.  Like, to 14 years (possibly less).

2 - Restrict ownership of copyright to "natural persons."  In the case of multiple people creating a work (e.g., Lennon/McCartney), each and every collaborator is entitled to exercise all rights without permission of the others.

3 - Require registration of copyright (like used to be required by registering a copy with the Library of Congress).  This at least makes it easy to track down a copyright holder (the "orphan works" problem).

4 - Create a "compulsory licensing" scheme for all copyrightable formats and expand it to include "perfect/direct copies."  When you download/create a copy of something, you can "register" that copy with a central clearinghouse for a nominal fee (fee schedule obviously to be determined, but for ease of use, let's say $.50 for non-computer works like books, $.20 for computer-held works under 1 GB in length and $1 for computer-held works over 1 GB in length such as DVDs).  This could work in combination with #3 above so that I can download a copy of, say, "LotR: RotK" off the internet, then pay the Library of Congress a $1 fee which is then passed along to New Line Studios).  If I am then "busted" for copyright infringement of LotR:RotK, I can simply call up the Library of Congress and get my receipt, which immediately clears me of infringement charges with respet to LotR:RotK - I paid my compulsory license fee.  This also creates kind of an "amnesty" program, if you will, for all those people who still have stuff they downloaded from Napster back in 2000, or whatever... pay your compulsory license fee, and you're good!  You don't have to worry about being sued.  The studio gets money.  Everyone wins.

--The Sigil


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> I will ignore your use of the loaded term "shark" to refer to a _publisher of a PDF for a D&D game_ (because let's not forget -- that's what this thread is about), and simply ask this:
> 
> Why should only "the little guy" benefit from copyright law? Why shouldn't the big guy also benefit?




Both benefit with copyright law. The "big guy" first by having the ability to make profit enough to justify the creation in the first place, the "little guy" by having a greater availablity of products to chose from, and the "little guy" in that eventually the material will enter into public domain.

joe b.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> Problem is, I have yet to see anyone of your general belief system propose an alternative that really made any sense. You can't just get rid of a system like copyright law and not replace it with something else.




"The Public As Patron" (e.g.: donations) has achieved some remarkable successes so far.

In this business model, you disseminate the work you do for free and build a consumer base for it. Through advertising, rumor, word of mouth, and quality product, you build a base that enjoys your product.

Then, after building a base, you discuss in realistic terms your situation: you do what you do for free, but you could do it a lot more if you were paid for it, if the community gave something back, if people, in effect, gave you money to continue producing your art/service

So you do donation drives. You collect money from those who already like your product in exchange for small gifts, and the promise of "more of what you already like and what you already like made better." Those unwilling to pay are not denied the main content, merely the bells and whistles. You utilize the income to produce more product. Repeat as nessecary to continue outputing quality, or until your popularity fades.

This has shown demonstrable success in the "new economy," and it's certainly only one of many possibilities (as shown by the above post that listed only a handful of potenital viable solutions). 

What's to stop derivitive works and others profiting off of taking your ideas? Nothing. Nothing except the knowledge and fan base you have already secured, of course. The most powerful cultural force in the world is the rumor mill. By producing something and offering it for free, you get people hooked, and then you can continue to provide better and increased content as long as you are supported.

This eliminates the problems of "one rich guy," and also the difficulties regarding ownership and control of product identity. Your patron is the world, in a very democratic fashion -- if you like what they do, you can pay to have more of it, or not pay and have the same level (or potentially less). The risk is only in the rejection of work. You cannot expect to make money on art. You may, but one never creates art for the sake of selling it. 

Donations sound silly and prone to the selfishness in humanity at first glance. But if you could have 5 more D&D books in a year than you do now, and those 5 books would be completely free and (why not?) OGL, would you give WotC $1.50? Would everyone from your gaming group? Your neighborhood? Your FLGS? Would you personally give your favorite d20 author $5 if it meant he would make more of what you love?

It has been proven to be effective. The only way to test it on a large scale is for some large-scale icon to give it a whirl. I haven't seen any that were particularly interested, have you?


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The stuff you want depeneds on the existence of the industry. Vilifying them for existing is counterproductive.




i can't believe that anybody in his right mind would need britney spears's music.
after i saw her success, i changed my mind on marketing, and now i do believe that if you have a nice face and a lot of support, you could fart in your mike and everybody would buy your record.

go out in the street, stop the first 12 year old you find and ask him if he knows spandau ballet. chances are he will say: "spandau what? get lost!"
what about, say, donovan? what about billy haliday? charlie parker? robert johnson?

you see, the public is not buying the music. they are not stupid. they are buying the hype, the image of britney, the idea of being young and fresh and energetic, and a lot of other things, INCLUDING the music.

the inherent quality of a product comes out after some time, when all the social overstructures fall apart, and you get all the product itself. until then, the public buys so many things at once that the actual music is lost in the equation. it was britney spears because her label decided for her. if they had decided for going classical and put a mozart dance mix on top of the sales, with the right advertisment, they could have done it.

vilyfying the industry happens because there's a lot of resentment going on. the artist is seen as a monkey who has to jump when they say it. and the industry is seen as a bunch of evil money-grabbers who would put a knife in the heart of their mother, if they could gain a false penny out of it.

obviously, the truth is in the middle. some artists *are* monkeys. and some industry representatives *are* evil [insert swear of choice].
calling name doesn't help, i must admit. but when i see some lobbying and some laws enforced even where it would be illegal to enforce them, i can't help doing my share.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 9, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Yeah, but you switched the "little guy" role midway through your argument. In the first half the little guy was the author; in the second half he was the reader. Which (IMHO) means that it hasn't been turned on its head in quite the way you imply.



Not really.  In the second half, the "little guy" is the "guy sharing on the internet" - that's publishing a work (small-scale). 



> I will ignore your use of the loaded term "shark" to refer to a publisher of a PDF for a D&D game (because let's not forget -- that's what this thread is about), and simply ask this:
> 
> Why should only "the little guy" benefit from copyright law? Why shouldn't the big guy also benefit?



Sorry, I didn't mean it to be loaded... perhaps I should say, "the big fish and the little fish."  I just thought of "Shark" when I thought of "animal that eats fish" (I would have used "whale" but they eat plankton).

And I'm not saying the big guy shouldn't also benefit.  I'm simply saying that the original purpose of copyright law was to protect little from big.  Now, by and large, it's used to protect big from little.  That's not inherently bad... a "fair" law protects everyone equally... I'm just saying it's funny how times change and now the "big guys" are asking for protection, when before they were the problem (and vice versa).

--The Sigil


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> When you start appealing to some mythical, Utopian, anti-cynical moral high ground, that's a clue that you've lost the argument badly.




ehm... maybe you're reading another guy's post. i'm just saying what it's like to me. i ain't appealing to anybody.
maybe the world outside is really bad and dangerous and bleak and evil.
my experence is that it's not that bad, and i like it. i'm not so naive to assume that everybody is a friend in disguise, but i did find out that most people doesn't initially give a damn about you. you start a fight, they will react badly. you might win the fight, but i wonder how much that is worth...
no utopian land here, just my experience. if i am deluded, man, i'd rather stay deluded and keep living (fairly) happy in this world than being awoken and like in crappy-land.
please, don't wake me up! !)


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 9, 2005)

> Whoa.... so you mean that copyright is now reducing creativity?




I'm surprised you haven't heard that one before. Copyright *does* reduce creativity. Turn on the radio, bub. How many Drowning Pool songs sound that different to you?



> The internet is letting anyone be creative and diseminate their ideas and make money from those ideas. Every one that is realising their own work (music/art/rpging) on the net is experience the full benefit of copyright in that have a guarantee that those "suits" can't steal their ideas without running the risk of legal repercusions. The low cost of entry into various markets previously controled by "suits" makes the fact that copyright exists that much more beneficial to "non-suits."




True. But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell.



> I simply don't understand this. Copyright as written is not LIMITING creativity it is INCREASING creativity. You can be as creative as you want. Just come up with your own idea and not someone elses. Regardless of wether or not that someone else is Disney or your neighborhood garage band.




"Good artists borrow, great artists steal", if that's the right phrase...

If the only thing the suits release to the public is, say, N*Sync, and the suits controll the airwaves, exactly how much is your neighborhood garage band's daring reinterpretation of guitarplaying worth?

And when you can't get on a local radio station because "that's not what we play," how much incentive is there to create something new?


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> What I love about these threads is how they bring the moral relativists and nihilists out of the woodwork.
> 
> "Theft is only considered wrong because society has a law against it!"
> "Piracy is perfectly moral -- it's copyrighting things that is immoral!"
> ...




During my freshman year in college the same charge could have levelled against the faculty.  Heck, I just rolled with it then, like I roll with it now.  You can't have a good dialectic without some serious big time self-indulgance.  And besides every now and then, you get a gem among the rough.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell....And when you can't get on a local radio station because "that's not what we play," how much incentive is there to create something new?



Oh please.

Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative. And with the means to self-publish or distribute music (for a fee or not) available today, then this screed is less true than ever.

Blaming the suits is a lame cop-out.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> IMHO, the biggest problem with patronage is that it creates art for the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful.




maybe you're right. still, i am neither rich nor powerful, and i like milo's venus a lot!


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm surprised you haven't heard that one before. Copyright *does* reduce creativity. Turn on the radio, bub. How many Drowning Pool songs sound that different to you?




Which of the 2,500 web streams should I tune into to hear Drowning Pool?

I've never heard Drowing Pool. Why? Because I listen to radio on the internet to hear what I want to hear. Or I guess I could listen to one of the what, 500 channels on satilite radio. Sorry, Copyright isn't limiting creativity. It's making creativity econically viable in ways it had never been before because of the development of new media outlets (the internet).




> True. But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell.




First, which one am I, a pimp or a whore? You may want to watch your tone a bit because you are talking to a group that has some pimps and whores in it and I'm not very fond of personal attacks.

Second, if an artist wants to "make it big" wowwee they have to have money and connections. I hate to break it to you but that's the way it's always been, even before copyright. In fact, there are more wealthy artists now than before copyright.



> "Good artists borrow, great artists steal", if that's the right phrase...
> 
> If the only thing the suits release to the public is, say, N*Sync, and the suits controll the airwaves, exactly how much is your neighborhood garage band's daring reinterpretation of guitarplaying worth?




So your argument is that because the people who own the radio stations get to decide what they play based upon what sell the best is the reason why copyright is bad?

Well, start up an internet web-radio, pay your fees and make a living off playing music that you want to hear on your radio.

I've started my own business based on the web and doing what I like, you can too. Why? *Because of Copyright* I have legal recourse to protect myself and secure my welfare. Without copyright I would have no legal recourse.



> And when you can't get on a local radio station because "that's not what we play," how much incentive is there to create something new?




Your arguement has nothing to do with copyright and everything to do with corporistic capitalism. Copyright is what gives a creative the ability to profit from their work. The fact that *its hard to do* doesn't mean that copyright's the problem. The fact that Billy Holliday will never make as much money as Drowning Pool (I'm assuming they're popular) doesn't mean that copyright's to blame.

If there wasn't copyright those "suits" could "steal" the music you like and *not pay the artists you like* one single penny.

joe b.


----------



## Wormwood (Aug 9, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> Heck, I just rolled with it then, like I roll with it now. You can't have a good dialectic without some serious big time self-indulgance. And besides every now and then, you get a gem among the rough.




If you find said gem, please let me know.

After 330+ posts, I'm giving up.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm not nessecarily against copyright, because I certainly believe some form of copyright could certainly help foster this natural tendancy of humanity. But to posit it as an essential component of generating creative works is wrong. It isn't. It's a side-product of the fact that we as human beings produce art.




i second that emotion.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Oh please.
> 
> Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative. And with the means to self-publish or distribute music (for a fee or not) available today, then this screed is less true than ever.
> 
> Blaming the suits is a lame cop-out.




So am I a truly creative person? I need a monetary incentive to be creative. I have other things I need to do with my time If I can't make money being creative.  I need to eat and if being creative doesn't let me do that, I have to do something else.

joe b.


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 9, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> True. But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell.




It's certainly a colorful metaphor.  I'm not sure how apt it is.  Any artist can release any song any time they want.  Heck, several posters have already pointed out how easy it is to produce and release your own music with some good software and access to the internet.

Whether or not people listen to your song is another matter.  The major labels are the ones that control distribution channels, and they are under no obligation to allow free unfettered useage without first looking for a return on investment.

So in short, today's artists have to often choose between their artistic independence, and their financial solvency...which, quite frankly is a dilemma that has faced artists for as long as we've had a word for art.

Does P2P filesharing challenge this model.  Yes it does.  Does it mitigate some of the more unjust feature of this model.  Yes it does.  Does P2P filesharing, in so doing, risk elminating the ability for the artist to make a living through their art altogether.  Yes it does.

This debate essentially is one of risk replacement.  And since nobody knows exactly what will happen to cultural, artistic or information products withoutsome means of copyright protection, it's a debate largely based on conjecture.


----------



## Spell (Aug 9, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, isn't that the problem?  People aren't buying the CDs, they're just downloading the songs from someone else who did.




http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=870

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050727-5139.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040329-3585.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/27/p2p_users_legal_downloads/

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/11542

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/29/uk_oz_album_sales_rise/

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf#search='album%20sales%20increase%20despite%20p2p'
(just read the first sentence in the conclusion, if you can't be asked to read it all)


http://p2pnet.net/story/5681
...
oh, sorry, wrong link... 

you want more? for every piece of paper you show me saying that people is not buying because of p2p, i can show you one that says the contrary. i suppose you think they are all corporate servants paid by the... uhm... p2p avengers?


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 9, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> So am I a truly creative person? I need a monetary incentive to be creative. I have other things I need to do with my time If I can't make money being creative.  I need to eat and if being creative doesn't let me do that, I have to do something else.



Would you stop preparing gaming materials if you weren't getting paid for it? Would you no longer prepare adventures, or write house rules, or develop campaign settings, if there wasn't a paycheck waiting at the end of it?

Creative people don't always seek to make a living off their art. One can be an artist without being a full-time professional artist.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Would you stop preparing gaming materials if you weren't getting paid for it? Would you no longer prepare adventures, or write house rules, or develop campaign settings, if there wasn't a paycheck waiting at the end of it?
> 
> Creative people don't always seek to make a living off their art. One can be an artist without being a full-time professional artist.




I certainly wouldn't produce any material that would have value to anyone else. My crib notes and campaing ideas are nothing anyone would pay for although I have a lot of fun with them. People pay me because I do the *work* for them. And it is work, but it's also creative and I wouldn't want to do anything else. I just don't like the general idea that compensation is inversely proportional to artistic value.

joe b.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 9, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I just don't like the general idea that compensation is inversely proportional to artistic value.



Neither do I, nor is that what I said. What I said is that the creative spark exists whether compensation is attached or not.


----------



## stevelabny (Aug 9, 2005)

Lbraries have been around for a very long time, letting people read books for free and decide if they want to buy it. And for many people, a book is something you read once, and not again, as opposed to a movie, or a game or other forms of entertainment. 

Video rental stores provided the same thing for movies, except that now the consumers have to play a smaller price, but the "movie industry" is still only getting one sale per store.

Netflix is now a dvd-rental place for the entire country, where anyone can spend 10-20  dollars per month to try as many movies as they can squeeze into the time frame. 

The radio has always let me sample music for free, the only problem being for the past 20 years, its been sucky awful music only. 

People always share what they like with their friends. My Harry Potter books? Get lent out to 5 or 6 people at least. All my players in my d&d group have a PHB, but I'm the only one with other books.  Any movie, tv show, or video game I purchase/rent?  Being played by multiple people.

So for just about all forms of entertainment, there has always been a way to wait a bit and acquire it for free or a much cheaper price.

Does the internet make it even easier to get cool stuff? Yes. 
Is there a viable argument that internet piracy helps more than it hurts? Yes.

So all those who have been pirated need to either accept it, or find a better business model. 

I've worked for small business owners who used to rant about shoplifting, but they steal cable tv. Some people will say that pirating from big companies is ok, but that you shouldnt do it from little guys. Yay dependent morality.

Almost everyone has  a scam, cheating on their taxes,  stealing cable, making interesting calculations to be eligible for low-income housing or scholarships. Society has become nothing but finding the better scam. Sad? maybe. But such is life. 

Its more productive to deal with the reality than lash out at the perceived "criminals". 
Almost everyone is a criminal in some way.  And the ones who arent criminals? Probably have jobs that only exist because people have turned the laws themselves into scans to beenfit them.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 9, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Neither do I, nor is that what I said. What I said is that the creative spark exists whether compensation is attached or not.






			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative.




I was just stating that *I need* a monetery incentive to be creative. Following your logic that means that I'm not truly creative. I'm not sure what the difference between creative and truly creative is, if it isn't based upon money under this paradigm.

To me the full-time creatives can be creative because they have the money to support their creativity. So I tend to think the really creative people (the ones that are best at their art/craft) are the ones who require/expect compensation for their effort.

joe b.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 10, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I was just stating that *I need* a monetery incentive to be creative. Following your logic that means that I'm not truly creative. I'm not sure what the difference between creative and truly creative is, if it isn't based upon money under this paradigm.
> 
> To me the full-time creatives can be creative because they have the money to support their creativity. So I tend to think the really creative people (the ones that are best at their art/craft) are the ones who require/expect compensation for their effort.



Wow, you are reading way, WAY too much into what I wrote. Back away from the computer for a moment and take a look outside the walls of the tunnel.

First, "Creative, truly creative" was just hyperbole - I'm not attempting to create a typology of creativity here.

Second, you clearly have a different idea of what "creativity" means than I do. To put it into context here, the gamer who puts up a website for a homebrew setting available to anyone who wants to use it is exercising the same sort of creativity as the game writer who publishes pieces in the rags, some .pdfs, and maybe gets a couple of freelance jobs working for one of the bigger companies in this particular cottage industry. The fact that one is compensated and one is not has no bearing on the term creative as I was using it - it speaks to the act of creation itself. As I'm using it here, people create because they enjoy it, whether compensation is attached or not - if I go to the coffee house to play guitar on open-mike night, it's because I enjoy performing, not because of the free lattes.

Third, using the same example, it may be that the homebrew setting is in fact better than what the professional writer is turning out - I've certainly seen stuff on the 'net that is better than stuff on the game store shelf. Compensation is no sure means of determining the quality of a product.

Fourth and last, that said, it certainly follows that someone who commits to being a full-time artist is likely to be better at their craft than someone who does it part-time or as a hobby - there is a level of expertise that follows honing one's craft through dilligence and repetition. This is one of the benefits of creative people making a living at their craft - they tend to get really good at it.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 10, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Wow, you are reading way, WAY too much into what I wrote. Back away from the computer for a moment and take a look outside the walls of the tunnel.




But there's a Troll in that Tunnel. Or is that vice versa? 



> First, "Creative, truly creative" was just hyperbole - I'm not attempting to create a typology of creativity here.




Ok. I missed that.



> Second, you clearly have a different idea of what "creativity" means than I do. To put it into context here, the gamer who puts up a website for a homebrew setting available to anyone who wants to use it is exercising the same sort of creativity as the game writer who publishes pieces in the rags, some .pdfs, and maybe gets a couple of freelance jobs working for one of the bigger companies in this particular cottage industry. The fact that one is compensated and one is not has no bearing on the term creative as I was using it - it speaks to the act of creation itself. As I'm using it here, people create because they enjoy it, whether compensation is attached or not - if I go to the coffee house to play guitar on open-mike night, it's because I enjoy performing, not because of the free lattes.




Ok. To be honest I have a harsher definition of creative than that. That's what lead to my confusion.



> Third, using the same example, it may be that the homebrew setting is in fact better than what the professional writer is turning out - I've certainly seen stuff on the 'net that is better than stuff on the game store shelf. Compensation is no sure means of determining the quality of a product.




Agree. Compensation is not quantifiable measure of quality (quality of course being very subjective), but I do think that compensation is integal to the creation process enough to not be dismissed as unimportant.



> Fourth and last, that said, it certainly follows that someone who commits to being a full-time artist is likely to be better at their craft than someone who does it part-time or as a hobby - there is a level of expertise that follows honing one's craft through dilligence and repetition. This is one of the benefits of creative people making a living at their craft - they tend to get really good at it.




Yeah. For the record I don't think I'm an artist, nor do I think I'm truly creative. I'm just a guy with some ideas and persistance. So you could have just told me that you didn't think I was truly creative and it would have been ok.

joe b.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 10, 2005)

jgbrowning said:
			
		

> Yeah. For the record I don't think I'm an artist, nor do I think I'm truly creative. I'm just a guy with some ideas and persistance. So you could have just told me that you didn't think I was truly creative and it would have been ok.



Not a chance - I think too highly of your truly creative* products!

*Whether you choose to call them that or not!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2005)

In order to keep this thread open I've deleted three posts which were focussing on political issues outside copyright law and related stuff (e.g. my government did this/that government did that).

I hope that everyone is on the same page here. Talking about copyright law on forums with people from dozens of countries will naturally raise examples of how different countries handle issues, and that is to be expected, that is fine.

Drawing analogies from other aspects of international laws and the people who form them is less likely to be fine. If you think that a particular post might be sailing a little too close to the wind please thing of a way to rephrase your point.

Thanks


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 10, 2005)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> If you think that a particular post might be sailing a little too close to the wind please thing of a way to rephrase your point.




Or the mods will have to clap you in irons?


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 10, 2005)

*A Proposal*

jgbrowning, I have purchased one of your products (at least I think it's yours), and I really liked it: A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe.  It's a damn good book.

philreed, I have never purchased any of your products, but the word on these boards is that you do good work.

Would either of you (or any other recognized, accomplished publisher that posts on EN World) be willing to publish a "free for the taking" product if you could collect a fee for it up front?

If yes, how much would you want for say a good, longish adventure set in a generic fantasy world for DnD 3.5 using open content only?

I would love to see one (or more) of you try it.  Make a post on EN World requesting total donations of $XX.XX (whatever it takes to get you to do it), and see if we can get a "free" work out of you.

Better yet, how about one of your already completed works?  How much would you need to collect to make one of your completed, already published works freely available?

Would anyone be willing to try this?  The worst that can happen is you don't get enough "donations/patronage" and so you don't release the work.  The best thing that can happen is you realize that you *can *publish works this way . . . you can make a living and not worry about copyright or sales or anything of the sort.  You collect your money up front, publish your work, and start working on the next one.  You could even include PayPal payment instructions *in* the work for people to pay you *after* the work is published if they felt so inclined.

I personally spend several hundred dollars per year on books.  There are others that spend thousands.  We could all spend significantly less, and get more books this way, AND the artists/authors could continue to collect a decent living.  You might find you could make a *better* living if you don't have to share your income with publishers, distributors, etc.

Example: how much does Paizo pay for the adventures in their magazine?  I'm sure it's not more than a few hundred dollars.  Do you not think that you could collect many more hundreds of dollars (maybe a thousand dollars or more?) for a single, good work that takes a week (or less) to write?  I bet we could find a thousand people willing to pay $1.00 each to get the adventure published in a "free for the taking" format.

Eh, maybe I'm wrong, but if I was a writer I would sure as hell give it a shot.


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> jgbrowning, I have purchased one of your products (at least I think it's yours), and I really liked it: A Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe.  It's a damn good book.
> 
> philreed, I have never purchased any of your products, but the word on these boards is that you do good work.
> 
> Would either of you (or any other recognized, accomplished publisher that posts on EN World) be willing to publish a "free for the taking" product if you could collect a fee for it up front?




I have notes for a project I want to attempt using the ransom model. I just need to finalize the concept and figure out how to announce it. But that's basically what you're describing -- get paid in advance to create and release a free PDF.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> It's certainly a colorful metaphor. I'm not sure how apt it is.




It was the first metaphor that sprung to mind, and it seems *surprisingly* apt. If it's the art we want, why at the moment is 80%-ish of the money we plunk down on a copy of the art going to the copers, and only a small fraction going to the artists? The money isn't (largely) going to the artists, it isn't going to the individuals whose services we want. It's going to the individuals who organize and secure those services. This seems entirely backwards. I shouldn't be supporting an *industry* when I buy a CD -- I should be supporting the creator.



> Does P2P filesharing challenge this model. Yes it does. Does it mitigate some of the more unjust feature of this model. Yes it does. Does P2P filesharing, in so doing, risk elminating the ability for the artist to make a living through their art altogether. Yes it does.




IMHO, these are all good things. Ug not standing to make a million Dino-Dollars from the buffallo he painted on the wall didn't stop him from doing it. There, ideally, should be a monetary incentive to produce art. But that incentive should come from the community, from the public, from the people who will recieve and interpret the art. Not from guys in suits who copy it. And I don't think that the incentive should be enough to be able to "live off of art." It should absolutely be something you want to do for it's own sake, not because you will survive off of it. Kinda like the RPG market right now...which is that way specifically because one major company gave up a large percentage of its product for free reproduction. 



			
				jgbrowning said:
			
		

> I've never heard Drowing Pool. Why? Because I listen to radio on the internet to hear what I want to hear. Or I guess I could listen to one of the what, 500 channels on satilite radio. Sorry, Copyright isn't limiting creativity. It's making creativity econically viable in ways it had never been before because of the development of new media outlets (the internet).




Free music doesn't sound like it's copyright to me. It sounds specifically as if it is an exception to the copyright rules: you can take this product and distribute it for free over the airwaves. You don't have to pay to release it. Or if you do pay, you pay not by charging the listener, but by charging advertisors (which is also a huge part of this New Economy anyway).

Internet and satelite allow for musical options, but they are still forced into pigeonholes based on what the suits dictate as genres, because genres are easier to market than bands. You have the "classical" station, the "top 40" station, the "blues" station, the "oldies" station, the "rock" station, the "country" station, the "electronic" station, etc. These are all artificial categories; these categories do stymie creativity. Because if what I release as new music is not easily fit into one of these categories, it is rejected, and the reason is because of the suits. Because the way for their business of copying things to make money is to copy something that people will want a lot of copies of, and if it doesn't fit into a genre, if it breaks new ground, if it doesn't fit into an old pattern, the numbers say it is a gamble at best, and you don't run a business on gambles.

But the most significant and profound art is *always* a gamble. That doesn't mesh well at all with a business model.



> Because of Copyright I have legal recourse to protect myself and secure my welfare. Without copyright I would have no legal recourse.




I've never myself made the claim that copyright is worthless evil grumble grumble, though I have pointed out why others think so (namely, that saying only certain people have the right to copy something is like saying only certain people have the right to have children). In fact, I said that I think the idea of copyright is probably a good way to encourage artists (I think that limited, temporary, creator-owned, and nonstransferrable copyright is a pretty solid way to do this). That doesn't mean that it's the only way. And it obviously isn't the right way anymore, with all that it has done to hurt those it was meant to protect. Perhaps the modern way of doing it is a perversion of the intentions of the old system, but it's important to address the issues as they exist today, rather than defend what exists today because it once had a good reason somewhere in the deep past.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> You don't get it, do you? The vast majority of consumers think that the evil big industry is making good stuff, because they keep buying it. You're in a minority, the exception, not the rule.




The original context of this was that someone claimed that we depend on the big, nasty entertainment industry to provide us with our stuff, and so it is hypocritical to be so down on them for being big and nasty.  I claim that 1: they don't have to be so nasty, and 2: that I don't depend on them for my stuff, because I get it from somewhere else.  Therefore, it doesn't matter what the vast majority is doing because they could be getting better stuff than they are from someone who's in it for the quality and not only for the profit margin.

And, oh god...I can't believe you used the words "you don't get it, do you?".  I'm going to be laughing about that for days.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2005)

> I bet we could find a thousand people willing to pay $1.00 each to get the adventure published in a "free for the taking" format.




Well, for what the word of a "not yet ready for prime-time" game designer is, you can bet that when I decide to start charging people for my work, I will be making an effort to use these new methods.

One can't realy make a living writing for RPG's as it is, so why not gamble for a good cause?


----------



## Bobitron (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Yep. A free PDF I put up about a week ago has had about 150 downloads. A for sale PDF put up around the same time has sold 10 copies.
> 
> I really think a lot of the people downloading the free stuff don't even read it -- they collect PDFs.




Hell, Phil, I've _bought_ stuff of yours that I haven't read.


----------



## eyebeams (Aug 10, 2005)

The games industry is not the music industry, folks. The .pdf end of the hobby is even less so.

Lets say that a successful CD gets X sales. To get a rough (but by no means accurate) idea of how many sales a successful book gets, dvide that by 10. To get an idea of how much a similarly successful RPG book gets, dvide *that* by 10. To get an idea of how much a successful .pdf book gets, divide *that* by 10.

This is just a mental exercise. The exact numbers aren't important.

Now, imagine the relative impact of losing the sale of 1 CD to piracy versus 1 RPG book.

That's why it's different. Losing the sale of an e-book isn't a drop in the bucket. For what might be Copper ranked products at RPGNow, it might be as much as losing 1-2% of the potential income of the product. That's per copy.

The scale is so different that analogies from other media are pretty dumb.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I wonder, in your hypothetical scenario what would happen if the big boys dissapeared.  The most agressive (ruthless) small businesses would start eating up the more 'honourable' small businesses, and the cycle would repeat anew.  On the plus side, success brings resources, and while resources cannot guarantee quality on a case by case basis, it does tend to provide progress, however glacially.
> 
> One person's "slezy, unethical, moneygrubbing" behaviour is another person's "competitive" behaviour.   High stakes and intense competition does not have a common byproduct of improving ethical standards.  It sucks, but, it's life...and I've yet to hear a better market model than the competitive one.




One word: antitrust


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> What I love about these threads is how they bring the moral relativists and nihilists out of the woodwork.




You forgot the absolutists.

"There is no grey area!"
"Practical solutions miss the point!"
"You just don't get it, do you?"
"If you disagree with me, you're not just wrong, you're violating universal principles of righteousness!"


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Oh please.
> 
> Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative.




So, then, you agree that piracy has no effect on production of creative works?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> maybe you're right. still, i am neither rich nor powerful, and i like milo's venus a lot!




Yeah, back in the salad days of patronage, the rich and powerful tended to know a hell of a lot more about art than the common folk did.  Why?  Because they could afford to educate themselves on the finer things in life, and had the time to do it in.  I have a hunch that the common people from the renaissance would probably have been interested in the renaissance version of Britney Spears if such a thing were available.  Fortunately, at that time, conspicuous consumption amounted to building a beautiful church, filling it with magnificent art, and hiring a composer to flood the church with heavenly music.  And Western society has reaped the benefits of some rich and powerful guy's taste in art for hundreds of years afterward.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 10, 2005)

> 1. the majority of the market demands high quality graphic, and would demand it even if not having it would produce a consistent drop in the final price.




That's exactly correct. People are willing to pay extra for companies that give extra. Your economically irrevant attitude would destroy any possibility of graphically decent games. Nobody would ever risk spending the amount of money it takes to make a computer game without the assurance that it would make it back. Today's market, while not always guaranteeing it, does allow that to happen. Yours doesn't.



> oh! you mean i could not enjoy great films like star wars 3, alone in the dark, and similar stuff? man, that would kill me!




How about Titanic, Lord of the Rings or Blade? Come back when you have an argument.



> the general quality of products would probably drop down. so what? it would also cost a fraction of what it costs today.




Money, money, money, money. Is that all you care about? How much it costs you? You're not willing to spend five extra bucks at the theatre?



> so no flashy (and useless, at least as far as i'm concerned) special effect




So basically, not only do you hate corporations, but you hate people who go to movies, and what to remove many elements that we find enjoyable. A lot of us like movies that have special affects more complicated than a flag that says 'bang' sticking out of the fun.



> i might have an idealist view of the world, granted, and a very personal one (oh, what a surprise! we all had 100% personal views of things, last time i checked) but you are saying that, without copyright law, there would be nothing, nada, zero, niente.




Because there would be no incentive to make them. Learn your economics. People don't spend money on a project if they're not likely to get it back.



> funny, i prefer my fairy land. you know, when years ago, i stopped acting as if everybody was trying to stabbing in my back, i realised that nobody was. also, when i started to be nice to people and give them credit, they turned out to be pretty decent and nice guys, in the vast majority.




Individuals are smart, charitable and kind. People are stupid, greedy and shortsighted.



> maybe i'm in fairy land, but i suspect that if all the big corporations (be it food, films, music, you name it) would start to act responsibly and treat their customer as if they were living beings with a brain, as opposed to spoon-fed midgets, who can only find their ass because somebody else has nicely pointed it to them, maybe they would find the profit would go up.




History has shown that ruthless corporations are the ones that succeed. What you advocate goes contrary to sound, economic sense.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So, then, you agree that piracy has no effect on creativity?



On creating something? No. On feeding one's family by selling the creation? Yes.


----------



## Bobitron (Aug 10, 2005)

*shrugs* I'm a consumer, no doubt about it. I'll spend money on things I whole-heartedly intend on using for a game and never use. I will absolutely download something for free (legally) that I might never use. 

I have to agree with statements that 130 illegal downloads do not equal 130 lost sales, however, for the very reason I stated above. I think 10-20 sales is a reasonable estimate. 

As for DRM vs. watermarking, I never purchased a single DRM protected pdf. I have purchased a total of about $200 worth of watermarked or unprotected stuff, ranging from small, $1 pdf-only products up to $20+ books that I also own in print.


----------



## smcrey (Aug 10, 2005)

i have never bought any Drm pdf products nor will i ever. too much hasle trying to work with acrobat to read it. I have a wife and two kids and a gaming addiction. i will evaluate a product before purchasing it. if i like it then i will shell out the money. if they want to acquire over 5-10 dollars for a pdf from me then they are barking up the wrong tree. Over twenty dollars is absolutely crazy. why spend that much for a pdf when you can acquire a hardcopy for that amount.
my 2 cents
scott mcreynolds


----------



## Voadam (Aug 10, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> How about Titanic,




Are you serious?

I would send someone back in time with a mission to make sure that abomination was never made so that I would not have wasted my time on it. I didn't even pay to see it, I saw it on TV and I regret doing so.


----------



## Bobitron (Aug 10, 2005)

smcrey said:
			
		

> Over twenty dollars is absolutely crazy. Why spend that much for a pdf when you can acquire a hardcopy for that amount?
> 
> scott mcreynolds




I can tell you why I do it; cut and paste. An original electronic format document is almost always worth the $ in a play-by-post game.


----------



## jgbrowning (Aug 10, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> jgbrowning said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We'll I'm a bit confused. Describing music is now styming creativity? That's all genres do, you know, give a bite-sized summation of the general type of music. Labeling something isn't limiting something, it's a general description of something.

Ok, now I *have* to address your strange belief in the "suits." They're business men and they're making business decisions. You may not like the fact that music/art/creativity is a *business* but that's the way it is. These "suits" are not dictating creativity they are determining what *their personal business* does based upon what's creativly available at the moment. If you want to play classical-fusion-punk-christian music, go right ahead, but don't, ever, under any circumstances assume that just because you like CFPC music that if you can't hear it on the radio or if you can't seem to get a record deal that means your creativity is being stifled. It means that you're being out-competed musically and aren't worth the time to put on the air.

What it basically means is that a businessman doesn't think his *business* is going to be as profitable with your music as it would be with someone else's music. You should then go the route of Apple records or of Ani DiFranco's company or start up your own company and take the *fiscal risks yourself* to put out the significant and profound music instead of saying some "suit" is styming your creativity.

If you want somthing different enough, try any of the hundreds of college radio stations that don't have to compete in the market to exist and, hence, can play things that have no fiscally redeaming value.



> Because if what I release as new music is not easily fit into one of these categories, it is rejected, and the reason is because of the suits. Because the way for their business of copying things to make money is to copy something that people will want a lot of copies of, and if it doesn't fit into a genre, if it breaks new ground, if it doesn't fit into an old pattern, the numbers say it is a gamble at best, and you don't run a business on gambles.
> 
> But the most significant and profound art is *always* a gamble. That doesn't mesh well at all with a business model.




I have to differ here as well. The most significant and profound art is probably the art that I think's crap—to be blunt. The stuff that's making the most money is the most significant and probably the most profound to the most number of people. I don't like it, but hey, my opinions in the matter don't matter.

joe b.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Aug 10, 2005)

Wow, this is a *BIG* can o' worms... look at 'em squirm!

The reason that people identify copyright violation over the internet as theft is because the recipient has received something that belongs to somebody else without paying for it, while simplistic it is a close definition of theft.

When people do work, creative or otherwise, they desire to be paid for their time. They see the items they have made being given away by people and are understandably annoyed with the people who are giving away what really does not belong to them. I would be as well. Payment is an incentive to work. And if the work they produce is worth having then they deserve to be paid.

Whether or not every person who downoads the work would have purchased it is beside the point - they did _not_ purchase it.

Nor is complaining that the PDF is too expensive work as an excuse - I would not pay $28
for the Army of Darkness game either- So I won't get it.  Not pirate it, just go 'oh well, too rich for my blood', and take a look at something else instead, something that I can afford.

The Auld Grump, who does not have so much as an illegal MP3 on his computer.


----------



## Wayside (Aug 10, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> Internet and satelite allow for musical options, but they are still forced into pigeonholes based on what the suits dictate as genres, because genres are easier to market than bands. You have the "classical" station, the "top 40" station, the "blues" station, the "oldies" station, the "rock" station, the "country" station, the "electronic" station, etc. These are all artificial categories; these categories do stymie creativity.



I like most of what you say, but this simply isn't true. Suits don't dictate creativity-stymieing genres--artists do. To be more specific, second- and third-rate artists do. These are (in the pop-music industry) usually people with passable musicianship who lack any sort of composition skills: they imitate the music they like but lack the sort of artistic talent necessary to get beyond it; and the same is generally true of their public. Most people don't listen to what (we can probably both agree to call) total trash _just_ because it's what's marketed to them; it's also marketed to them because it's what they listen to, and because you can bank on their willingness to _keep_ listening to it. Artistically bankrupt artists and consumers keep the suits in business, not (at least not entirely; there's obviously some feedback here) the other way around.



			
				Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> But the most significant and profound art is *always* a gamble. That doesn't mesh well at all with a business model.



This I can agree with. But I maintain that the problem is with most creators and consumers, not financiers. The dearth of discerning artists and audiences is the cause of paint-by-numbers music and writing and so on. The suits, as you keep calling them, are only exploiting this general lack of artistic intelligence as a business strategy.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> No I haven't. I may or may not have infringed on your right. I've stolen nothing.
> 
> Why the "pro-copyright" side needs to resort to mispresentation like this is beyond me. But thats what the recording industry is using in the propaganda. It makes me cringe that they've directly brought the infomercials based on US law to finnish movie theaters. "Copying a movie is stealing"; it isn't anywhere. "Copying a movie is a crime"; when it isn't in Finland.




Of course, I said you have taken something from me. And you have, you have taken away my legally guaranteed exclusive right to make copies of my work. I didn't say you stole it.

Why the pro-lawbreaking side of the argument needs to resort to miquotation like this is beyond me.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> From my vantage point, there are four major changes that can be made to make the system workable.  They are not mutually exclusive, and not necessarily all required.




The problem is that your proposals would likely worsen the problems you seem concerned with, not help them.



> _1 - Shorten copyright duration.  Drastically.  Like, to 14 years (possibly less)._





This helps the "big guy" a lot, and hurts the "little guy". The "big guy" can afford to churn out cheap, disposable stuff. Britney Spears is a classic example of this. Her music won't be worth anything fifteen years from now. The only people you hurt with this rule are those who create enduring, valuable material. Shouldn't the law encourage that sort of thing?



> _2 - Restrict ownership of copyright to "natural persons."  In the case of multiple people creating a work (e.g., Lennon/McCartney), each and every collaborator is entitled to exercise all rights without permission of the others._





Except you have now made copyright a lot less valuable for the actual authors of a work. One of the big money making avenues of individual authors is the ability to sell their work to a corporation that can market the work. restricting the ability to sell works of authorship makes them inherently less valuable to the creator.



> _3 - Require registration of copyright (like used to be required by registering a copy with the Library of Congress).  This at least makes it easy to track down a copyright holder (the "orphan works" problem)._





This just helps the "big guy". Who do you think will win the race to the courthouse? Its usually the guy with more resources.



> _4 - Create a "compulsory licensing" scheme for all copyrightable formats and expand it to include "perfect/direct copies."  When you download/create a copy of something, you can "register" that copy with a central clearinghouse for a nominal fee (fee schedule obviously to be determined, but for ease of use, let's say $.50 for non-computer works like books, $.20 for computer-held works under 1 GB in length and $1 for computer-held works over 1 GB in length such as DVDs).  This could work in combination with #3 above so that I can download a copy of, say, "LotR: RotK" off the internet, then pay the Library of Congress a $1 fee which is then passed along to New Line Studios).  If I am then "busted" for copyright infringement of LotR:RotK, I can simply call up the Library of Congress and get my receipt, which immediately clears me of infringement charges with respet to LotR:RotK - I paid my compulsory license fee.  This also creates kind of an "amnesty" program, if you will, for all those people who still have stuff they downloaded from Napster back in 2000, or whatever... pay your compulsory license fee, and you're good!  You don't have to worry about being sued.  The studio gets money.  Everyone wins._





Unfortunately unworkable. The compulsory license system for music only works because it applies to very public activity relating to the work, and hence, is self-policing. Private use of a similar system would be impossible to regulate with any kind of success.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i can't believe that anybody in his right mind would need britney spears's music.




Do you really think that if music were reduced to a partronage system the music you like would be supported? I doubt it. Besides, why does it bother you this much that people buy music you personally dislike?


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I'm surprised you haven't heard that one before. Copyright *does* reduce creativity. Turn on the radio, bub. How many Drowning Pool songs sound that different to you?




I hate to break it to you, but you are dead wrong. There is a wider variety of music available right now than ever before. The production of new music has been much more prolific in the last half of the twentieth century than ever before. Copyright increases the volume of material produced - both good and bad.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> One word: antitrust




That just serves to ensure competition. How is that a better market model than a competitive one?


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> It was the first metaphor that sprung to mind, and it seems *surprisingly* apt. If it's the art we want, why at the moment is 80%-ish of the money we plunk down on a copy of the art going to the copers, and only a small fraction going to the artists? The money isn't (largely) going to the artists, it isn't going to the individuals whose services we want. It's going to the individuals who organize and secure those services. This seems entirely backwards. I shouldn't be supporting an *industry* when I buy a CD -- I should be supporting the creator.




There is a surprisingly simple answer to this: because without the suits, the artist would make far less money than they would with them. The suits provide value, whether you believe it or not. In the modern world, producing things is generally much easier than distributing them.



> _IMHO, these are all good things. Ug not standing to make a million Dino-Dollars from the buffallo he painted on the wall didn't stop him from doing it. There, ideally, should be a monetary incentive to produce art. But that incentive should come from the community, from the public, from the people who will recieve and interpret the art. Not from guys in suits who copy it._





The incentive ultimately does come from the public. The "guys in suits" want to make money. They can only do that by selling stuff the public wants to buy. If the public wanted yodeling CDs, you better believe that we'd get plenty of them.



> _And I don't think that the incentive should be enough to be able to "live off of art." It should absolutely be something you want to do for it's own sake, not because you will survive off of it. Kinda like the RPG market right now...which is that way specifically because one major company gave up a large percentage of its product for free reproduction. _





Then I suppose you had better be ready for a lot less copyrighted materials to be available for you to enjoy. Because you have just driven a lot of creative people out of the market by making it not worth their time to put their material out.



> _Free music doesn't sound like it's copyright to me. It sounds specifically as if it is an exception to the copyright rules: you can take this product and distribute it for free over the airwaves. You don't have to pay to release it. Or if you do pay, you pay not by charging the listener, but by charging advertisors (which is also a huge part of this New Economy anyway)._





Legally you can't distribute it for free. This is one of the areas where compulsory licenses come into play.



> _Internet and satelite allow for musical options, but they are still forced into pigeonholes based on what the suits dictate as genres, because genres are easier to market than bands. You have the "classical" station, the "top 40" station, the "blues" station, the "oldies" station, the "rock" station, the "country" station, the "electronic" station, etc. These are all artificial categories; these categories do stymie creativity._





Actually, they are categories that the market has come up with, based upon the revealed preferences of consumers. They like things bundled, because it means they will listen to what they like.



> _Because if what I release as new music is not easily fit into one of these categories, it is rejected, and the reason is because of the suits. Because the way for their business of copying things to make money is to copy something that people will want a lot of copies of, and if it doesn't fit into a genre, if it breaks new ground, if it doesn't fit into an old pattern, the numbers say it is a gamble at best, and you don't run a business on gambles._





Tell that to Jobs and Gates. Their entire business model was a gamble, and it made them incredibly wealthy. Most wealth is generated by risk-takers who take a big gamble on a product.



> _I've never myself made the claim that copyright is worthless evil grumble grumble, though I have pointed out why others think so (namely, that saying only certain people have the right to copy something is like saying only certain people have the right to have children)._





So, not letting you have the product of my work is like not letting you have children? That's silly. A more apt analogy would be that not letting you make copies of my work is like not letting you raise my children. Make your own work, or have your own children.



> _In fact, I said that I think the idea of copyright is probably a good way to encourage artists (I think that limited, temporary, creator-owned, and nonstransferrable copyright is a pretty solid way to do this)._





Nontransferrable pretty much makes copyright worthless from the get-go.



> _That doesn't mean that it's the only way. And it obviously isn't the right way anymore, with all that it has done to hurt those it was meant to protect. Perhaps the modern way of doing it is a perversion of the intentions of the old system, but it's important to address the issues as they exist today, rather than defend what exists today because it once had a good reason somewhere in the deep past._





I don't think it is obvious at all, and I don't think it hurts those it was meant to protect. It was meant to protect those who make works of authorship, and it does that still. And it remains the only economically viable way to make this work without putting the control of creating new works in the hands of wealthy patrons gratifying their own whims.


----------



## Shoon (Aug 10, 2005)

"If more than one person can be viewing it per purchased license, it's copyright infringement."

God forbid that you borrow one of your books to a friend, then.


----------



## Jacen (Aug 10, 2005)

First. I didn't all those 6 new pages before answering, so don't know it this has already been discussed.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> If by victims you mean groups like the MPAA & RIAA or corporations like Disney I certainly see them as worse than not-for-profit unauthorised downloaders, yup.  I do think there should be copyright law (and I would advocate paying for Eden's product rather than downloading a free copy, or preferably doing neither since their download price is ridiculously high) , but what we have currently is far worse than no law at all.  I'm not sure how anyone can say that executing copyright infringers, as apparently required by the US in WTO negotiations, is better than doing nothing.  I'd advocate a return to original Statute of Anne principles - copyright needs to be registered & lasts 14 years from publication.




If I make an extraordinaly good invention realted to my work which I am paid for I might get some bonus. But tell me why book that someone wrote and then died 50 years ago should benefit his grandchilds? 

Second to that copyright should last limited and reasonable time (10-20 years) only and not 70 years after the death of creator. Or is it already 90 because of Disney?


----------



## wingsandsword (Aug 10, 2005)

Jacen said:
			
		

> Second to that copyright should last limited and reasonable time (10-20 years) only and not 70 years after the death of creator. Or is it already 90 because of Disney?



Copyright originally lasted 28 years (a bit of inherited English law from the Statute of Anne, the 1709 act of Parliament that created the legal concept of Copyright).  That's it 28 years.  It was extended by the Berne Convention of 1886, the first international copyright treaty, to the life of the Author plus 50 years (although the US didn't become a part of the treaty until 1989, it had it's own separate rules).  The Mickey Mouse Protection Act Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act increased it to Life of the Author plus 70 years, and 95 years for "works for hire" (i.e. corporate creations).  Of course, it was passed after Mr. Bono's death and his widow and successor was famously quoted as saying they wanted perpetual copyright, but their aides said that it was explicitly unconstitutional as the Constitution explicitly states that copyrights shall be of limited duration, so they are trying for "forever less one day".


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You forgot the absolutists.
> 
> "There is no grey area!"
> "Practical solutions miss the point!"
> ...



Only a Sith deals in absolutes! 

--The Sigil


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You forgot the absolutists.
> [...]
> "You just don't get it, do you?"
> "If you disagree with me, you're not just wrong, you're violating universal principles of
> righteousness!"





i think i'm gonna have a t-shirt with these two last quotes, if i graciously get the permission from the copyright holders...


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I have a hunch that the common people from the renaissance would probably have been interested in the renaissance version of Britney Spears if such a thing were available.




i have a hunch that what the public buys is not just the actual product... 
for example, i would buy a new edition of the OD&D rules, despite the fact that i do agree that, generally, the system was way less efficient than the d20 one. but i wouldn't buy just a system. i would buy a dive in my past, a rule light system that i can change in a second or so without much problem, the ability to immediately use ALL the past products i have with no conversion work whatsoever...
if it hasn't be deleted, i talked about britney and her buying public in one of my previous posts...

i'm saying this because, in my view, saying that the common people's taste is crap, is like saying that they have no taste at all... which is obviously not true. after all, in the 2000-2003, when britney and her clone were the rage of the music industry, said industry had a serious drop of sales... but, naturally, that was because of the big bad pirate cartel...


----------



## Jacen (Aug 10, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> First let me said I an old gamer who is passed the age where stealing gum from the local stop and rob gives me a thrill.




I have never stolen anything from a shop. Never vandalized a car, never taken car to my use without permission. It is interesting there are no more car theft in Finland. Translated it is something like unauthorized usage of car. So calling one car thief is somekind offence. (As I see this started when some kids of rich and influencial ppl started to steal... eh borrow cars for their fun rides and burned them afterwards - and got caught) Anyway...



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> ….That said, it's wrong. Copyright infringement is as wrong as theft, but they are not the same thing. Thanks….




Well here in Finalnd we pay levy (some kind of tax if I understood the word correctly) from empty recordable CD, DVD, cassette, blanck copymachine paper and copymachines etc. Even hard disk based VCR has it. And this to compensate the losses made to artists and industry by making private copies. Copies of disk I own and I am not going to buy second one. Copies made from CDs borrowed from library. Copies made to close friends. Burning photots taken by me to CD or DVD. Making DVD back-up from hard disk drive. copying CD for car use etc. I think you get the picture. Because of this it is not ilegal to copy and D/L material for personal use. Because it is even paid I don't see that even as wrong to do. 



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Gee some of people here know thieves who watch movies downloaded illegally from net.




Almost told that I am one of those, but I am not. I just watch movie downloded legaly from net. I do download then and watch them and I am doing nothin ilegal or even immoral because I am paying that with every empty recording media and quite a few hardware bought. And not to forgot that over 300 bought DVD. Legaly bought from stores here at Finland or trusted web shops (amazon and alike). All should be original and legaly produced. NO illegal copies bought.



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> And if thieves like what they see after watching the movie fully, then the thieves may go buy it. Kind like sneaking into a theatre thru the exit door at the multiplex.




Bought tens of movie after seeing that from computer. Never sneaked to theatre. Always paid for that. Well to be honest lately I haven't been seing that many moveis at theatre. Just don't want to pay about 12 dollars for seing a movie I know almost nothing about and being to forced to watch 15-20 mins of comercials even before movie starts. That sucks BIG time. Well be there no new movies wouldn't be so big loss. Watching movies and playing RPSs is something like to do but can do witout them too. And easily too...

So acording to many people here I am a thief and criminal when acordin to local laws I am not. Guess who I am going to trust and listen.


----------



## The Sigil (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The problem is that your proposals would likely worsen the problems you seem concerned with, not help them.
> 
> 1 - Shortening copyright
> 
> This helps the "big guy" a lot, and hurts the "little guy". The "big guy" can afford to churn out cheap, disposable stuff. Britney Spears is a classic example of this. Her music won't be worth anything fifteen years from now. The only people you hurt with this rule are those who create enduring, valuable material. Shouldn't the law encourage that sort of thing?



Ah, but the point of copyright is not to enrich the creator, but to enrich the public.  As it is set up now, the creator gets 99.99% of the benefit.  I don't think that's equitable.

I may agree with you that Britney Spears' stuff will be worthless in 15 years.  If so, why are we giving record labels the ability to sit on it for another 80 years after that?

I saw a post on slashdot - wish I could re-dig it up - that demonstrated that if you assume the commercial value of owning something is proportional to the length of time which you own it (or some such thing - it was an exponential function) that copyright length breaks down the "value" something like the following (I'm going from memory, maybe someone else can google-fu the original?):

10 year term gives about 50% of the Value to the creator and 50% to the public.
20 year term gives about 80% to the creator and 20% to the public
30 year term gives about 95% of the value to the creator and 5% to the public
40 year term gives 99% of the value to the creator and 1% to the publc
anything above 50 years gives a number indistinguishable from zero value to the public.

I don't presume to know whether the sweet spot is 50/50 or 80/20, or 95/5, but given that copyright is intended to enrich the public, I know for certain that giving the public something of near-zero value is not following that intent; thus copyright in its current form is too long.

I'm not saying I have all the answers.  I am saying the pendulum is currently way way way way WAAAAAAAYYY to far in favor of copyright holders, and continuing to swing even farther in their favor, and that's not socially equitable.



> 2 - Restrict ownership to natural persons.
> 
> Except you have now made copyright a lot less valuable for the actual authors of a work. One of the big money making avenues of individual authors is the ability to sell their work to a corporation that can market the work. restricting the ability to sell works of authorship makes them inherently less valuable to the creator.



Not at all. You retain the ability to license a single company to reproduce the work (as with patents; IIRC, patents cannot be held by corporations, but rather only by natural persons, who are allowed to designate/assign one company as the one that can use the parent - see Richard Garfield holding the "Magic: The Gathering" cardplay patent and assigning its use to WotC).  It works just fine for patents.  Why not for copyright?

(Besides, keeping copyright out of the hands of corporate interests has the desirable side effect, IMO, of keeping an artist from "losing control of his work" - to use the example at hand, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson have for all intents and purposes lost control of their creative work in D&D - in both cases against their will.  Is that "fair" to them?)



> 3 - Central Copyright Registry
> 
> This just helps the "big guy". Who do you think will win the race to the courthouse? Its usually the guy with more resources.



I have a hard time buying this one.  All I have to do, in theory, when I write my magnum opus, is slap it in an email and shoot it to the US Gov't.  It's nearly impossible for a corporation to get their hands on it fast enough to stop that.  Unless and until "big corporations" are spying on every writer, musician, and artist everywhere they go, the copyright creator has the natural advantage of speed and secrecy on his side.

I think this was a concern before; with the advent of the internet, not so much - the time it takes to transmit my stuff to Company A and then for Company A to change the copyright notice and transmit it to the Gov't is less time than it takes to transmit my stuff to the Gov't (since I would assume that from the same point, it will take the same amount of time to transmit to either destination).

Of course, I've also got Tom Lehrer's "Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky" in my head now thanks to you, so maybe not.  But I would suggest that if I show you my six months' worth of drafts, and "big guy" can only show the finished product that "miraculously" arrived at the courthouse five minutes before mine did, it's pretty clear who did the work.



> 4 - Compulsory licensing for all types of copyrighted material
> 
> Unfortunately unworkable. The compulsory license system for music only works because it applies to very public activity relating to the work, and hence, is self-policing. Private use of a similar system would be impossible to regulate with any kind of success.



I'm not so sure about that one.  Since everyone seems to be headed down the "DRM built into your hardware" path, why can't we just build "compulsory licensing" in on top of this?  Is not one essentially as easy to execute (in theory) as the other?

Alternatively, as I mentioned before, you simply use a "blank media levy."  Not as fair as compulsory licensing, because the pie probably isn't sliced in the same proportions it's used, but essentially the same.

As to voluntary complaince... I think if the price is right (low), people will be willing to pay for legal stuff.  Look at iTunes, for instance.  Or Yahoo recently introduced a $5/month "all you can eat" music service (streaming, not downloading).  I for one am looking hard at that as an easy way to make sure my kids can listen to just about whatever tickles their fancy without exposing myself to legal liability (I know, the selection is limited, etc., etc., but hopefully you see where I'm going with this).  I have all the CDs I'll ever want and the money to get anything new that tickles my fancy - but they, I'm sure, will have much different tastes than me... and more voracious appetites than I do.  

I see it as a $5/month insurance policy against being sued for people I'm responsible for grabbing copyrighted music on a machine I'm responsible for (if my kids want music, they can just get it legally off this service rather than illegally somewhere else).  To me - and a lot of other people, I'm sure - that's a pretty good tradeoff.

--The Sigil


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> That's exactly correct. People are willing to pay extra for companies that give extra.



since you of course are so insightful, i will admit i need a lecture. could you please point me to one example in which the same game was given in a graphic heavy option for a price and in a crappy graphic version for a reduced amount?




			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Nobody would ever risk spending the amount of money it takes to make a computer game



can you point me to the exact point in which i made any statement even vaguely resembling what you are putting in my mounth?

more importantly, would my... what was it?... oh, yeah, "irrelevant" economic system mean that *nobody* would spend *ANY *money or *ANY* time on *any *computer game that could be enjoyed on a different level, despite the crappy graphic or the lousy routine?
the answer is no. check this out: http://normandcompany.com/STICKMAN/
it's free. the graphic hurts my eyes. i turn down the music. but, heck, they're fun. and free. made in the author's spare time, i suppose.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Today's market, while not always guaranteeing it, does allow that to happen. Yours doesn't.



and where did i advocated that? in fact, i did say that in my "irrelevant" (sorry for using your words again, but you really enlightened me) market, you would have more amateurish products.

YOUR point was that there would be NO product whatsoever. i was simply challenging that, regardless the value of said products.

to quote you again: "you don't get it, do you?" 




			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> How about Titanic, Lord of the Rings or Blade? Come back when you have an argument.




the first one blew so hard that for a moment i thought there was a tornado in the cinema. i could live very well without the second (despite being very very close to the book, i still like books better than their cinematic versions), and the third.
just my two pences. oh, an my argument, which you are ignoring to bring your crusade on, is that we would have some kind of film output if the budget would be 1000$. in fact, we are already have that kind of films. you say they suck? 99% of them probably do, but i do enjoy the odd one.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Money, money, money, money. Is that all you care about? How much it costs you? You're not willing to spend five extra bucks at the theatre?




are you pulling my legs? so, let me get this straight: you ignore what i'm saying to push in my eyes the fact that if you don't spend millions you have no games, or films, or music that could be enjoyable for ANYBODY on earth, and i should reply talking about the weather?



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> So basically, not only do you hate corporations



i never said i hate corporations. what i did imply with some of my previous posts (even if, to be honest, i didn't say that explicitly, too) is that i hate draconian laws passed by any government because of the brib... no, wait... bullyin... no, what's the word? oh, yeah, lobbing of some big corporations.
the moment those laws are passed, the big corporations become no better than the worse pirate on internet (or on sea).



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> but you hate people who go to movies, and what to remove many elements that we find enjoyable.



damn! my secret plot for the downfall of humanity has been discovered! it's time for me to show my true identity!
i'm CECIL B. DEMENTED, and i am a free niche cinema avenger!!!
(and before you say even ONE word, yes, i am well aware that that film did cost more than 1000$, and that it probably came froma major film studio... but, wait, should i deny it just because i obviously have some kind of political agenda?)



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> History has shown that ruthless corporations are the ones that succeed. What you advocate goes contrary to sound, economic sense.




so, if you believe that, in order to succeed, you have to be ruthless and be able to bend the laws, how can you, in good faith, say even a word against piracy and pitares? after all, they are ruthless trying to have more for less (or for nothing). following your logic, that is the only way to succeed.
following your logic, and your "sound, economic sense", you should be downloading hard... or be a loser!

personally, i still have so see one argument against the possibility of heathly (maybe not huge, but still healthy) and more moral business. in fact, the very presence of people like phil reed, monte cook, steve jacksons and other in the RPG market goes against your view of ruthless draconian economies and foster my belief in my "irrelevant" economic beliefs. unless you think that monte cook has 53 roll royces and 3 buildings in beverly hills, that is.


----------



## Jacen (Aug 10, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> personally, on a slightly different topic, i see downloaded copies of my music on p2p as free advertisement.
> call me a stupid, but i really believe that those who like a product will buy it, even when they have the illegal copy.




Call me stupid, but I have bought almost whole production from couple of bands after hearing them from D/L mp3s. You know that sometimes it is almost pain in the a** trying to find some older CD that was produced in small quantaties.

But lately the amount of CDs bought by me has degreesed in great amounts. Just want to buy a CD not some palstic disk that doesn't fit the standards of CD and don't know how long they will work in payers. Or disks (wannabe CDs) that installs some unwanted software that can mess up the computer so that reinstall is needed. 

Copyprotected discs sucks and I am voting with my wallet. Too bad that one of the bands I like started to use them. Haven't bought any of their CDs after that (but own an self made CD version of their plastic wannabe CD). And levy was paid from empty media -> not even an illegal copy.


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Why the pro-lawbreaking side of the argument needs to resort to miquotation like this is beyond me.




you see, i see a number of problems with that statement.
1. last time i checked, i didn't see anybody trying on these boards to say that breaking the law was acceptable or desiderable.
2. last time i checked, the other side was ignoring the point of other people's posts just as well... the fact that Falkus did ignore my point makes you guilty in what way?

as far as i can see, there is no "side", just people debating on a subject. in the 300+ posts f this thread i have seen some very good point advocating a new type of market, very good points about the way copyright has been exploited to do things that were not in the spirit of the law, as well as very good point the demise of piracy. i have also seen some poorly made points, used to foster this or that argument.
i might have not "changed side", but the discussion has stimulated me to think on the subject.

i still see no side, no "pro piracy" cartel, and no "kill the pirate" cartel as well. do you?


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Do you really think that if music were reduced to a partronage system the music you like would be supported? I doubt it.



there would be  as well. there's always a good amount of  in the output. it's congenital.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Besides, why does it bother you this much that people buy music you personally dislike?



in fact, i bother that much that people is buying any other music that is not recorded/ produced/ written by me... 
that doesn't mean that, as soon as i will get lucky i will go out of my way to outlaw britney, or any other artist. i believe that the public is intelligent enough to make their choices and buy what they want. i just think there was not enough choice (i changed my mind fairly recently, with the coming out of dozens of new bands and acts that are not so stereotyped.)

besides, if you know anything about music (in fact, if you have earing at all!) you know that britney is not there becasue she can sing (or play or compose).


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> There is a surprisingly simple answer to this: because without the suits, the artist would make far less money than they would with them. The suits provide value, whether you believe it or not. In the modern world, producing things is generally much easier than distributing them.



there's a better answer.
1. Kamikaze Midget is talking apples and oranges. the artists receives 100% of the royalties every time the song is used in any way. the money he gets out of record sales has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.
2. there are artists that are getting 100% out of their recording sales. just to point to a fairly large business, check www.cdbaby.com
3. most artists do renounce to a huge share of their record sales, because the accept to sign a contract. said contract can be unfair or not (it depends on your view of the subject), but nobody is putting a gun to their head to make them sign.


----------



## Jacen (Aug 10, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Er... nice weather we're having?




Well considering that World Championships had to be canceled for tuesday due to uncommon strong thunder storm it is not so nice weather.  There were tens of centimeters of water flowing at streets and flooding basements.


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Jacen said:
			
		

> Call me stupid, but I have bought almost whole production from couple of bands after hearing them from D/L mp3s. You know that sometimes it is almost pain in the a** trying to find some older CD that was produced in small quantaties.




same boat here, mate! 



			
				Jacen said:
			
		

> Copyprotected discs sucks and I am voting with my wallet. Too bad that one of the bands I like started to use them.



well, i usually do not buy copyprotected cds, either. but i really really must (or when the web site does not say that the cd is copyprotected... i ended up buying the first kings of leon album because of that! :I), i simply connect my cd player to my recording stuff, and make a copy of the recording. maybe not 100% noise free (99%), but useful enough to have a mp3 copy at bitrate 96 (which, by the way, is the same quality of a good FM station... i can't hear the difference on my portable mp3 reader, so why bother?).
that show how stupid it is to reduce the usefulness of a support when, if you really want, you can make copies anyway. are you stopping the pirates? no. are you pissing of your customers? you bet. and then they blame someone else when the public stops buying...


 Haven't bought any of their CDs after that (but own an self made CD version of their plastic wannabe CD). And levy was paid from empty media -> not even an illegal copy.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Jacen (Aug 10, 2005)

billd91 said:
			
		

> And on the subject of copyright infringement being theft... it clearly is. You are stealing the exclusive right to distribute that work (so maybe it's a civil rights violation?).



Wow, never knew that after illegal copy is made right owner can't do copies anymore.



			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> It may not be legally theft, but the law revolves around convoluted semantics to distinguish between one thing and another (like grand theft and petty theft and so on, involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter... why that isn't murder I don't know...). We all know what we're really talking about here and it's theft of an exclusive right.




Exclusive right granted by law. So law says that you have that kind of right and acording to that same right someone who breaks that is not thief. Besides I am paying levy that gives the right to make personal copy. 

Enforcing some country specific law to whole world sucks. And even more if it is done by big companies trying to gain immoral benefit over other companies.




			
				billd91 said:
			
		

> As non-lawyers, we can certainly call copyright infringement theft even if the damage is unquantifiable and we aren't using the legalistic term.



On contary. If a photo taken by is published without my authorization and not paying any compensation I haven't lost anything. I am only denied the rightfully compensataion, but nothing is taken from me. So im my eyes tha tis not theft. If the company I work for doesn't pay the salary I am not target of theft. I am then target of fraud. So as a non-lawer it in my eyes is not theft. If law says that it is ilegal and there is no levy collected it is a crime - but it is not a theft.


----------



## Sledge (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> I really think a lot of the people downloading the free stuff don't even read it -- they collect PDFs.




Too true Phil.  I actually buy pdfs, and have bundles that I've paid for, but I just recently went through my "downloads dir" and cleaned out a couple of gigs of sample files.

Seriously though I know it is unpopular to hear this when you are publishing books and finding people using them without paying, but it has never been proven to actually hurt sales.  The only situations I've seen where the results of piracy have been tested were ones that resulted in MORE sales.  The problem with the RPG pdf industry is that since sales are so small, and so many of the downloaders are casual types who never even look at it.  I'm sure that the next highest percentage of people are those that are just checking it out and sampling it.  My only evidence here is that I've never seen someone show up with a pdf printed out they hadn't paid for.  Has anyone here on all of ENWorld seen that happen.



			
				jgsugden said:
			
		

> #1: Accept it and wait for it to kill the industry, leaving it entirely up to hobbyists to support the game,




What evidence do you have to support this theory?  Seriously take two similar books of which only 1 is on the P2Ps.  See which has higher sales since the P2P copy appeared.  Obviously more controls will need to be in place to get realistic numbers, but those numbers must be out there.
Anyone care to comment?


Finally I would really like to see more free stuff on the P2P networks.  In other words, start putting up demo copies on the P2P and include links to where to buy the real books etc.  I'd love to just do a d20 search on a P2P and find some new books to buy.  It's annoying to go looking at everyones websites.
So any takers here?


----------



## bodhi (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You forgot the absolutists.
> 
> "There is no grey area!"
> "Practical solutions miss the point!"
> ...




You forgot my favorite.

"Death to all fanatics!"


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Has anyone here on all of ENWorld seen that happen.




i have. in my old group, one of the players was using a prestige class from songs and silence and one or two feats from i can't remember what supplement, without having them in hard copy. he said he wasn't interested in the rest of the books.
to be fair, he never used more than that, though.


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

bodhi said:
			
		

> You forgot my favorite.
> 
> "Death to all fanatics!"




what about "you are all wrong, even if you agree with me?"


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

Bobitron said:
			
		

> Hell, Phil, I've _bought_ stuff of yours that I haven't read.




Thank you, but . . .

Stop that!  It's a lot more fun for all of us if you at least read (and hopefully use) the PDFs that I write.

Thank you, though.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 10, 2005)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Would you stop preparing gaming materials if you weren't getting paid for it? Would you no longer prepare adventures, or write house rules, or develop campaign settings, if there wasn't a paycheck waiting at the end of it?
> 
> Creative people don't always seek to make a living off their art. One can be an artist without being a full-time professional artist.




There are two issues you are missing here:

1) If your job is creating gaming materials then you are likely to develop a greater quantity of gaming materials due to the fact that you simply have a lot more time to do it (than if you are doing it in your spare time whilst also doing a full-time job to pay the bills).

2) If you are selling gaming materials (as opposed to giving them away for free) then you feel an obligation to make them worthwhile and suitable for the consumer.

In other words, if every single gaming writer had to give it up and get a job, yes, they'd still be spending their spare time producing gaming materials: but it would most likely be just stuff for their own campaigns. It wouldn't be anything you could use.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I used to get a lot of people complaining that I didn't publish Critical Miss very often, and then, when I stopped, complaining that I wasn't publishing it at all. I think what they didn't realise was that to do just one issue required me to do a lot of work in evenings and weekends for several weeks, and then usually take a week off work to finish it off. If you're getting something for free then the flipside of that is that is that you're not going to get very much of it.

(Note:- I'm not complaining that people were eager to see more of Critical Miss; but a few of them were a little "insistant").


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Are you serious?
> 
> I would send someone back in time with a mission to make sure that abomination was never made so that I would not have wasted my time on it. I didn't even pay to see it, I saw it on TV and I regret doing so.




Once you see Titanic...YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT!


----------



## nothing to see here (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> One word: antitrust




I'm a big supporter of strict antitrust laws.  That still doesn't change the fact that prior to monopolistic conditions the consumer is best served by competition, and competition requires beusinesses to occasionally engage in ruthless (some would say dishonourable) practices.


----------



## Iku Rex (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.



Wonderful news!

Does anyone have a P2P link for the PDF that started this debate?

Since "the exclusive right to make copies" have now been take away from Eden Studios (see quote above) it can't possibly be illegal for anyone to upload it. Right?

(Of course, lawyers, lawemakers, judges and the sort seem to think that "the exclusive right to make copies" reamains firmly in your "possesion" regardless of how many illegal copies are made, but I'm sure Storm Raven wouldn't make bold claims if he didn't know what he was talking about.)


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That just serves to ensure competition. How is that a better market model than a competitive one?




If you'd read the post I was responding to, you'd see that the complaint I was responding to was that if the large media publishing companies suddenly disappeared, that the resulting mass of smaller companies, while producing more competitive environment, would eventually swallow each other up and become a tiny number of huge companies again.  Decent antitrust legislation would prevent that cycle and ensure that, rather than having a market driven by the ability of a set of large companies to push their material, the market would be driven by the competitive value of the material being produced.

As you've said, Britney Spears' music isn't going to be worth anything 15 years from now.  Therefore, it must be fashionable garbage.  Why do people listen to it?  I'll wager it's not because they actually care about how the music sounds.  Rather there is a huge marketing machine that is presenting them with a constant barrage of her and her music, so they come to associate it with normal life.  As long as the music is artistically inobtrusive, vaguely danceable, and involves a certain amount of prurient content, it can be pushed in this way because most people simply do not care what music they listen to, except that it must be perceived by them as cool and popular.

I claim that people do not listen to Britney Spears because they think she makes good music.  Rather, they listen to her because a careful plan has been executed to make her become a part of the social world of the people who listen to her.  They come to associate this music with their lifestyles, and feel the need to continue to listen or else feel disconnected from their lives.  This is a planned effect.

I suspect that in the absence of very large publishing companies, this type of music will continue to exist.  However, there will be more room in the market for other, different producers of music.  Music that might be worth something 15, 50, or 200 years from now.  Actually, I know that this music is being made.  However, it's not being widely consumed because the large companies want to push media that's been calculated to sell to the least common denominator like Ms. Spears, so they marginalize pretty much anything else.  In the absence of this effect, something closer to equal time could be given to more sources of media.

Actually, I disagree with Kamikaze Midget.  I think that things like satellite music channels and internet streaming will eventually provide a similar effect by providing competition vectors for smaller producers.  Currently, I haven't been able to find many satellite radio channels worth listening to (and it's been some time since I last checked), but considering how many there are and how many keep popping up, I expect it's just a matter of time before they start putting better stuff on more channels.

But this is getting really off-topic, so I'm going to let it rest at that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

nothing to see here said:
			
		

> I'm a big supporter of strict antitrust laws.  That still doesn't change the fact that prior to monopolistic conditions the consumer is best served by competition, and competition requires beusinesses to occasionally engage in ruthless (some would say dishonourable) practices.




Towards each other, yes.  This is a flaw inherent in capitalism, that the competitor who can undercut his competition using rotten practice will do better than the just competitor.  But I think that quite a few people, including some of the ones posting here, perceive a (unnecessarily) dishonourable attitude toward both the public and the artists.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 10, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what the alternative is.  I know the current system is horribly broken, however, and that something needs to change.  I personally think copyright law - at least in its present incarnation - is unworkable.



I don't disagree, but I think cries for change need to be immediately followed up with workable solutions.  That's as much why nothing has changed as any other reason; no reasonable alternatives have been proposed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Aug 10, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> i think i'm gonna have a t-shirt with these two last quotes, if i graciously get the permission from the copyright holders...




Ah, well I obviously only made up that last one, but I hereby grant you license to do whatever the hell you like with it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2005)

I wonder whether it might be instructive to consider the software industry rather than the music industry as a point of comparison. Speaking purely as an amateur here, IIRC the idea of software licensing was introduced as a sort of legal counter to the ease with which software could be copied and redistributed. There are varying kinds of software license but (again IIRC) the basic point of most of the commercial ones is that you purchase the right to use the software, rather than purchase the software. This gives them (technically) the right to revoke the license if you breach their conditions - which includes not making copies.

I wonder if RPGs might move in this direction? Where you don't purchase the PDF, you purchase the license to use a PDF (simplistically speaking). This wouldn't affect peoples ability to make illegal copies, but would perhaps put the licencees on a stronger legal footing?

I dunno, but it seems that the software industry is potentially a better point of comparison than the music industry.

Cheers


----------



## just__al (Aug 10, 2005)

Flame away but....

When ever possible I download everything I am going to purchase before I buy it.  If I decided I want the product, I buy it, otherwise I delete the PDF and save the bookstore the hassle of a returned product.

Had I not done this I probably wouldn't own DMG II, Frostburn or the Ebberon Campaign sourcebook.

That all being said, these books only leave my shelf during game day and the rest of time I do my planning using the PDF's as I have limited space.

I'm actually buying products I probably wouldn't have bought BECAUSE they were pirated and I got a chance to look at them first.

But YMMV


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

just__al said:
			
		

> Flame away but....
> 
> When ever possible I download everything I am going to purchase before I buy it.  If I decided I want the product, I buy it, otherwise I delete the PDF and save the bookstore the hassle of a returned product.




Would you steal a meal from a restaurant before deciding if you want to eat there.

Remember, the internet is not a lending library.


----------



## Falkus (Aug 10, 2005)

> since you of course are so insightful, i will admit i need a lecture. could you please point me to one example in which the same game was given in a graphic heavy option for a price and in a crappy graphic version for a reduced amount?




How does this, in any possible way, relate to what I said?



> it's free. the graphic hurts my eyes. i turn down the music. but, heck, they're fun. and free. made in the author's spare time, i suppose.




So basically, you're arguing that quality games are only games you like? I don't like those stupid stick figure games, and not that many people do.



> YOUR point was that there would be NO product whatsoever. i was simply challenging that, regardless the value of said products.




No, my point was that the quality of the products for sale would be vastly reduced, something that have you continually supported. Your economic model would destroy the quality of intellectual property.



> just my two pences. oh, an my argument, which you are ignoring to bring your crusade on, is that we would have some kind of film output if the budget would be 1000$. in fact, we are already have that kind of films. you say they suck? 99% of them probably do, but i do enjoy the odd one.




You don't have an argument, because the claim you made was that no quality films have been made with high budgets. The fact that you deliberately ignored the point I was making, choosing instead of blather on about the specific examples I used, shows that you aren't arguing from fact, but from ignorance.



> are you pulling my legs? so, let me get this straight: you ignore what i'm saying to push in my eyes the fact that if you don't spend millions you have no games, or films, or music that could be enjoyable for ANYBODY on earth, and i should reply talking about the weather?




You don't have any modern, quality games with your economic model, that was my point, and the technology to make games stops advancing, thus destroying the claims that modern copyright laws limit the production of IP.



> so, if you believe that, in order to succeed, you have to be ruthless and be able to bend the laws




Ruthless and bending laws don't go hand in hand. And there's a slight difference between bending laws and outright breaking them.



> personally, i still have so see one argument against the possibility of heathly (maybe not huge, but still healthy) and more moral business.




Simple, it'll go out of business. You can't compete by being 'nice'.



> phil reed, monte cook, steve jacksons and other in the RPG market goes against your view of ruthless draconian economies and foster my belief in my "irrelevant" economic beliefs




And Microsoft, IBM, EA and Ubisoft back my beliefs up.


----------



## just__al (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Would you steal a meal from a restaurant before deciding if you want to eat there.
> 
> Remember, the internet is not a lending library.




No but, I have been known to ask for that little plastic spoon of ice cream they give you at Baskin and Robins if I haven't tried an icecream that looks promising.

Besides, I need to eat something and that's what resturants are for.  I didn't know I needed Frostburn until I read it.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Iku Rex said:
			
		

> Since "the exclusive right to make copies" have now been take away from Eden Studios (see quote above) it can't possibly be illegal for anyone to upload it. Right?




Do you truly need to be deliberately dense to try to support your arguments? It kind of shows how hollow and worthless your position is when you do that.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

just__al said:
			
		

> No but, I have been known to ask for that little plastic spoon of ice cream they give you at Baskin and Robins if I haven't tried an icecream that looks promising.




Which they voluntarily offer you. If they didn't, do you think you'd be justified in stepping behind the counter and taking a sample anyway?


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 10, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> 1. last time i checked, i didn't see anybody trying on these boards to say that breaking the law was acceptable or desiderable.




Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.  I have pretty loudly and clearly said that breaking the law was acceptable AND desirable with regard to copyright and intellectual property laws.


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

just__al said:
			
		

> Besides, I need to eat something and that's what resturants are for.




Not exactly. While everyone needs food, ramen will keep you alive.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If you'd read the post I was responding to, you'd see that the complaint I was responding to was that if the large media publishing companies suddenly disappeared, that the resulting mass of smaller companies, while producing more competitive environment, would eventually swallow each other up and become a tiny number of huge companies again.  Decent antitrust legislation would prevent that cycle and ensure that, rather than having a market driven by the ability of a set of large companies to push their material, the market would be driven by the competitive value of the material being produced.




No, decent antitrust legislation wouldn't do that. Decent antitrust legislation prevents monopolies from dominating the market, it doesn't prevent large companies from buying small companies, or prevent multiple smaller companies from merging. It just prevents such a thing from resulting in a sole (or extremely limited) supplier. In point of fact, it is almost impossible to monopolize the recording industry, because the barriers to entry are quite small. That doesn't mean that there aren't going to be large companies in the business - there will, no matter what you do unless you put in place very draconian laws that are likely to do more harm than good.



> _As you've said, Britney Spears' music isn't going to be worth anything 15 years from now.  Therefore, it must be fashionable garbage.  Why do people listen to it?  I'll wager it's not because they actually care about how the music sounds.  Rather there is a huge marketing machine that is presenting them with a constant barrage of her and her music, so they come to associate it with normal life.  As long as the music is artistically inobtrusive, vaguely danceable, and involves a certain amount of prurient content, it can be pushed in this way because most people simply do not care what music they listen to, except that it must be perceived by them as cool and popular._





This argument is always trotted out, and it just doesn't wash. There is no amount of marketing that can hypnotize people into buying stuff they don't really like. The simple truth is that many people like music that you don't. Teenagers have different taste in music than you do. The fact that you don't like a particular kind of music, and don't consider it to lack artistic merit does not mean that others share your opinion. The "suits" don't invent the demand, they identify it and fill it. But tastes change, so what is "hot" now won't be a couple years from now.



> _I claim that people do not listen to Britney Spears because they think she makes good music.  Rather, they listen to her because a careful plan has been executed to make her become a part of the social world of the people who listen to her.  They come to associate this music with their lifestyles, and feel the need to continue to listen or else feel disconnected from their lives.  This is a planned effect._





So, you contend that people are duped into listening to her music even though they don't like it? That's implausible. Marketing doesn't work that way, and no matter how many conspiracy theories you cling to on that topic, none of them will be true.



> _I suspect that in the absence of very large publishing companies, this type of music will continue to exist.  However, there will be more room in the market for other, different producers of music.  Music that might be worth something 15, 50, or 200 years from now.  Actually, I know that this music is being made.  However, it's not being widely consumed because the large companies want to push media that's been calculated to sell to the least common denominator like Ms. Spears, so they marginalize pretty much anything else.  In the absence of this effect, something closer to equal time could be given to more sources of media._





Did you ever stop to think that this may be because what you consider to be the "least common denominator" is what people want to buy? And if the different producers of music are making "something that might be worth something (how do you evaluate that) right now, isn't that an indication that there is room in the market? Isn't that an indication that copyright is _working_ since it is stimulating the production of such a wide variety of material?


----------



## just__al (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Which they voluntarily offer you. If they didn't, do you think you'd be justified in stepping behind the counter and taking a sample anyway?




No, but if somebody walked up to me and said, "here, this is the new B&R flavor, you should try it"  I might have a bite

That's all the justification you are going to get from me, because strictly speaking, you have the correct take on the issue and the higher moral ground. I'll just continue to wallow in my less honorable "try before I buy" policy.


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

just__al said:
			
		

> I'll just continue to wallow in my less honorable "try before I buy" tactics.




What if someone asked you to work for a day, a week, or a month before they hired you? After all, maybe they want to try you out before they pay you. Would you agree to such an arrangement?


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

Spell said:
			
		

> there's a better answer.
> 1. Kamikaze Midget is talking apples and oranges. the artists receives 100% of the royalties every time the song is used in any way. the money he gets out of record sales has absolutely nothing to do with copyright.




What? The only reason an artist can get royalties is _because of the existence of copyright_. Without that, there are no roylaties to be had at all. The rest of your argument doesn't actually have anything to do with copyright, but rather contract law, and thus has no bearing on this discussion. But when you make a grossly inaccurate statement like this one, it just demonstrates to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> What if someone asked you to work for a day, a week, or a month before they hired you? After all, maybe they want to try you out before they pay you. Would you agree to such an arrangement?



I'm a software developer by trade.  When starting on largish contracts I have done EXACTLY that.


----------



## just__al (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> What if someone asked you to work for a day, a week, or a month before they hired you? After all, maybe they want to try you out before they pay you. Would you agree to such an arrangement?




A day, absolutely, if it was a job I was willing to take were it offered.

A week or a month, no.  That's too long.  But a day, absolutely.  I, infact, actually did that once and netted my self a job.

I've also taken a job where I started for a month at a reduced pay and if I was working out after the month, I would get a resonable pay and benefits.  I would have been offered the full-time position when the month was over (or at least that's what they told me) but I decided I didn't want to work there for any amount of money (well to be fair if they offered me 5 times as much I would have been tempted) because I was also "trying them out before I buyed" and the company wasn't what I expected from a corporate culture standpoint.


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> I'm a software developer by trade.  When starting on largish contracts I have done EXACTLY that.




So you've worked for a month, not been paid, and had thousands of people benefit from that month of work?


----------



## philreed (Aug 10, 2005)

just__al said:
			
		

> A day, absolutely, if it was a job I was willing to take were it offered.
> 
> A week or a month, no.  That's too long.  But a day, absolutely.  I, infact, actually did that once and netted my self a job.




Keep in mind that several of my own PDFs represent a day to a week of work. And the bigger projects -- like Frostburn -- represent many months of work. What you're saying is that it's okay for a dozen people to work for you for a month at no pay and you'll decide at the end of that time if they're worth paying or not.


----------



## Storm Raven (Aug 10, 2005)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Ah, but the point of copyright is not to enrich the creator, but to enrich the public.  As it is set up now, the creator gets 99.99% of the benefit.  I don't think that's equitable.




The point of copyright is to entice authors to create works and make them available to the public. The author gets a financial benefit, the public gets the benefit of having the work _at all_. The balance is not "99.9% to the creator" as you state, it is much more balanced than that. In point of fact, the benefit to the public is huge, because without copyright there would be no incentive to make works of authorship available to the public _at all_.



> _I may agree with you that Britney Spears' stuff will be worthless in 15 years.  If so, why are we giving record labels the ability to sit on it for another 80 years after that?_





To give the artist something more valuable to sell at the point of creation.



> _I'm not saying I have all the answers.  I am saying the pendulum is currently way way way way WAAAAAAAYYY to far in favor of copyright holders, and continuing to swing even farther in their favor, and that's not socially equitable._





Social equitability, in a democracy, is determined by the legislature acting at the behest of their constituents.



> _Not at all. You retain the ability to license a single company to reproduce the work (as with patents; IIRC, patents cannot be held by corporations, but rather only by natural persons, who are allowed to designate/assign one company as the one that can use the parent - see Richard Garfield holding the "Magic: The Gathering" cardplay patent and assigning its use to WotC).  It works just fine for patents.  Why not for copyright?_





The ability to make licensing deals is far less valuable to an individual than the ability to sell it. Especially in an arena like copyright. If I license something, I have to spend my time monitoring compliance, ensuring that might exclusive rights are protected, and so on. If I sell it, I don't have to worry about that any more.



> _(Besides, keeping copyright out of the hands of corporate interests has the desirable side effect, IMO, of keeping an artist from "losing control of his work" - to use the example at hand, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson have for all intents and purposes lost control of their creative work in D&D - in both cases against their will.  Is that "fair" to them?)_





Not against their will. Gygax voluntarily sold his interest in the game to TSR. He lost control of the company, but there was nothing involuntary about losing the copyright. He was also quite well compensated for his creation. I think that is more than fair. The only way an artist can "lose control of his work" is by selling it, voluntarily, which is his choice. I don't have any sympathy for them, at that point.



> _I have a hard time buying this one.  All I have to do, in theory, when I write my magnum opus, is slap it in an email and shoot it to the US Gov't.  It's nearly impossible for a corporation to get their hands on it fast enough to stop that.  Unless and until "big corporations" are spying on every writer, musician, and artist everywhere they go, the copyright creator has the natural advantage of speed and secrecy on his side._





Read a text on intellectual property some time. Races to the courthouse were common. They still are in the field of patent. Right now, an author is protected even if he doesn't go through the formalities, but gains additional protection if he does. That is equitable, and practical, because otherwise the LoC would be flooded, and authors would have to get their material in the mailbox quicker. Think of it in the context of the music business - companies could spy on one another to surreptitiously record the songs the other is producing, and then race to the courthouse and get the rights to that recording first. Software would be subject to the same sort of spying and stealing.



> _Of course, I've also got Tom Lehrer's "Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky" in my head now thanks to you, so maybe not.  But I would suggest that if I show you my six months' worth of drafts, and "big guy" can only show the finished product that "miraculously" arrived at the courthouse five minutes before mine did, it's pretty clear who did the work._





But "who did the work" is not relevant in a race to the courthouse. If copyright doesn't attach until the formalities have been completed, you don't have _any_ rights to your creation until you get to the courthouse. It doesn't matter who made it, just who filed first.



> _I'm not so sure about that one.  Since everyone seems to be headed down the "DRM built into your hardware" path, why can't we just build "compulsory licensing" in on top of this?  Is not one essentially as easy to execute (in theory) as the other?_





Because monitoring private use is extraordinarily difficult. And, since private individuals have to own the copyrights under your system, they would have to do the monitoring themselves, making this an even bigger mess.


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> How does this, in any possible way, relate to what I said?



simple: for example, you can't chose to buy a EA nba game with crappy graphic at a reduced price. so the fact that the game sells a lot is not a direct indication that the public would rather spend more and buy the product with flashier graphic no matter what. it's simply and indication that, between the various basket games on the market, said game fare well (or not, i don't actually know). then you can say it fare well because of the price, the playability, the graphic, and whatever, but it's quite open to argument, UNLESS you can produce me an example of the same game offered with two different graphic interface, at different prices that proves your point. have you got said example? probably not

you see, i have no problem to say that some people goes to the cinema to see beautiful special effects, or that they buy graphic heavy games because that's what they like. i have a problem when you say that without those elements the vast majority of the public would be greatly disappointed with any product, given away at any price. have you got figures to prove that? if not, you are talking on your experience, and your experience is as good as mine.




			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> So basically, you're arguing that quality games are only games you like?



no, basically i'm arguing that when i buy an entertainment product i don't look for classy graphic, but for content. if the graphic is there, and i can afford it, great. if i can't afford it, and i still can choose to have the content, i go with the content.
if there is no content, i don't buy. no matter how many millions you spent on breathtaking special effects or posh graphic and interior art.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> I don't like those stupid stick figure games, and not that many people do.



i assume, of course, that you have the result of some heavy market research to back that?




			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> No, my point was that the quality of the products for sale would be vastly reduced, something that have you continually supported. Your economic model would destroy the quality of intellectual property.




really? let's see.
in your words: 



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> And if you couldn't make money off of them, there would be no more published thoughts, ideas or series of msuical notes arranged in a certain way.



now, unless with "in a certain way" you meant "of the best possible quality, given an infinite amount of time or resources" (which would be possible, but very ill worded), you are either saying that:
1. there would be no product whatsoever
2. there would be some kind of product, but it would be different, somehow, from what is available today.

if you meant 1: you are wrong. i pointed you at some free stuff, during by one person as a labour of love. the fact that you, or a million people, like these things or not, frankly, doesn't make your point right, because your are not talking about quality, you are talking about existance.

if you meant 2: it seemed to me that i did say early on that the average quality would be more amateurish (lower, if you want to equate the two things), and the output would be inferior, and the distribution would be different. so, how exactly is my position wrong and (i was almost forgetting) "irrelevant"?

if you meant something else, you need to phrase your thoughts better, i think.




			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> You don't have an argument, because the claim you made was that no quality films have been made with high budgets.



oh, really? where? maybe i fell asleep while typing and somebody else put that in. since i made the claim, can you point me at my words, because i can't find such claim and i can't remember making it...



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> You don't have any modern, quality games with your economic model, that was my point, and the technology to make games stops advancing, thus destroying the claims that modern copyright laws limit the production of IP.



too bad i wasn't the one to claim that copyright reduces the production and the advancement of technology and art... do you actually check how you are responding to, or you assume that the same person writes all the posts that are not under your name?



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Ruthless and bending laws don't go hand in hand. And there's a slight difference between bending laws and outright breaking them.



in fact there is. you should remind that to people like sony (illegally changing the cd technology, open sourced by philips only if nobody would have changed it), or to 90% of the music labels (who are offering any kind of bribe to radio stations to have their records on), or microsoft (that is planning me to put out a version of windows that, from what i heard, will allow me to upgrade only if i register, that is, only if i give my privacy rights away).
i think there is enough proof in everyday's news that your idea of "ruthless, but 100% law abiding" corporations or firms (no matter how small), is simply not true.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Simple, it'll go out of business. You can't compete by being 'nice'.



oh, no! linux disappeared from the market, and nobody was told! steve jackson games went out of business and we didn't realise! monte cook was killed by the corporate ninja! green ronin was wiped away from the face of earth and an empty clone was put in their place...

there ARE business who care about their customers (and they REALLY do), and not only survive, but prosper. and there's a lot more than the four i named here!
but, again, if you prefer to believe that, say, gary gygax doesn't give a damn about his buying public, and goes out of his way to shut down other RPG publishers because he doesn't want competition, you are very entitled to do so...



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> And Microsoft, IBM, EA and Ubisoft back my beliefs up.



sure they do. it doesn't mean that those are the only realities on the market...


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I have to disagree with you there.  I have pretty loudly and clearly said that breaking the law was acceptable AND desirable with regard to copyright and intellectual property laws.



well, i stand corrected. i did miss that. 
you were *wrong*.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 10, 2005)

Okay, just to try and nail this particular pernicious line of argument...



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> As you've said, Britney Spears' music isn't going to be worth anything 15 years from now.  Therefore, it must be fashionable garbage.  Why do people listen to it?  I'll wager it's not because they actually care about how the music sounds.






			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I claim that people do not listen to Britney Spears because they think she makes good music.  Rather, they listen to her because a careful plan has been executed to make her become a part of the social world of the people who listen to her.  They come to associate this music with their lifestyles, and feel the need to continue to listen or else feel disconnected from their lives.  This is a planned effect.






			
				Spell said:
			
		

> i can't believe that anybody in his right mind would need britney spears's music. after i saw her success, i changed my mind on marketing, and now i do believe that if you have a nice face and a lot of support, you could fart in your mike and everybody would buy your record.




Okay, I admit it. I liked Britney Spears' single "Everytime" enough that I went out and bought the CD. I like it. It was a nice tune. It gave me pleasure to listen to it.

Alright! There you go! Are you happy now? Does it give you satisfaction that a succession of total  arguments has forced a liked and respected 36 year-old man to totally humiliate himself in this way before the entire bloody world? Is this what you wanted? If I run naked down Oxford Street with a rose sticking out of my arse will you stop saying arguing about the precise legal definition of the word "theft"?


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 10, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Alright! There you go! Are you happy now? Does it give you satisfaction that a succession of total  arguments has forced a liked and respected 36 year-old man to totally humiliate himself in this way before the entire bloody world? Is this what you wanted? If I run naked down Oxford Street with a rose sticking out of my arse will you stop saying arguing about the precise legal definition of the word "theft"?




As an aside, has anyone noticed that the forum software's "smileyfication" subroutine doesn't recognise British swearing? (Or is it just that British swearing doesn't offend Eric's grandma?)


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> What? The only reason an artist can get royalties is _because of the existence of copyright_.



indeed. but the copyright laws is applied every time every version of the song is played live, by a radio, from a cd in a public event or venue, and so on.

the payment coming from the sales of the media in with you have recorded the music (cd, mc, vynil, mp3 file, what has you) has nothing to do with the copyright.
for example, i can put out a cd of songs written by other people. if you buy the cd, i see something coming in my pocket (gross semplification, but still). if hear a song from that cd on the radio i don't see a dime, but whoever wrote the song receives a payment from ASCAP or BMI due to the copyright law.

my post explained how the money that an act gets from just the selling of their albums is not regulated by copyright law, but by their contract with the label.




			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But when you make a grossly inaccurate statement like this one, it just demonstrates to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.



well, i guess i had to be clearer, then. believe me, though, i do know what i'm talking about.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> This argument is always trotted out, and it just doesn't wash. There is no amount of marketing that can hypnotize people into buying stuff they don't really like.




You've never seen a trailer to a movie, thought you would like it, then after buying a ticket and seeing the movie decided you really didn't like it?


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

*very VERY OT, but this guy needs an answer! *



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Okay, I admit it. I liked Britney Spears' single "Everytime" enough that I went out and bought the CD. I like it. It was a nice tune. It gave me pleasure to listen to it.




AAAAAAAAARGH!!!!! ANATEMA!!!!  



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Alright! There you go! Are you happy now?



it's the worse day of my life! :_( man, you hurt me! 

ok, serious mode, now.



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> Does it give you satisfaction that a succession of total  arguments has forced a liked and respected 36 year-old man to totally humiliate himself in this way before the entire bloody world?



well, everybody has their guilty pleasures.
seriously, i had no problem with britney spears IF it was really her singing on the records. christina aguilera, for example, is really singing her stuff. i still don't like it, and i wouldn't buy it to save my life, but i'm ok with that.

britney spear's voice is VERY VERY glossly produced. when it's not double traked (a technique that, alone, enriches artificially the voice... it can also be used to put somebody else's voice in the mix, so that the final master sounds different from the original voice), it's processed through so many effects that i wonder how close it is to ther real performance.
mind you there's outher people out there with a crappy voice. first name to come to my mind: billie holiday. she had the shittiest voice ever. but when you heard her, you were moved by her performance. and you still are.

britney can't sing, doesn't write her songs, doesn't play any instrument. whatever you like about her act, it's not her, it's somebody else (the tune is written by someone else, the music is played by someone else, her body and face had chaged through platic jobs... maybe the dance is really her thing? i don't know, and frankly i don't care!)


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> So you've worked for a month, not been paid, and had thousands of people benefit from that month of work?



No, I have not . . . and I suspect that neither have you.  That was not your original premise.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> What if someone asked you to work for a day, a week, or a month before they hired you? After all, maybe they want to try you out before they pay you. Would you agree to such an arrangement?



Yes, I have worked for several hours or more (in one case over 20 billable hours) on an evauation basis before I was hired.



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that several of my own PDFs represent a day to a week of work. And the bigger projects -- like Frostburn -- represent many months of work. What you're saying is that it's okay for a dozen people to work for you for a month at no pay and you'll decide at the end of that time if they're worth paying or not.



Keep in mind that you don't collect all of your income from a single person buying a single copy of your work.  You collect an extraordinarily small amount of your income (I hope) from each individual copy of a single work you do.  If someone checks out one of your pdfs from a p2p site and does not buy it you haven't lost all of the income you would have received from creating that pdf.  You have only lost the income from one POTENTIAL sale, which is not that much money.

Now, if this happened to a HUGE degree with all of your work all of the time . . . now you're talking about working a week or a month (or more) for free.  That would be absolutely terrible.

As I understand it you are fairly successful in the pdf publications (congratualtions!), so the analogy doesn't stand: one person "stealing" one of your pdfs does not equate to a loss of even a day's income for you, probably, much less a week or a month.


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

oh! i was forgetting...



			
				Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> If I run naked down Oxford Street with a rose sticking out of my arse will you stop saying arguing about the precise legal definition of the word "theft"?




i never intended to try to legally define anything, because i'm not a lawyer. that said, if you still want to make that Oxford street run, i'll be back in england soon... i promise that, for a film of that to show to my band mantes and friends (males and females, rest assured!), i will stop arguing about anything! 
(well, for a couple of days, at least! )


----------



## Sammael (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> What if someone asked you to work for a day, a week, or a month before they hired you? After all, maybe they want to try you out before they pay you. Would you agree to such an arrangement?



Er... that's standard practice where I live. Anywhere from two weeks up to three months. If the employer is feeling particularly generous, he'll pay you _something_ for the "trial period," but most don't even do that.


----------



## Voadam (Aug 10, 2005)

Jonny Nexus said:
			
		

> If I run naked down Oxford Street with a rose sticking out of my arse will you stop saying arguing about the precise legal definition of the word "theft"?




Nope. Somehow that offer is not as tempting as you apparently think it is   

So, if somebody was copying answers in a college exam they are unfairly mooching off of someone else's work, taking something that is not theirs, and detrimenting everyone if the grade is on a curve. I would call that cheating deserving of being expelled as well as calling it an immoral action. But if somebody called it theft and said that was a good way to discuss the issue of unauthorized copying I'd disagree.


----------



## Spell (Aug 10, 2005)

Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that you don't collect all of your income from a single person buying a single copy of your work.



oh, c'mon, he should know very well where his money comes from, shouldn't he? 

besides, on a loosely related note (not related directly to you Brent), i think this discussion is on the verge of derailing in an exercise of repetition and name calling. i will stop posting. if you have anything to say, PM me. hopefully, it will be something intelligent.


----------



## Iku Rex (Aug 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Do you truly need to be deliberately dense to try to support your arguments? It kind of shows how hollow and worthless your position is when you do that.



Do you truly need to be deliberately insulting when your claims are exposed as manipulative nonsense? It kind of shows how hollow and worthless your position is when you do that.

Also, would you mind explaining "my position" to me? I've always been curious about mind-reading psychics like yourself.


----------



## Jonny Nexus (Aug 10, 2005)

Voadam said:
			
		

> Nope. Somehow that offer is not as tempting as you apparently think it is
> 
> So, if somebody was copying answers in a college exam they are unfairly mooching off of someone else's work, taking something that is not theirs, and detrimenting everyone if the grade is on a curve. I would call that cheating deserving of being expelled as well as calling it an immoral action. But if somebody called it theft and said that was a good way to discuss the issue of unauthorized copying I'd disagree.




Well it's interesting that you say that because your example does actually illustrate the difference between the legal definition of the crime of "theft" and the common word usage of the word "theft", and its associated words.

Cheating in an exam in clearly not legal theft.

But from a language point of view I can easily imagine a boy in a schoolroom noticing that the child sitting next to him is copying his answers and shouting out, "Miss! He's stealing my answers!"

As a further example of where legal and language uses of the word differ, if someone were to break into my car, I'd say that my car "had been stolen!"

(Actually, I'd probably say that some "'s stolen my ing car!" but that's by the by).

But technically, under UK law, the "thief" has *not* stolen my car, because it's only theft if you intend to permantly deprive someone of their property, and when someone drives off in your car there's no proof that they intend to do that - they might just be joyriders who want to go for a drive, and who will dump your car when they've finished it.

It was to close this legal "loophole" that a specfic offence of "taking without the owner's consent" was created (which is why the police talk about "TWOCing").

But if I told someone that a guy was a thief because he'd stolen my car, and they started lecturing me that he wasn't guilty of theft but of TWOCing, and that it was wrong of me to try and confuse the issue by using an incorrect legal term - well I'd be likely to get a tad pissed off.


----------



## James Heard (Aug 10, 2005)

Do we really need to have pages and pages of this going on at ENWorld? Seriously, this turns into this more surely than a political discussion (because it's essentially political) and never ever simply stays polite and civil.  I wish that any time someone wanted to discuss piracy they'd literally have to pull a funny hat and parrot out of their behind and convince a moderator to wave it past the "no pirate" moderation system. Or that everyone could just settle things without becoming complete jerks and endlessly repeating the same smug things over and over again.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Aug 10, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You forgot the absolutists.
> 
> "There is no grey area!"
> "Practical solutions miss the point!"
> ...



Although I'm sure you intended to be sarcastic, I will take your statements at face value and say that I 100% agree with your fourth statement. To rephrase it in my own words,

"If you disagree with me that stealing is immoral, you're not just wrong, you're violating a universal principal of righteousness."

Again: dress it up as much as you want, but _*stealing is immoral*_.


----------



## just__al (Aug 10, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that several of my own PDFs represent a day to a week of work. And the bigger projects -- like Frostburn -- represent many months of work. What you're saying is that it's okay for a dozen people to work for you for a month at no pay and you'll decide at the end of that time if they're worth paying or not.




For races of Stone, I actually found the book at B&N, read a bit there, and then decided to buy it.  I also read midnight and decided NOT to buy it.  Do I owe that dozen people money for their time?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 10, 2005)

Well, there has been a lot more sniping and bad language in the last page, and nothing much new being said. A lot *has* been said here, people have had a good opportunity to air their opinions but I think it is time to put it to bed now.

Thread closed


----------

