# Piracy



## Nightson (Feb 20, 2009)

So the discussion about book piracy in another made me want to post this thread.  Have you pirated 4th edition game books before?


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 20, 2009)

I bought the 4e books and then bought the PDFs. (Which isn't an option.)


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 20, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I bought the 4e books and then bought the PDFs. (Which isn't an option.)




This


----------



## Aexalon (Feb 20, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I bought the 4e books and then bought the PDFs. (Which isn't an option.)



Thirded.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Feb 20, 2009)

Side note: I'm generally amused by these types of threads/polls.

Considering that for most message boards, digitial piracy is a forbidden topic, I can't imagine that anyone that has done it and has a modicum of active brain cells is going to openly admit to such in a public forum.

Places like the #chan sites you'll see "Anonymous" openly talking about such a thing, but that's only becuase they're "Anonymous," and thus generally acking in accountability.  See also Gabe's "Greater Internet Dickwad" theory.

On topic, 
I bought the 4e books.  Considered buying the PDFs, but given how little I play 4e these days, that's money better spent elsewhere on things I do use.


----------



## Aeolius (Feb 20, 2009)

Excuse me. This thread is entitled "Piracy", is it not? Then where is the option for "Arrr!"?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Feb 20, 2009)

"Have you ever considered piracy?" " You'd make a wonderful Dread pirate Roberts."


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Feb 20, 2009)

Bought me some priates. 

I bought the books but a not interested in PDF-versions. Instead of buying or pirating PDFs I've subscribed to DDI.

Piracy is not an option for me and this is not only due to illegality or fear of reprisals. It is due to PDFs being an awful medium for books. I don't like reading long texts on-screen and the idea of printing the books sounds pretty daft to me.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Feb 20, 2009)

I don't know what to answer without incriminating myself. 
I HAVE bought every book I have. I believe the digital copies fall under fair use. 

I'd realy much rather carry my 1lb laptop to work than 5-10 books.


----------



## Nymrohd (Feb 20, 2009)

Expectation of anonymity is such an amazing concept


----------



## lutecius (Feb 20, 2009)

Donovan Morningfire said:


> Side note: I'm generally amused by these types of threads/polls.
> 
> Considering that for most message boards, digitial piracy is a forbidden topic, I can't imagine that anyone that has done it and has a modicum of active brain cells is going to openly admit to such in a public forum.



Good thing this poll is anonymous then. But no, i don't think the discussion itself is going to be incredibly enlightening.

Anyways, I'm not a fan of pdfs and I guess the pre-release leak was a bad thing, but I'm thankful I was able to read the books "in the store", so i didn't have to buy 4e to decide it wasn't for me. It took a thorough look to find out that even things that sounded good in the previews (multiclassing) weren't to my taste as implemented.

As a rule, I don't pre-order games and only support the ones i play.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 20, 2009)

I stopped eight years ago when I realized that I hate PDF's and the crap I was downloading, I wasn't using. My self-imposed penance was to purchase a full bookshelf worth of 3rd Edition material.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 20, 2009)

The poll is doubly meaningless because the only people who could say that the did pirate it would be someone who boarded a cargo ship in the middle of the sea and stole them.

Everyone who downloaded the pdf misappropriated it and infringed on copyright.

For the record, I bought the gift set and the pdfs.


----------



## RangerWickett (Feb 20, 2009)

I didn't personally download the pdfs of the core books that got leaked, but I wanted to see the rules, so when offered a chance to see them early, I gave 'em a look. I had already ordered the print books. 

I don't generally pirate, but I'll admit to the occasional infraction. However, I'm not a huge 4e fan, so I haven't bothered to get any 4e books after the core 3, either in print or digitally.


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 20, 2009)

I downloaded the leaked 4E PDFs in order to make a sound decision on whether I wanted to purchase the books.

Suffice to say, I am now the owner of 6 PHBs, one DMG, one MM, one Manual of the Planes, one Adventurer's Vault, one Martial Powers book.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 20, 2009)

Krensky said:


> The poll is doubly meaningless because the only people who could say that the did pirate it would be someone who boarded a cargo ship in the middle of the sea and stole them.



I'm afraid that my dictionary disagrees with you:


> piracy |ˈpīrəsē|
> noun
> the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea.
> • a similar practice in other contexts, esp. hijacking : air piracy.
> • the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work : software piracy.



Language evolves. "Piracy" might once have required ships, but that's the case no longer.


----------



## the Jester (Feb 20, 2009)

Just before the release, a friend of one of the guys in my gaming group gave him a cd with the three not-quite-final pdfs on it, and he burned me a copy. 

There was never any doubt whether I'd buy the books (all three on the release date- I'm that kind of geek).

I voted "Other", since I didn't pirate them myself but I ended up in possession of pirated copies of the books.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 20, 2009)

I've never pirated any gaming materials.

I don't even know how to use a torrent (never been to one).

Man, I feel old.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 20, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I've never pirated any gaming materials.
> 
> I don't even know how to use a torrent (never been to one).
> 
> Man, I feel old.




don't feel too bad, when 4e came out and people were talking about bit torrent leaks I had to go to wikiapedia to find out what people were talking about...


----------



## Asmor (Feb 20, 2009)

I've pirated books I hadn't bought yet. Some I bought, some I didn't (because I had no intention of using them, e.g. campaign settings).

I've pirated books I had preordered and not yet received.

I've pirated books I already owned.

I like to have PDFs and physical copies of all books I intend to use. PDFs are better for prep, books are better for using at the table.


----------



## Drkfathr1 (Feb 20, 2009)

I've downloaded copywrited material to test drive so-to-speak, and I've also downloaded electronic versions of things I already owned just to save myself the trouble of making my own electronic backups. 

There are some "things" I will no longer buy sight unseen. So if I was unable to download them, I still wouldn't buy them.


----------



## Vorput (Feb 20, 2009)

This poll is actually rather informative.

At the very least it shows, than even among the users of ENworld- who show a very high concern for IP and trademark rights, you still have a fair amount of said users pirating materials.

It's rather disheartening.


----------



## GnomeWorks (Feb 20, 2009)

Why no option for "pirated, didn't like it, bought it anyway"?


----------



## Krensky (Feb 20, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I'm afraid that my dictionary disagrees with you:
> 
> Language evolves. "Piracy" might once have required ships, but that's the case no longer.




Yes, it also can involve aircraft.



UNCLOS of 10 December 1982 said:


> Piracy consists of any of the following acts:​ (a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:​ (i)    on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;​ (ii)    against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;​ (b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;​ (c)    any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).​



​


----------



## Daniel D. Fox (Feb 20, 2009)

Vorput said:


> This poll is actually rather informative.
> 
> At the very least it shows, than even among the users of ENworld- who show a very high concern for IP and trademark rights, you still have a fair amount of said users pirating materials.
> 
> It's rather disheartening.




Actually, it reflects the change in markets. While people do have a respect for IP and trademark, they still want to be good consumers in a hard economy.

PDFs have supplimented and helped boost sales across many publishers, and not only across the RPG markets. There are a large number of studies that illustrate the boons of intentional PDF releases by companies (including free MP3s and games) in order to boost sales.

My firm, educated opinion is that whether it was intentional or leaked, it has inevitably supported and boosted sales beyond no pre-released PDFs.


----------



## greatamericanfolkher (Feb 20, 2009)

I refuse to answer the question on account of “It’s a trap!”


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 20, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Yes, it also can involve aircraft.




Seriously, pirate is a nice concise term when used for informal discussion of copyright violations.  Is it too hard for you to do an intellectual reach around if it doesn't have a obfuscated name?


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 20, 2009)

Vorput said:


> This poll is actually rather informative.
> 
> At the very least it shows, than even among the users of ENworld- who show a very high concern for IP and trademark rights, you still have a fair amount of said users pirating materials.
> 
> It's rather disheartening.




my faith in humanity is sinking...and I think part of my soul died when I saw the numbers...

edit at this moment over 100 people (106) have said they broke the law...and did something this site itself speaks out against...


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 20, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Everyone who downloaded the pdf misappropriated it and infringed on copyright.



Everyone who distributed copies infringed on copyright. Simply having the copies in one's possessions is not an infringement. There may be laws that make such possession a crime, but these are not tradiationally part of copyright law.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Feb 20, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my faith in humanity is sinking...and I think part of my soul died when I saw the numbers...
> 
> edit at this moment over 100 people (106) have said they broke the law...and did something this site itself speaks out against...



Perhaps you should change your opinion of the law, not your opinion of humanity. Nothing was actually taken away from anyone through the act of distributing electronic copies of a book. All that was violated was a state-enforced prohibition intended to grant rewards to a producer ovre and above what they could receive in a free market. These state-enforced deviations from the free market are not the only ones that could be used; there may be a better scheme for rewarding intellectual property that may even impact the free market less.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Feb 20, 2009)

Argh chose the wrong option in the poll...

Pirated the PDFs before the books came out, and bought the books on their release date. I just got my "fair-use" copy of the books before I actually got said books. 

AR


----------



## Krensky (Feb 20, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> Seriously, pirate is a nice concise term when used for informal discussion of copyright violations.  Is it too hard for you to do an intellectual reach around if it doesn't have a obfuscated name?




Is it to hard for you to use the proper term for the proper thing?

It's not that hard. Piracy is a crime involving theft, murder, kidnapping, etc on the high seas between one craft and another.

Copyright infringement is a crime involving the infringement of a copyright holder's rights.

Conflating the two makes the later seem much more serious, and belittles the former.

It's like saying murder to refer to slander.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 20, 2009)

Krensky said:


> It's not that hard. Piracy is a crime involving theft, murder, kidnapping, etc on the high seas between one craft and another



No, "piracy" used to mean only that. Now it _also_ means "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work". Using it in that sense is perfectly legitimate. (Why would my dictionary lie to me?)

Language evolves. A century ago, "gay" meant "merry and full of joy". Now it means "homosexual". It would be silly to insist that everyone continue to use "gay" only in the first context simply because that was the original meaning of the word.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 20, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> my faith in humanity is sinking...and I think part of my soul died when I saw the numbers...
> 
> edit at this moment over 100 people (106) have said they broke the law...and did something this site itself speaks out against...




Hypothetical question 1: Would you have a problem with me photocopying a page from one of the core books for personal use (e.g. page 42 of the DMG, the conditions page in the PHB, or whichever monsters I was intending to use in an adventure)?

Hypothetical question 2: Would you have a problem with me scanning the same page into my computer?

Hypothetical question 3: Would you have a problem with me scanning an entire book I own into the computer? (Hint: While nothing in copyright is ever as clear as it should be, it's generally accepted that format-shifting your media is within the realm of legal fair use)

Hypothetical question 4: Would you have a problem with me downloading a copy of a book I own, given that legally it's probably okay for me to make my own copy in the first place.

While you've a flare for the dramatic, and indeed I fully admit I've broken the law, I maintain that I've done nothing unethical.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 20, 2009)

It's complicated.

I didn't buy the .pdfs.  Nor did I pirate them.  My housemate bought them, and I read through them, borrowing them for a 4e game.  Does that make me a pirate?  Surely there's no difference between that and simply downloading a .pdf, is there?  In neither case did I give money to WotC for my use of their material.  I didn't buy any of the books afterwards, either.  What is, ultimately, the difference between what I did and downloading the pdf?

Some people I know did pirate it.  Of those that did, an unspecificed and unknown percentage bought the books afterwards.  Others did not.  For those that did not, would they have bought the book were it not for their tendency to sail the seven seas of the internet?  For those that did, did some of the buy it BECAUSE they downloaded it in advance?

Data sharing isn't going to stop.  Ever.  It's always been around conceptually.  _Always_.  Even at the smallest level, of one friend borrowing a video game, movie, or yes, book from a friend.  That is, at its heart, the same as data sharing.  I'm not saying it's legal.  I'm not saying it's _right_.

I'm saying that it's complicated.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 20, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> No, "piracy" used to mean only that. Now it _also_ means "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work". Using it in that sense is perfectly legitimate. (Why would my dictionary lie to me?)
> 
> Language evolves. A century ago, "gay" meant "merry and full of joy". Now it means "homosexual". It would be silly to insist that everyone continue to use "gay" only in the first context simply because that was the original meaning of the word.




I am well aware language changes, however this change should be opposed because it conflates a violent crime with a violation of limited monopoly.

Would you call printing counterfeit copies of the 4e PHB murdering the book?

No, that would be nonsensical. So is calling it piracy because piracy has a specific legal meaning.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 20, 2009)

A couple points.

First, there are several civil cases where lawyers representing IP holders have been castigated for using the term "theft" in court to describe copyright infringement. In a court of law, the distinction is important. Then again, this is a web forum, not a courtroom.

Second, despairing over the depravity of humanity over a web forum poll is a tad bit much, IMHO. Remember that the very concept of "intellectual property" is remarkably new, and even until ten years ago was typically an inside-the-industry thing only (indeed, court rulings on tape recording in the late seventies and early eighties reinforced the idea that end-consumers didn't have to worry about copyright laws). I was already a fully-formed adult when Napster came around, and, all of a sudden, consumers are also producers, and long-assumed rights became wrong. Right now, many people are still trying to wrap their head around what is actually legal or not, even aside from the ethics of it (because heretofore IP law was assumed to be for people who made money off of it). Again, I speak of the masses (like me), and not people better versed in the history of IP law.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this much is clear: the concept of "fair use" has been shrinking by the decade. Have patience on people who are still trying to get used to the idea that things are suddenly wrong that ten years ago were considered perfectly fine.

That said, don't break the law. And if you plan on breaking the law to protest your diminishing "fair use" rights as an act of civil disobedience, do it right and turn yourself in afterwords.

EDIT: Relevant readings:
Dowling vs. US (1985) - Holding that copyright infringement is separate and distinct from theft


----------



## malraux (Feb 20, 2009)

Krensky said:


> I am well aware language changes, however this change should be opposed because it conflates a violent crime with a violation of limited monopoly.




I think the key thing here is why the language has changed.  If it was directed by corporate desires, then it should probably be opposed.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 20, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> My housemate bought them, and I read through them, borrowing them for a 4e game.  Does that make me a pirate?



Icky situation.

Under traditional "fair use" rights? No.

Under the current interpretation of copyright law favored by most media cartels? Yes. Your housemate's "license" is non-transferable unless explicitly stated so, they say. You should have bought your own copy, they say.

Somehow, I don't think WotC is losing sleep over it, though. I log into DDI and let my roomie browse with no personal moral qualms whatsoever.


----------



## Caliber (Feb 20, 2009)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU]YouTube - You are a pirate[/ame]

Seemed relevant to the discussion (at least for some posters ...)


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 20, 2009)

Krensky said:


> I am well aware language changes, however this change should be opposed because it conflates a violent crime with a violation of limited monopoly.




So you'd have the world stuff the toothpaste back into a tube that got squeezed out more than two decades ago? Copying software in 1985 was called "piracy" back then. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You can try stuffing it back into the tube all you want, it simply won't go back in.



Krensky said:


> Would you call printing counterfeit copies of the 4e PHB murdering the book?




No, I'd call it stealing the book. Walking into Borders, picking up a copy of the PHB and ripping the covers off would be "murdering the book".



Krensky said:


> No, that would be nonsensical. So is calling it piracy because piracy has a specific legal meaning.




Piracy has a specific dictionary meaning. Copying software or books without permission is piracy. End of story.



malraux said:


> I think the key thing here is why the language has changed.  If it was directed by corporate desires, then it should probably be opposed.




Back in '85, I knew a lot of software pirates. I knew a guy that had a collection of over 40 megabytes of pirated software (that was a lot in 1985). Every software pirate I knew called themselves *PIRATES!*


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 20, 2009)

I'll cop to having pirated books before, though not the 4e ones.  I don't like PDFs and rarely buy them - only if its short enough that printing is affordable.  And then I still have a product very much inferior to a printed book, so it has to be really cheap.  $10 is probably my absolute cutoff for a PDF.

I do like to have them on my laptop for reference when doing game prep, so I'll get PDFs after I buy the books.  As posted, it is perfectly legal for me to scan and create a PDF of my own book, therefore I see no ethical problem with downloading a copy.  Prove that I didn't do so - data is data, and it doesn't care who copied it.

The rights of copyright holders is way too strong right now.  Companies will do best when they stop worrying about it so much, IMO.  Most pirates aren't lost customers, they're people with very little money anyway who collect them because they can.  They don't do anything with them, and wouldn't buy them if they weren't available for download.  IME anyway.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 20, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> Back in '85, I knew a lot of software pirates. I knew a guy that had a collection of over 40 megabytes of pirated software (that was a lot in 1985). Every software pirate I knew called themselves *PIRATES!*




I remember when 40 MB was alot...I remember that my first computer had a hard drive messured in KB...wow thank you Xyxox now I feel old...


----------



## Asmor (Feb 20, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> IProve that I didn't do so - data is data, and it doesn't care who copied it.




Very well.

md5(your pdf)

md5(someone else's pdf)

Hey, the hashes match! Especially given the noise and random skewing inherent in scanning a book, that's basically 100% proof that you and the other person have copies of the same PDF, meaning either you downloaded it from the same place as them or, even worse, you made a scan of your copy and then provided it to others.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 21, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Very well.
> 
> md5(your pdf)
> 
> ...




Google "PDF Editor".

Every PDF can be unique with minimal effort, regardless fo the original source.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 21, 2009)

From the previews, I was pretty sure that 4e was not for me, but I decided to check it out.  I skimmed through the Players Handbook, confirmed that 4e wasn't what I was looking for, and decided not to buy it.


----------



## Zaruthustran (Feb 21, 2009)

Asmor said:


> I like to have PDFs and physical copies of all books I intend to use. PDFs are better for prep, books are better for using at the table.




WotC has provided digital versions of their content, in a format that's even easier to use than mere PDFs. With all classes, feats, powers, monsters, and items readily accessible in DDI's Compendium and Character Builder tools, there's no excuse for piracy.


----------



## Knightfall (Feb 21, 2009)

I've never pirated any of the 4e books. I've never bought any 4e books either.

However, I did end up with a few pirated copies of some of the 3e books. However, I felt so guilty having them on my PC that I deleted them soon afterwards.

I have a lot of old [poor] scans of some sections of several 2e books that I had to sell several years ago. However, I bought those books and I kept the scans for my use only. I would never share them with anyone not that anyone would want them because they suck.


----------



## Agamon (Feb 21, 2009)

I had a legal copy of Pirates!  That was a fun game.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 21, 2009)

Zaruthustran said:


> WotC has provided digital versions of their content, in a format that's even easier to use than mere PDFs. With all classes, feats, powers, monsters, and items readily accessible in DDI's Compendium and Character Builder tools, there's no excuse for piracy.



This is a very cogent point: it's such a low price-point, and it's so much better than a free scan. I would be interested in seeing if DDI has put a dent in "casual" illicit copying of 4E material.


----------



## Xris Robin (Feb 21, 2009)

Who uses scans?  I'm pretty sure most of the pirated pdfs are just copies of the official ones.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 21, 2009)

Zaruthustran said:


> WotC has provided digital versions of their content, in a format that's even easier to use than mere PDFs. With all classes, feats, powers, monsters, and items readily accessible in DDI's Compendium and Character Builder tools, there's no excuse for piracy.




Alternatively:

As someone who owns the books and subscribes to the DDI, there's no excuse for claiming I don't give WotC my fair share of money.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 21, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> Google "PDF Editor".
> 
> Every PDF can be unique with minimal effort, regardless fo the original source.




The capability exists, of course.

But I'd be willing to bet that not a single person who's ever downloaded a D&D book on the internet has ever altered the PDF for the express purpose of fooling someone into thinking they didn't get their PDF from the internet.

In any case, even if they had, it would only cause a false negative. It's still statistically improbable that comparing a hash of the file would provide a false positive without some sort of shenanigans.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 21, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> Everyone who distributed copies infringed on copyright. Simply having the copies in one's possessions is not an infringement. There may be laws that make such possession a crime, but these are not tradiationally part of copyright law.




I don't want to get into the morality of file sharing, but that distinction is fairly meaningless today given that most file sharing occurs over torrents which basically force downloaders to actually distribute content as they download.


----------



## Elephant (Feb 21, 2009)

If I thought there was anything worthwhile there, I'd probably cheerfully pirate the 4.0 books.

Since I don't, I haven't.


----------



## Elephant (Feb 21, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> So you'd have the world stuff the toothpaste back into a tube that got squeezed out more than two decades ago? Copying software in 1985 was called "piracy" back then. The toothpaste is out of the tube. You can try stuffing it back into the tube all you want, it simply won't go back in.




It goes back a lot further than that, IIRC.  Some English writers were decrying the "Pyrates" as early as the 1700s.

Blasted nasty thing to do, too, skewing discussion on one thing (infringing someone's copy privileges) by putting something viscerally unpleasant (theft and violence) in mind.  It really encourages a state of affairs that disproportionally favors the privilege-holders.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 21, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> I've never pirated any gaming materials.
> 
> I don't even know how to use a torrent (never been to one).
> 
> Man, I feel old.




Don't worry, the penalty for piracy isn't one I would ever want to pay, so I don't ever bother taking the risk either. I make enough money that I don't ever need to steal. Nor do I just "want to" either.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 21, 2009)

Well, I _buy_ PDFs. Quite regularly. I have a pretty good collection (quality-wise), I think. If something's _really_, _truly_ worth owning, I'll just buy the thing.

Which doesn't have anything to do with 4e - that's not a game of quality, *IMO*, so I see no compelling reason to acquire it in any form, by any means.

So uh. . . where were we? Oh yes, 'piracy'. I'd be more concerned with the serious issues of _real_ piracy off the coast of Africa (and elsewhere), personally. But anyway, I think I covered the basics of my own perspective on this so-called 'piracy'. d00ds, if you really want something, and will make use of it, please support the human beings who have worked hard to create that thing. Real people, real work - it's not hard to imagine how much it would suck not getting paid for whatever work it is that _you_ do, eh? Well then. . .


----------



## genshou (Feb 21, 2009)

While I've used torrents to take a look at books before to decide if I wanted them (thank you piracy community, for letting me discover most of the d20 Modern supplement line wasn't worth a second look), I didn't take a look at 4e until the books came out.  I had no desire to buy or pirate them after reading the first ten pages.  My gaming group was surprised I made it that far.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 21, 2009)

genshou said:


> I didn't take a look at 4e until the books came out.  I had no desire to buy or pirate them after reading the first ten pages.




Really?  How did that internal conversation go?  Something like this?

"What the heck is this crap?  Roleplaying?  Fantastic worlds?  Player Characters?  Dungeon Masters?  Adventures!?  Game books and dice?  Exploration?  Taking turns?!  Oh Gods!  What have those bastards done to D&D!" *shakes fist*

I'm betting it was something like that


----------



## Nightson (Feb 21, 2009)

I two answers I was mainly curious about when I started the poll was the people who downloaded, liked the books but didn't buy them and the ones who did buy them.  

Of course the question is how much can we trust a non statistical self reported poll?  Well, not very far, but it might mean that for every person who downloads the books and never buys a copy, there's two people who do end up buying copies of the books, which makes me happy.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 21, 2009)

Actuall selling a pdf for the price of a printed book can be called robbery as mp3s sold for the price of a CD...

the Production cost is about 0, tthe cost for putting them on the internet is also quite low...

I would never pay 30$ for a book i own as pdf

WotCs idea to distribute the pdfs for a low price to people who have bought the printed books was great. A shame they dropped the idea. The best action against piracy is reasonable pricing of digital products...


----------



## Thanee (Feb 21, 2009)

I just bought H1 and the Gift Set, when they were available, to take a look (ok, flipped through the books in the FLGS a bit before buying them).

I prefer actual books to PDFs, anyways. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 21, 2009)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Actuall selling a pdf for the price of a printed book can be called robbery as mp3s sold for the price of a CD...
> 
> the Production cost is about 0, tthe cost for putting them on the internet is also quite low...




This has been covered several times. I am sure you think you are right, but this is simply not the case.

Shipping and printing of D&D books are only a small percentage of the cost of making the book. If you sell pdf's cheaply, you risk losing money because people buy the pdf instead of the book.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 21, 2009)

I use pirate and piracy when talking about unauthorized copying, its long established and fighting its use is pointless.

The obfuscated 'copyright infringement" terminology is like saying "commit homicide" or something.  It puts emotional distance so people can avoid morality or ethics or something.  (Note: your own ethics or morals may vary.)

By fighting this lost battle still, people lose sight of the real one, that IP piracy is not theft!

People are not stealing anything when you break these laws.  They are violating the law,  arguably they cause some economic harm.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 21, 2009)

The thing I don't get about the whole "right to preview" thing is this.

Many video games have free download-ready demos available.
Nowadays, many books have preview chapters and table of contents indexes.

I don't think the "right to preview" involves being able to read the ENTIRE book or listen to the ENTIRE CD or watch the ENTIRE DVD or play the ENTIRE game.  

The problem with doing that is, while torrent advocates say "the fact that someone downloaded doesn't mean they'd have bought it".  That's true, but there is a truism that "donation ware" or "tip jars" bring in less money than a fixed price.  If people wrongfully rip off books, then make it available to everybody, even though it's illegal and wrong--with the moral obsfucation and justification going on, young people think it's okay to do that or they're fighting the "big companies"--it will lead to more people using the free option.

George Carlin talked about "euphemistic language", how Shell Shock became Post-Traumatic Stress disorder.  Even though there's some moral outrage about us using the terms "theft" and "piracy"--my gut level tells me the more blunt and critical term is the one to use.  Trying to turn it around and say "how dare you compare it to life and death crimes" misses the point.

Whatever you call it, illegally downloading stuff that's protected and is meant to be sold flies in the face of millennia of legal, moral, and ethical precedents--from the "Thou Shall Not Steal/Covet" commandments, to the "Golden Rule", to how the world treats white-collar crime like embezzlement.  I don't think anything the "big corporations" have done compares to the simple fact that taking stuff that is meant to be paid for, that some people worked very hard to produce, just because it's possible and it "can't be stopped", is wrong.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Feb 21, 2009)

The problem with only having free, preview material available is that it (of course) only provides a limited picture of the product.

It's a shame that WotC can't release full book previews that expire and don't have print functionality.  That way their customers can make informed decisions on products before going out and buying them.


----------



## roguerouge (Feb 21, 2009)

I can't say I'm surprised at the number of people testing out the game before deciding to buy. File sharing's a lot like radio in the era of cassette tapes. With a little patience you could sample an album for free and you could even get a copy of it for your use. But if you actually liked the music, you'd go buy the record so that you could have a copy without the noise (tape hiss, DJ talking over the beginning and end of the song, etc.). 

Similarly, with file sharing, you end up wanting to buy for the book's convenience, you have to search for a copy that's complete and uncorrupted, etc. And, oh, how the record industry ranted against cassette piracy and how it was ruining the industry! (While Sony was selling those very same blank cassettes!) 

File sharing's got some advantages for the cultural producer over radio: with radio, you had to pay to get radio play. (Today, it costs roughly 400 grand to get national air play for a song.) And, of course, it's easier to sample a wider variety of indie products through file sharing than with radio play (or Barnes and Noble shelf space).

Of course, it must be said: If you download, use, and never buy gaming materials, may you be covered with boils in your most sensitive areas. It's not like you're striking a blow against the MAN, the way you might be with Time Warner or GE. Piracy against a tiny division of Hasbro is the cultural piracy equivalent of purse snatching: lame and hardly the work of a criminal mastermind.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 21, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> I don't think the "right to preview" involves being able to read the ENTIRE book or listen to the ENTIRE CD or watch the ENTIRE DVD or play the ENTIRE game.




It has to do with the type of value being offered. If it is about a 2h film that its value is about the show it offers, it beats it watching the whole show. But if it is about a car or some professional software you need a full demonstration of what it can do and what it cant do at 100%. If it is about a game you need to fully demonstrate gameplay and its rules. Because the utility of the rules is where the value stands. Was there a demo for 4e? If I remember correctly there were some character sheets and some basic rules. I guess those were enough to preview the game.
Also:
Many people buy the hobby books because of their collective value. Many of them need to browse the artistic qualities of such books. To see the art. To see if they like it. Was there a demo of such a thing? I also believe it was. So I believe you have a point...
Yet:
If there was not a chance at browsing the whole book fewer people would decide to buy it in the end: mostly those that were already convinced about the possibility of the purchase. Instead, those who had not thought about buying it will tend to think more about purchasing it if they can browse the whole book. There is some strange psychology at work here.
There is also another class of client: the one who needs to know what new knowledge or information may lie in there to discover. If this client has a chance to browse the whole book you could probably lose a sale than gain one -especially if he is not impressed to the point of needing to collect such an item or convinced to use it or even wanting to reward the creator. But is it ok to try to selling things to someone's curiosity? Besides, if I am not wrong I believe there is some copyright provision due to accademic reasons or something like that.


----------



## Memona (Feb 21, 2009)

I pirate every book before I buy it. If I like it, I buy it. If I don't like it, I don't buy it. While pdfs are great, but you know, it does not do me any good considering I can bring them to the table. Sure, I could bring a tabletap but it does not have the same feel or atmosphere.

In this respect, I consider piracy a good thing for me and the industry I help support. If I never pirated 4e, I would have never bought it. Pretty simple.


----------



## grickherder (Feb 21, 2009)

Being an old school gamer, I thought 3rd edition was totally the wrong way for D&D to go and didn't really play D&D from about a year after it came out (gave it a try).  I assumed in advance that 4th ed would be more of the same.  I downloaded a torrent for the core books and was utterly wowed.  So I bought them.  And miniatures.  And multiple dungeon tile sets.  And source books and so on.

I've noticed a recent trend from content producers to give away larger and larger portions of their works on the net.  There are lots of TV shows that you can watch entire episodes or even entire previous seasons online.  They're wising up.

A preview chapter and a table of contents would not have gotten me back into D&D and would have gotten no money from me in product purchases.  Seeing the entire books got WotC my money.

But some people would call me a dirty dirty thief.  Somehow I'll surrive.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 21, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> This has been covered several times. I am sure you think you are right, but this is simply not the case.
> 
> Shipping and printing of D&D books are only a small percentage of the cost of making the book. If you sell pdf's cheaply, you risk losing money because people buy the pdf instead of the book.




It should be cheaper... As a comparison to the book market:

less than the Hardcover, not less than the pocket book.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Feb 21, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Icky situation.
> 
> Under traditional "fair use" rights? No.
> 
> ...




Well, i well lend my books to anyone i know and who wants to read it. , i even lend my audio cds and burned mp3s to people. I don't know how many hours i spend in copy centers to get all the rpg stuff i needed as a teenager. Times change - sharing doesn't.

But hey, i am in germany. And doing all that (not pirating - i mean lending, sharing) is ok so far. May it stay so til i am old and grumpy. If not - well - time to leave the place because i do not want live in a state which tries to enforce on me which information i may share and which i may not.

"Daddy, can you read me a story?"
"Sure. Which one do you like?"
"The ones you read to my brother yesterday."
"Sorry, not tonight. I need to register a copy for you. Maybe tommorrow."

Whats next? Closing down the libraries?
Men - i should charge my gaming group for having the game experience they get. I mean - i provide 6-10 hours of fun with stories out of my head. How the hell do i got to the idea of sharing my IP for nothing?



Jack99 said:


> This has been covered several times. I am sure you think you are right, but this is simply not the case.
> 
> Shipping and printing of D&D books are only a small percentage of the cost of making the book. If you sell pdf's cheaply, you risk losing money because people buy the pdf instead of the book.




Same argument is valid with audio cds too and look how much it brought the industry in doing so...
Sorry, but i think the industry should adapt to things that are and things that will come in the future. If they are not capable to do that there are people who will lead the way and tell them how its done. Napster to iTunes... which still isn't cheap and still the wrong people get the most out of it imho.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 21, 2009)

I think I need to weigh in again...

    If you think a law is stupid then argue for it to be changed...I have no problme with open discussion on laws...


       However breaking said law is going over the line.  

  What if I said I felt laws on Drivers Licences were stupid...why should I pay the state to have a peice of paper that says I can drive...as long as I drive safely shouldn't I be allowed to drive without one???    Now what if I let my licence laps and drove without it...could I then claim the state is wrong for having me arrested?? Afterall I feel it is a stupid law...Why should I follow a stupid law?

    What if the law in quastion was about woman...what if I was of the belife they were property to be traded...then woman rights laws are stupid to me...

   What if I feel the laws against owning fully autmatic weapons is stupid...
  What if I feel the laws against me shooting people who tresspass on my land are stupid...

        Now lets bring this back full circle...What if I feel IP and copyright laws are stupid...does that give me the right to break them???  If so where do we draw the line? Whitch laws are optional??

edit: at this time over 150 people on this public form admit to breaking the law and doing something they know to be illigal


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 21, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I think I need to weigh in again...
> 
> If you think a law is stupid then argue for it to be changed...I have no problme with open discussion on laws...
> 
> ...




I purchased dozens upon dozens of 2E PDFs. I wish I had pirated copies before doing so because had I known how poor the quality of about 25% were, I would have never purchased them and would have instead scanned them myself since I own a hard copy of literally every 2E product produced. As it is, I have scanned those products that the PDF I purchased was of inferior quality to have an electronic copy I can actually use. Plus, I scanned my copy of the Encyclopedia Magica: Volume 2 as WotC never did that one.

Because of my experiences with the 2E scans, I am reluctant to purchase any 3E or 4E PDFs as the cost is much higher and I have no clue what the quality is.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Feb 21, 2009)

a law does not have to be right to be one. 
not following a law has not to be right as well.
but both can be.

death by law is wrong. why? 
lets take it the capitalist way, will we? 
because it costs more. thats why some states think about getting it removed, right? not because of morality - no - money.
Sick joke this world is... but hey, thats getting political. sorry.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 21, 2009)

Now I'm wondering whats to stop WoTC from getting a subpenoia to find out who voted that they downloaded the stuff illegally and bringing them up on charges.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Now I'm wondering whats to stop WoTC from getting a subpenoia to find out who voted that they downloaded the stuff illegally and bringing them up on charges.




Because internet polls have no validity as there is no way to insure people voted accruately and no way to calculate a margin of error, thus it wiould be a waste of time as bnothing could actually be proved by the data.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Now I'm wondering whats to stop WoTC from getting a subpenoia to find out who voted that they downloaded the stuff illegally and bringing them up on charges.






Xyxox said:


> Because internet polls have no validity as there is no way to insure people voted accruately and no way to calculate a margin of error, thus it wiould be a waste of time as bnothing could actually be proved by the data.




It also would not be financially worth their time to go after individual downloaders, and it would also not be worth the huge PR nightmare.

Of course, if they ever did sue me, well, I'd stop downloading their stuff, delete everything I have, stop running the game for my friends (who would not otherwise buy books), stop producing free software which supports their game, stop subscribing to the DDI, and of course stop buying anything D&D, Magic, Avalon Hill, or anything else under the WotC/Hasbro umbrella.


----------



## Oldtimer (Feb 21, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Whatever you call it, illegally downloading stuff that's protected and is meant to be sold flies in the face of millennia of legal, moral, and ethical precedents



This is so wrong that I have to object strongly. Copyright laws are less than three hundred years old, so there are no millennia of precedents here.

I do agree that copyright proponents try to adhere copyright to the old ideas of "thou shalt not steal", by using words like "theft" and "intellectual property", but the fact remains that works protected by copyright are not property and copying can never be theft.

I note that the creators of the US Constitution found themselves motivated to specifically point out that Congress _can_ issue laws to limit peoples' ability to copy something they have purchased. I don't see anything in the Constitution pointing out that Congress can issue laws against theft. I would seem that copyright was not so firmly entrenched in those days.

I realize that we look at this issue very differently, John, but maybe this gives you some idea of where I'm coming from in this. I simply do not recognize copyright as a fundamental law in the way that laws against theft and murder are. If you read up on why the Statute of Anne were issued in 1710, you might come to the same conclusion.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 21, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> However breaking said law is going over the line.




So it would be your position that you have never broken the law?  Never gone over the speed limit?  Never rolled through a stop sign without coming to a complete, resting stop?  Never jaywalked?  Never downloaded an "illegal" song?  Never shoplifted anything?  Never had a drink underage?  Never took some prescription medicine not prescribed to you?  Never enjoyed an illicit substance or two at a party?

Breaking a law is not morally wrong.  Breaking laws do have consequences.  If you speed, you could get a ticket.  If you drive without a license, you could go to jail (I did, but I didn't know my license had been suspended...long story).  If you pirate something you could ...well, nothing really, so go ahead!


----------



## The Highway Man (Feb 21, 2009)

Bought the three core books, read them, didn't like them. No 4e in my gaming diet, no piracy.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 21, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> So it would be your position that you have never broken the law?  Never gone over the speed limit?



  yes I have...and I knew it was wrong I will never try to say that X shouldn't happen...



> Never rolled through a stop sign without coming to a complete, resting stop?  Never jaywalked?



  I don't belive I ever did these...



> Never downloaded an "illegal" song?  Never shoplifted anything?



  never



> Never had a drink underage?



yes, infact I drank more between 15 and 21 then I have since 21...and looking back regret almost all of the dumb things I did as a teen...


> Never took some prescription medicine not prescribed to you?
> 
> Never enjoyed an illicit substance or two at a party?



no and no



> Breaking a law is not morally wrong.



this part is debatable...and way out of the scope of enworld...



> Breaking laws do have consequences.



  DING WE HAVE A WINNER... 



> Breaking laws do have consequences.






> If you speed, you could get a ticket.  If you drive without a license, you could go to jail (I did, but I didn't know my license had been suspended...long story).  If you pirate something you could ...



recive a C&D or lawsuit...includeing posssible criminal charges (depending on what you pirate)


     so now back to this...want to look back at this thread and the others like it...not full of people saying  "Gee...X was wrong and I will take the consiqunces"
       but full of "Law X is stupid and doesn't count"  I am parafrasing of cource...

so lets see here... I used alchol before I was 21...and wish I had not...infact I have not drank anything short of a toast in 5 years...becuse I think drinking is dumb, and I only did it back then becuse I was dumb...however I have several friends that drink still, and enjoy watching them to this day in there 30's and 40's get drunk...do stupid things...and laugh at them.

              I broke the speed limit...and payed for my speeding tickets..

now lets look at the 2 sites WotC sent C&Ds too...they pirated IP...and got C&Ds for it (not even a slap on the wrist) and took it down...becuse they knew they were in the wrong...and now there are pages of people complaining and saying X Y and Z is wrong and they knowingly and willing break laws becuse in there mind they are entitiled to break the law when they see fit....

     so was I out sick the day in school they tought witch laws are optional???


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Feb 21, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I remember when 40 MB was alot...I remember that my first computer had a hard drive messured in KB...wow thank you Xyxox now I feel old...




Your first computer had a hard drive?  Man, kids these days...


----------



## xechnao (Feb 21, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> however I have several friends that drink still, and enjoy watching them to this day in there 30's and 40's get drunk...do stupid things...and laugh at them.



You like your friends making you laugh while you are playing it safe?


----------



## JoeGKushner (Feb 21, 2009)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Your first computer had a hard drive?  Man, kids these days...




Tell me about it.

Started off with a Tandy that had to swap out 5 and a quarter disks to play games.

Ugh.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 21, 2009)

xechnao said:


> You like your friends making you laugh while you are playing it safe?




yes...it also helps that I have been the des driv since I was 22...so none of them get behind the wheel


----------



## Mark (Feb 21, 2009)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Your first computer had a hard drive?  Man, kids these days...





I had to use a cassette deck with my TI-99.


----------



## Appleseeth (Feb 21, 2009)

I think we're all forgetting one thing piracy of the 3 core books actually did for 4e, that is make more people buy into the game. Those leaked pdfs made a lot of skeptics who probably weren't going to buy the books at all look through them and make a good, informed decision. I will, in fact give you my timeline with 4th edition to illustrate.

Step 1: 4th edition is announced. I question why they're making a 4th edition, seemingly so soon after 3.5.

Step 2: I go to a preview game of 4e at a local game store with my D&D buddies. It sucks. We make fun of 4th edition, a lot.

Step 3: More previews come out for 4th edition. I am slightly intrigued again, but still generally happy with 3.5.

Step 4: The pdfs are leaked. I download them. There are many unplayable errors in the books, but now I actually understand how 4e is meant to work, which is awesome.

Step 5: I buy the hardcover books and my group has been happily playing 4e ever since.

I suspect this is close to what happened for a lot of 4e players, at least those who weren't on board right away. I recall some blog post somewhere that actually talked about the leaked pdfs and how they apparently boosted sales. I think it was from a WotC employee too.

Another thing about digital piracy in general: People will pay for things what they are willing to pay. If you are losing a lot of customers to piracy, then your item costs too much. Some people will of course never pay for anything, but that's just them. I know it's hard to believe, but people actually do want to pay you for your hard work on that music/move/book, it's just not necessarily the amount you're asking. Just look at the In Rainbows album from Radiohead as a perfect example.


----------



## Xyxox (Feb 21, 2009)

Lonely Tylenol said:


> Your first computer had a hard drive?  Man, kids these days...




My first computer had a cassette tape recorder.

My second computer had two 5 1/4" 360K floppy disk drives (they were dual sided and ROCKED, but it was hard to find dual sided disks).


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 21, 2009)

Appleseeth said:


> I think we're all forgetting one thing piracy of the 3 core books actually did for 4e, that is make more people buy into the game. Those leaked pdfs made a lot of skeptics who probably weren't going to buy the books at all look through them and make a good, informed decision.





you may be right...but this poll shows otherwise..

at this time:  Pirated, didn't like, didn't buy    114 39.18%  is 1st place


on the other hand Never pirated any of the books    99 34.02%   that is right only 1/3 of those polled say they never pirated...I guess Enworlds high standards are not as high as we all thought...I see lots of posters talk about how bad pirateing is, but again ony 1/3 of us say we never did it...


----------



## grickherder (Feb 21, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> you may be right...but this poll shows otherwise..
> 
> at this time:  Pirated, didn't like, didn't buy    114 39.18%  is 1st place




You need to remember that the poll is set up so you can choose multiple answers.  I, for example, chose all 4 of the first 4 answers.  The leaked PDFs got me back into D&D (and I've made a lot of purchases as a result), but other things I've looked at the PDF and decided not to get it.  THe poll options were not mutually exclusive.  Important to remember that.


----------



## maddman75 (Feb 21, 2009)

JoeGKushner said:


> Now I'm wondering whats to stop WoTC from getting a subpenoia to find out who voted that they downloaded the stuff illegally and bringing them up on charges.




For starters, violating copyright isn't a crime.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Feb 21, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> you may be right...but this poll shows otherwise..
> 
> at this time:  Pirated, didn't like, didn't buy    114 39.18%  is 1st place
> 
> ...




Sorry, but the world inside the box demands a double moral standard.

Whats wrong with the poll?
*39%* said that the product they looked at was crap in their eyes. For them downloading the stuff and reading it was like having a look into the book in a store and deciding that its not for them. If a friend asks me if he can look into my books to find out if he should buy them he simply gets my books and takes all the time he needs (well, as long as i don't need them). I don't even want to know what crap is on my hard drive that i don't even look at anymore. Server Manuals, CSS Guides..... frag them.

*34%* say they didn't pirate anything. Great!
*17%* pirated the stuff and bought the books! Good thing - the pdfs worked as a great  preview - getting 17% more people into buying the books.
*22%* bought the books and pirated the pdfs. what the frag (yeah, i love BSG ) - they downloaded a pdf version of a thing they own. Booho.
*8%* downloaded it, didn't buy it and live a life as evil, stealing pirates among our community!

So out of the 100 - 8% are real evil pirates. Don't go and make it 1/3 - because thats not the case here. Intentions matter sometimes. Maybe not for some people here - but for my social conscience it does.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 21, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> For starters, violating copyright isn't a crime.



Unfortunately, that is not the case. The "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act of 1997 made the copying of copyrighted information over the internet into a felony punishable by $250K in fines and 5 years in prison _per item infringed_. The DMCA of 1998 increased the monetary penalty to $500K for first time offenders, and $1M + 10 years per incident for repeat offenders.

EDIT: It is my sincere hope that I'm not flirting with the "no politics" rule when I mention that you can, in fact, go to jail longer for your PDF collection (if you have 2 or more) than your average rapist (117 months). Be smart. Don't download. If you have a problem with this, call your nearest local friendly lawmaker.


----------



## beeflv30 (Feb 21, 2009)

I made like a pirate, but also bought the books as soon as they were released a few days after the 4e core set leaked. Soon after I deleted the copies since I hate pdf format compared to the real books. I do not really fear being persecuted for doing so, the torrent laws here in Canada are pretty slack, in fact the priority is to focus on organized crime and copyright theft that affects the health and safety of consumers instead of the cash flow of large corporations. I personally do not shun those who choose to torrent or those who choose not to, it is all up to the individual and I think some corporations (They shall remain nameless) deserve what they get, but that is my own opinion.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Feb 21, 2009)

Halivar said:


> ...friendly lawmaker.



What?


----------



## jgbrowning (Feb 21, 2009)

Mark said:


> I had to use a cassette deck with my TI-99.




I wish.







joe b.


----------



## Knightfall (Feb 21, 2009)

Thanee said:


> I prefer actual books to PDFs, anyways.
> 
> Bye
> Thanee



Me too.

I'm still considering whether or not I'm going to buy the 4e Manual of the Planes.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowerGamers is proof that Lawful Neutral does indeed exist ;p

Laws != morals.  There are such a thing as bad laws.  There are such a thing as stupid laws.  As I mentioned in another thread, the law against pot is stupid, and the illegalization of prostitution is bad.  One is dumb, the other is *inherently harmful*.

Is smoking pot _morally bad_ because it's illegal?  Is drinking alcohol somehow morally better because it's legal for no logical or scientific reason?

Bad and stupid laws *cannot be changed* so long as you think of them as moral guidelines.  Laws are a social contract, not a divine mandate, unless you're living in a theocracy, which I don't think any of us - aside from some Australians - are.  And a social contract _can_ be changed.  Look at the Constitution - the ability to make amendments to it was put into place because of the general idea of "This stuff isn't ironclad.  Situations change.  Laws have to change with them."

The fight regarding piracy is, as I mentioned earlier, a complicated one.  As someone else brought up, copyright law is a relatively _new_ thing.  And no matter how many laws you put down, piracy will never be stopped.  Ever.  Most of the time, attempts to stop piracy only encourage it, something the video game industry has yet to fully grasp as they lose more and more profits with stupid, stupid ideas of trying to punish people.  Does that make it morally right?  _I don't know_.  Nobody does.  Judges interpret the law because laws can be interpreted in multiple ways.  They also give sentences instead of having one unified Code of Hammurabi gouging out everyone's eyes because circumstances change.  You can't just put your foot down and say "This is the way it is, *forever*, and it should always be that way."

It's complicated.


----------



## daveb22 (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm too loyal to WotC to not buy a physical copy even though I also pirate PDF versions. It helps b/c I read them on my comp in my spare time and they have a search function. But I lost count of how many books I bought from WotC so I believe I'm justified in also getting the PDF (for free)


----------



## Jack99 (Feb 22, 2009)

Ignore this post.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 22, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Ignore this post.



What post? I don't see it.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 22, 2009)

This is an interesting poll.

Two-thirds-ish respondents have pirated stuff?

I knew it was rampant, but wow.

Seems like it's time for a new business model that uses piracy (somehow) to one's advantage.  Maybe posting the pdfs for free, but gaining ad revenue from the site where they are posted.   Or maybe have a coupon in the .pdf for $2 (or whatever) off the physical book to drum up sales. 

Gives me something to think about....


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> This is an interesting poll.
> 
> Two-thirds-ish respondents have pirated stuff?
> 
> ...




Stardock makes a killing off of people pirating their games.  Sadly, it seems no other video game producer is willing to _comprehend_ that there's a lot of money to be made in _not actively punishing your customers_.


----------



## Nightson (Feb 22, 2009)

Well as long as option three is larger then option two, it would indicate that the company is increasing sales from piracy.  I mean in a theoretical world without piracy, you'd have 50 or so people who never buy the books and 25 or so people who do.  And I bet that the proportion of category two who wouldn't buy the book even without piracy is greater then the proportion of category three who would end up buying the books anyway.


----------



## Zustiur (Feb 22, 2009)

My exact situation does not appear to have been mentioned.
I used to pirate things (mainly software) in my childhood and teens. Then when I was studying for IT certification, around the time of napster being closed down, someone pointed out how big the fines for copyright infringement were. I stopped pirating at that point, and made a concerted effort never to 'steal' anything. I habitually look down on people who talk about downloading movies, music etc.

I bought the 3 core 4E books on the day of release, sight unseen. *I WISH I HAD PIRATED THEM INSTEAD.*
Where does that fit in your poll?

I, like most here, live in a representative democracy. Sometimes the representatives get it wrong. In regards to the discussion here on what is right or wrong. I ask you this:

If you live in any sort of democracy where more than 50% of people break a given law, what does that say about the law or the state of your democracy?

I say that if more than 50% of people are breaking a given law, then that law needs to be reviewed. That is afterall, the basic premise behind democracy - majority rules.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> My exact situation does not appear to have been mentioned.
> I used to pirate things (mainly software) in my childhood and teens. Then when I was studying for IT certification, around the time of napster being closed down, someone pointed out how big the fines for copyright infringement were. I stopped pirating at that point, and made a concerted effort never to 'steal' anything. I habitually look down on people who talk about downloading movies, music etc.
> 
> I bought the 3 core 4E books on the day of release, sight unseen. *I WISH I HAD PIRATED THEM INSTEAD.*
> ...




Actually, I think most of us live in a democratic republic which exists primarily to prevent a tyranny of the majority


----------



## Nightson (Feb 22, 2009)

Zustiur said:


> I bought the 3 core 4E books on the day of release, sight unseen. *I WISH I HAD PIRATED THEM INSTEAD.*
> Where does that fit in your poll?




Other.

:cheeky:


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 22, 2009)

I'm classically CG, civil disobedience is a moral absolute for me.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 22, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> GMforPowerGamers is proof that Lawful Neutral does indeed exist ;p



  I would say Lawful GOOD...but since you didn't call me lawful stupid (since my own group does) I will not take it in a bad way..



> Laws != morals.  There are such a thing as bad laws.  There are such a thing as stupid laws.




       you missed part of this laws do not equal morals...but following laws IS moral...  see I dissagree with laws...and am fine with you or anyone else doing the same, heck our system is based on it...if you want it changed go try to change it...don't break it...



> Is smoking pot _morally bad_ because it's illegal?  Is drinking alcohol somehow morally better because it's legal for no logical or scientific reason?




     Ok as I said I do neither...I also see no one as worse for you or anything of the like...but the law is the law...if you want to legalize pot there are ways to go about it...if you want to ban alchol same thing...just becuse you disagree doesn't make it ok to break it...but it does make it OK to try to get it changed...



> Bad and stupid laws *cannot be changed* so long as you think of them as moral guidelines.  Laws are a social contract, not a divine mandate, unless you're living in a theocracy, which I don't think any of us - aside from some Australians - are.  And a social contract _can_ be changed.  Look at the Constitution - the ability to make amendments to it was put into place because of the general idea of "This stuff isn't ironclad.  Situations change.  Laws have to change with them."




     again...fighting to change laws good...breaking them Bad...Breaking them then argueing that they don't apply becuse they are stupid is a big complaint I have...Heck if people said "I want X law xhanged...but I did the crime I will do the time" I would not throw a fit...but that is not the case here...heck most of the people who are pirateing I bet (just  aguess) are not actively calling there senetors and writing congress to change the laws...they just break them...



> The fight regarding piracy is, as I mentioned earlier, a complicated one.



Agreed...



> As someone else brought up, copyright law is a relatively _new_ thing.



with you so far...



> And no matter how many laws you put down, piracy will never be stopped.  Ever.



   Neither will anyother law...makeing killing illegal wont sstop criminals from killing...infact the NRA has an intresting theory "If you outlaw guns only criminals will have them"




    SO again to recap...if you knowing break the law, then complain about the consquinces (site taken down) maybe you need to rethink who you are mad at...
        Also if you feel Laws need changing there are ways to go about it WITHOUT breaking them...


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Neither will anyother law...makeing killing illegal wont sstop criminals from killing...infact the NRA has an intresting theory "If you outlaw guns only criminals will have them"




omg - thats really a bad choice for theorizing stuff. The NRA (aka National *Rifle* Association) puts down a theory that says that you need guns because if you don't have them, only the bad guys have them. How nice of them sponsoring themselves. If only the outlaws have the gun isn't that bad as long as you live in a social society. Criminal ratings with murder aren't necessary higher in countries where owning a weapon is against the law. Once we had a texan student here and boy was it fun to talk to him about how stupid it is to own a gun and that you don't need it. See, if someone breaks into your house, not having a gun, but finds it before you can get it - your more toast then you would be if he just had a knife. Emotionally harder to stab someone to death as to fire a shot out of a gun. The easier the killing - the faster it can happen. But funny how after a year managed to grab the idea that you don't need guns. 



GMforPowergamers said:


> SO again to recap...if you knowing break the law, then complain about the consquinces (site taken down) maybe you need to rethink who you are mad at...
> Also if you feel Laws need changing there are ways to go about it WITHOUT breaking them...




 You are a person with a free will and no law can rob you of that.

Having the choice to break a law is right. It sometimes makes a statement. Consequences included.
Blindly following laws is not moral - its dumb. Its dumb as in "shutting my brain off" because i just live by the law. I can't and will not think in that simplistic patterns. Its not right and never will be (as long as utopia has not been established). Its just easier...


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would say Lawful GOOD
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Vanuslux (Feb 22, 2009)

While I'm definitely not going to make the case that pirating is morally right, I do have to take issue with the statement that breaking the law is automatically immoral.  History is full of examples where breaking the law was the brave, heroic, and downright right thing to do.  Of course, most of those examples are more along the lines of fighting serious but legal violations of basic human rights, like freeing slaves...not people behind their computers downloading other people's work without paying for it.  

I dislike piracy in general...I'm just advising against sweeping statements that even breaking bad laws is immoral.  Bad laws are never changed without people breaking them.


----------



## grickherder (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> again...fighting to change laws good...breaking them Bad...




The truth of the matter is that civil disobedience is the most effective way to effect change.  If people just tried to change laws without breaking them, it's quite possible black people in the US would still have to give up bus seats to white passengers.

Now, I'm not equating civil disobedience to effect a change in copyright laws with ones of equality in terms of race-- the racial equality issues have much greater moral weight.  But one thing that the rampant piracy of music, movies, books and pretty much everything else has done is shown content providers that the easy distribution of their content for low or no cost can be used to drive sales.

I'd say the piracy of the core books for 4th ed were/are an excellent form of unintential marketting that generated more revenue for WotC.  WotC sends out cease and desist letters to blatant cases (like the power cards website) but I think those at WotC realize that going after those pirating D&D PDFs will only cost them money and accomplish nothing.

The piracy (civil disobeince) of the D&D books has produced positive change-- I can preview material in full before buying it and WotC gets more revenue.  Breaking the law produced positive change.

_Pirated, didn't like, didn't buy_ - no lost revenue, the customer didn't like the product.

_Pirated, liked it, but didn't buy_ - lost revenue, the customer likes the product but isn't paying for it.

_Pirated it, liked it, went out and bought it_ - gained revenue, the customer liked it and bought it.

_Bought the book then pirated for pdf copy_ - gained revenue, the customer already bought the book

As long as the aggregate is a revenue increase (ie, #3 being larger than #2) the piracy is having a positive effect on WotC's ability to make money.  It's a win-win situation where the customer has greater convenience and the producer is making more money.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Feb 22, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, and can we tread (Fnar fnar) away from the topic of gun ownership?  I may live in one of the most liberal cities in the US, but I'm a *staunch* supporter of the Second Amendment, and...well, things might get a bit _tetchy_ of we go down the path of "YOU NEVER NEED GUNS EVER!" ;p




No problem with that - i just answered because of his example. I know that its not part of the discussion in general and should not be - as it almost always will lead to a political discussion. I don't have a problem with guns. Guns are fun even if they are no toys to play with.  
But sorry, the example just didn't fit for me. selfpromoting somehow.

I think we didn't touch piracy in general with the last few comments. It went somehow more to a discussion about if its ok breaking laws or not. 

I don't know what alignment i have - but i'm certainly not evil. I am just not a fan of following all laws just because they exist, ok?


----------



## Shemeska (Feb 22, 2009)

Just as an aside to the thread:

There are a rather massive number of (presumably) pirated pdfs of books for various games floating around a few members of my group (generally used for quick reference at the table, and in many cases a physical copy of the book is owned, often prior to the pirating from what I've seen of their book collection).

Yet... the only thing the one big culprit has ever had happen to them was a C&D from Marvel Comics. Not the RIAA, not the MPAA, but Marvel. What's funny is that the comic book scans said person has given me over the years has made various comic companies a metric ton of money because it hooked me on about five or six comics I now have getting pulled at the local comic store for me.

Reading for pleasure on pdfs is hard on my eyes, so even if you gave me a free copy of a comic book scan or an rpg book, if I seriously like it and I would use it, I'll buy a print copy. White Wolf, Shadowrun, and others have made an obscene amount of money off of me in the past two years because of my being introduced to various books and/or game lines through pirated pdfs handed to me by members of my gaming group.

Judge as you will, but in this instance, the illegality of it all ultimately benefited all involved.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Feb 22, 2009)

It´s the same with music etc.

These days I preview my music on youtube, and if i really like them, i go and buy it.

What we need is something like youtube to preview the books when beeing online... this would save us some time reading everything in the shop.

You can´t demnad that you buy something you have not been able to fully preview.
And when you want to fully use Amazon or any other online shop, there must be a preview system which allows you to check what you want to buy.

As long as this does not exist, pirated pdf´s help you to decide if something is worth its money or not. But as long it is illegal, even if that seems stupid to me, I will go to a shop and preview it there... as I do with CDs... (And I only buy CD´s in a shop, where I actually can preview them complete, not only in parts)

And when I am too busy to go to the shop, i don´t buy, even if I would gladly spend my money on a book I like.

I don´t know how many people only have books on pdfs, but i dare to say that most people who can afford buying the books do so, tose who pirate often can´t afford buing them... and those people often help advertising, so I don´t believe, piracy is a bad thing per se...

Also books these days are really expensive... 30$ is quite a lot, often increased production cost and shipping cost is used to excuse a price increase... tell me how that compares to pdf pricing...


----------



## genshou (Feb 22, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> This is an interesting poll.
> 
> Two-thirds-ish respondents have pirated stuff?
> 
> ...



Now we're talking.


----------



## genshou (Feb 22, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Really?  How did that internal conversation go?  Something like this?
> 
> "What the heck is this crap?  Roleplaying?  Fantastic worlds?  Player Characters?  Dungeon Masters?  Adventures!?  Game books and dice?  Exploration?  Taking turns?!  Oh Gods!  What have those bastards done to D&D!" *shakes fist*
> 
> I'm betting it was something like that



Actually, more like this:
_Jeez, what is this?  They're making it sound like I couldn't do any of this with any previous edition of D&D, they're shoehorning what is _Fun and Cool_ into their own definition while simultaneously knocking my definition as BadWrongFun, and they're writing to me like they expect me to have the intellect and maturity level of the average ten-year-old!_  All the stuff you mention is there in 4e, it's the design philosophies and attitudes that put me off.  And that's something I could rewrite the books with the same mechanics and completely avoid.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> but following laws IS moral




That's just a plain silly statement. Law and morality share a certain intersection, but lawful does not imply moral and moral does not imply lawful.

E.g. Segregation was legally mandated in the United States, but that's certainly not morally conscionable now and it wasn't back then, either. Ditto for slavery before that.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 22, 2009)

Asmor said:


> That's just a plain silly statement. Law and morality share a certain intersection, but lawful does not imply moral and moral does not imply lawful.



Following an immoral law is, in and of itself, immoral.

That said, a law telling you not to copy IP is not immoral. Inconvenient? Yes. Silly? Perhaps even so. But not immoral. 

The moral and ethical question here is this: are you willing to break amoral (not immoral) laws _simply because you feel like it_? In this case the morality is not in the law itself, but rather in how you respond to it.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 22, 2009)

Xyxox said:


> IBecause of my experiences with the 2E scans, I am reluctant to purchase any 3E or 4E PDFs as the cost is much higher and I have no clue what the quality is.



Xyxox, I can't speak for the 3e PDFs, since I don't have any of those, but the 4e PDFs are things of pristine beauty compared to many of the 2e scans. Don't let your experience with the 2e scans put you off buying the more recent PDFs. They are far superior to what you'd get making your own scanned copies.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 22, 2009)

Asmor said:


> E.g. Segregation was legally mandated in the United States, but that's certainly not morally conscionable now and it wasn't back then, either. Ditto for slavery before that.




apples and oranges... seriesly...are you try to compair unfair laws that are harmful and prejadice and the fight of people to be treated as equals with getting free books...

      halivar is better with words on these forms then me so I will start with this:



Halivar said:


> Following an immoral law is, in and of itself, immoral.
> 
> That said, a law telling you not to copy IP is not immoral. Inconvenient? Yes. Silly? Perhaps even so. But not immoral.
> 
> The moral and ethical question here is this: are you willing to break amoral (not immoral) laws _simply because you feel like it_? In this case the morality is not in the law itself, but rather in how you respond to it.






now I will say if you want to talk about immoral laws start a new thread...this is about a law you don't like...there is a big diffrence...you are trying to say becuse I think it is wrong to steal from a bank I also think we should chop off a guys arm for stealing bread becuse his children are starving...


        If someone would like to show a REAL argument why you should get for free something that is being charged for I will respond...but this BS about slavery and Segregation is nothing more then a strawman...

     If there was a law saying I had to kill all babies a family have if they have more then 1 I would be the first guy leading the revult...If I was told the new law was that all men have the right to take a woman and rape her when ever they want...You bet I would be against it...any other stupid things you want to compair to 
         STEALING BOOKS!!!!!!

     just to make sure we are all clear here WotC sells PDFs of those books...you are getting for free from an illigal source what WotC sells...


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> apples and oranges...




are you talking about apples and oranges who quoted the NRA? Seriously...

Well i hope you protest about the death sentences in the US 100x compared to the energy you invest in this discussion here, as it is a trillion times more immoral then "stealing" IP.

I think all know that downloading a 4e pdf which you have not bought is bad, but in the end it all sums up about what you did after you did that thing. 8% did the wrong thing - the rest is ok with me. And as i am the one dictating myself whats moral and not - i can sleep like a baby.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> apples and oranges... seriesly...are you try to compair unfair laws that are harmful and prejadice and the fight of people to be treated as equals with getting free books...




Please show me where in that comment I said anything at all about PDFs. All I was doing was pointing out that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Feb 22, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Please show me where in that comment I said anything at all about PDFs. All I was doing was pointing out that what is legal is not necessarily moral. Nothing more, nothing less.




you took my quite on the topic of piracy, in a thread about piracy and then compaired it too very bad things...now you at no point said it wasn't about piracy or PDFs...and that is what is being discussed...so seriesly...I wish I knew that I had to assume you would take my statements on this or that topic (so far pot, prostitution, and Piracy) and dare compair it to slavery...


----------



## rgard (Feb 22, 2009)

I honestly can't believe some of what I have read in this thread.  I voted the 'Never' pirated option.

The 4e pdfs are for sale here:

DriveThruRPG.com - The Largest RPG Download Store!

If you want a 4e pdf, how about buying one?  

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Shades of Green (Feb 22, 2009)

I didn't pirate it and didn't buy it either. After reading some reviews about 4E I felt that it didn't fit my gaming style so I downloaded BFRPG for free (legally!) and I'm having a blast.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 22, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> you took my quite on the topic of piracy, in a thread about piracy and then compaired it too very bad things...now you at no point said it wasn't about piracy or PDFs...and that is what is being discussed...so seriesly...I wish I knew that I had to assume you would take my statements on this or that topic (so far pot, prostitution, and Piracy) and dare compair it to slavery...




You said, "Following laws IS moral." You didn't say "Following copyright laws is moral." Once more, I only debunked what you said.

Please say what you mean and read what I write.



rgard said:


> I honestly can't believe some of what I have read in this thread.  I voted the 'Never' pirated option.
> 
> The 4e pdfs are for sale here:
> 
> ...




I bought the books. Why should I pay twice?


----------



## rgard (Feb 22, 2009)

Asmor said:


> You said, "Following laws IS moral." You didn't say "Following copyright laws is moral." Once more, I only debunked what you said.
> 
> Please say what you mean and read what I write.
> 
> ...




You would be paying for two different products; one hard copy, one digital.  If you want a digital version and the hardcopy version, (but don't want to pay for the digital version) you can always type what you need into a word document.  That falls under fair use.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Prism (Feb 22, 2009)

I downloaded the pre release books and then also bought the hard copies. I still have those pdfs. I have also bought 2 of the other books on pdf. I have also pirated other pdfs and not bought them because I didn't like them.

So that means I knowingly broke the law because I didn't want to pay for the book twice. I also break far more important laws almost every day (speeding) and as a kid far less important laws (drinking) too. I guess I follow my own morals. 

I would also say that almost every single person I know or meet has few issues with some level of piracy. I am sceptical of the validity of this poll to be honest


----------



## resistor (Feb 23, 2009)

rgard said:


> You would be paying for two different products; one hard copy, one digital.  If you want a digital version and the hardcopy version, (but don't want to pay for the digital version) you can always type what you need into a word document.  That falls under fair use.




The whole premise of copyright is that, when buying a book, you purchase two things: the physical book, and a license from the copyright holder to view and use the copyrighted content within it.

If you've already bought a hard copy, you already have the license to view and use it.

Now, imagine that you go about pirate a PDF.  You already hold a license to view and use the content, so you have not violated the copyright.

While WotC (and all content producers) would certainly prefer you to pay to acquire your digital copies from them, if you already own hardcopies you are under no obligation to pay them anything more for it.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> apples and oranges... seriesly...are you try to compair unfair laws that are harmful and prejadice and the fight of people to be treated as equals with getting free books..



Are you implying that stealing is somehow not harmful?

As a poet, I expect to be paid by customers for all the work that goes into my creations.  You mean to tell me that your selfish desire to get everything for free, things you never worked for, didn't struggle over, didn't work long hours at perfecting--you think you deserve a free book simply because you want it?  That's more than selfish.  How about if you wanted a free (or greatly reduced in price) Blu-ray player--does that make it right to take/buy one that "fell off a truck?"  I'll answer my own question: hell no.


----------



## rgard (Feb 23, 2009)

resistor said:


> The whole premise of copyright is that, when buying a book, you purchase two things: the physical book, and a license from the copyright holder to view and use the copyrighted content within it.
> 
> If you've already bought a hard copy, you already have the license to view and use it.
> 
> ...




Nope.


----------



## resistor (Feb 23, 2009)

rgard said:


> Nope.




That, sir, was a very deep and insightful post.  To go with my best guess at your objection:

You'll notice that I did not address the morality of doing so.  It's completely reasonable to say that one should buy it twice because to do otherwise is immoral.  But, the way copyright is formulated, you are not legally obliged to pay for it twice.

It may be convenient to do so, there may be added value for doing so.  The producer (who undoubtedly has a bigger legal team than you) may even bully you to.  But you're not _obliged_ to.


----------



## rgard (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Are you implying that stealing is somehow not harmful?
> 
> As a poet, I expect to be paid by customers for all the work that goes into my creations.  You mean to tell me that your selfish desire to get everything for free, things you never worked for, didn't struggle over, didn't work long hours at perfecting--you think you deserve a free book simply because you want it?  That's more than selfish.  How about if you wanted a free (or greatly reduced in price) Blu-ray player--does that make it right to take/buy one that "fell off a truck?"  I'll answer my own question: hell no.




Besides being correct, you put the discussion on a more personal level.  I was thinking of the Fiendblade pdf (Lion's Den Press: Classes of Legend) written by Ari Marmell.  He posts here on enworld.  I purchased the pdf awhile back and really enjoyed it.  Ari has written alot of other rpg stuff:

Ari Marmell :: Pen & Paper RPG Database

Now, I purchased the pdf and it sits on my pc hard drive.  I would never think of sharing this pdf with anybody whether it be by emailing it, posting it on line or via file sharing.  

I won't do that as I would prefer that folks who want to play the class buy it themselves.  Hopefully Ari gets some cut of each purchase.  It's only right that he would.  

I prefer that Ari and others in the industry keep writing, but if folks suck away their income via pirating electronic copies of their work, we will all suffer as they find other things to do.

Mercutio01, your post earned experience points from me.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 23, 2009)

rgard said:


> Nope.




Yep.  He's quite right, actually.  If I own the book, I own a license to the content.  I can copy it on a copier for my personal use.  I can scan it and create a .pdf for personal use.  A .pdf is a .pdf and as far as me having a copy on my harddrive, it does not matter if I created it myself or if I downloaded it.  The end result is the same, I have a digital copy of a phsyical book I own.  Nothing illegal (nor immoral) about that.  Now, the person or website distrubting those copies may well be doing so illegally, but that's a separate concern.  Having a digital copy of something I own is a consumer right.  Sure, the IP industries would love to, and try to, change that.  The RIAA doesn't think you should really own a CD you buy, shouldn't be allowed to make copies or rip the songs into your digital library.  But they haven't won that fight yet, but are trying to find ways around the law themselves, so they can charge you more based on the different types of media you wish to use.  THIS is immoral.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

resistor said:


> It's completely reasonable to say that one should buy it twice because to do otherwise is immoral.  But, the way copyright is formulated, you are not legally obliged to pay for it twice.
> 
> It may be convenient to do so, there may be added value for doing so.  The producer (who undoubtedly has a bigger legal team than you) may even bully you to.  But you're not _obliged_ to.




From what I understand (and just looked up at copyright.gov), you can transfer formats of media so that you can use said product on various devices in your house.  Specifically CD to MP3 was mentioned as being legal, so long as it all remains in your sole possession.  Whether books are covered or not explicitly, the implicit reasoning says that you could print out a PDF and store the hardcopy on your shelf (for when you go off the grid), or you could personally transfer the medium from the book to your computer (say, by scanning), but under law you cannot receive a product, even if you own it in another form, if that form was obtained or distributed illegally.

Owning a pdf of the PHB that you downloaded from Mininova, even if you own the hard copy, is technically illegal.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Are you implying that stealing is somehow not harmful?
> 
> As a poet, I expect to be paid by customers for all the work that goes into my creations.  You mean to tell me that your selfish desire to get everything for free, things you never worked for, didn't struggle over, didn't work long hours at perfecting--you think you deserve a free book simply because you want it?  That's more than selfish.  How about if you wanted a free (or greatly reduced in price) Blu-ray player--does that make it right to take/buy one that "fell off a truck?"  I'll answer my own question: hell no.




While authors and other rights-holders deserve to get paid, one of the major issues with modern copyright in the US is that it's  been perverted from the intent, in the US, anyway. The Constitution gives you a time limited monopoly on your work in exchange for you allowing it to enter the public domain. As it stands now, nothing you write will enter the public domain until 90 some years after your death. Or longer, if Disney buys another extension to the term the next time Steamboat Willie is close to entering the public domain. This leads to all sorts of issues with works once they are no longer profitable and no one knows who owns the rights anymore. None of this makes pirating (I stand corrected on the origination of the phrase, I was under the impression it was coined in the 1980s) creative works legal or right, but it is part of the frustration, and in some cases the problem is that we don't know who owns the rights any more.


----------



## rgard (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> From what I understand (and just looked up at copyright.gov), you can transfer formats of media so that you can use said product on various devices in your house.  Specifically CD to MP3 was mentioned as being legal, so long as it all remains in your sole possession.  Whether books are covered or not explicitly, the implicit reasoning says that you could print out a PDF and store the hardcopy on your shelf (for when you go off the grid), or you could personally transfer the medium from the book to your computer (say, by scanning), but under law you cannot receive a product, even if you own it in another form, if that form was obtained or distributed illegally.
> 
> Owning a pdf of the PHB that you downloaded from Mininova, even if you own the hard copy, is technically illegal.




Yep.  Folks tend to ignore (see the last couple of posts) the last part.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Krensky said:


> The Constitution gives you a time limited monopoly on your work in exchange for you allowing it to enter the public domain. As it stands now, nothing you write will enter the public domain until 90 some years after your death.



 70 technically.  That's to give your direct offspring the rights to also profit from your work, which when you think about it, makes perfect sense.  That's for any work printed after 1978. Based on a quick read, the Disney problem comes about under "work-for-hire" and doesn't expire for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation.  That also applies to "anonymous" or "pseudonymous" creations.  Even weirder is that that doesn't actually apply to Steamboat Willie because it was created pre-1978. Disney can only hold that copyright until 2045 (67 years from 1978)


----------



## Krensky (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> 70 technically.  That's to give your direct offspring the rights to also profit from your work, which when you think about it, makes perfect sense.  That's for any work printed after 1978. Based on a quick read, the Disney problem comes about under "work-for-hire" and doesn't expire for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation.  That also applies to "anonymous" or "pseudonymous" creations.  Even weirder is that that doesn't actually apply to Steamboat Willie because it was created pre-1978. Disney can only hold that copyright until 2045 (67 years from 1978)




All of which is way too long. About 50 or 60 years too long. But this isn't the venue or topic to discuss that.


----------



## Rel (Feb 23, 2009)

Shadowsong666 said:


> are you talking about apples and oranges who quoted the NRA? Seriously...
> 
> Well i hope you protest about the death sentences in the US 100x compared to the energy you invest in this discussion here, as it is a trillion times more immoral then "stealing" IP.
> 
> I think all know that downloading a 4e pdf which you have not bought is bad, but in the end it all sums up about what you did after you did that thing. 8% did the wrong thing - the rest is ok with me. And as i am the one dictating myself whats moral and not - i can sleep like a baby.




The "No Politics" rule is there for a reason.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 23, 2009)

rgard said:


> You would be paying for two different products; one hard copy, one digital.  If you want a digital version and the hardcopy version, (but don't want to pay for the digital version) you can always type what you need into a word document.  That falls under fair use.
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich




So let's say I bought the PDF. Are you saying it would be wrong of me to print the book out?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Not in my opinion, and it appears to be backed up by the DMCA and copyright laws in general.  I posited the very thing a few posts back.  The law says you can transfer media from one format to another for your own personal use.  But you can't give away the hard copy.  If you do, then you're no longer protected under fair use and are in violation of copyright law.  The question was asked about, so what difference does it make if I download it rather than scan the book myself?  The law is clear on that too.  Transmission of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's consent is violation of copyright law.  So you have a right to own the book in whatever medium you choose, but you don't have the right to illegally obtain said medium just because you own the hard copy.  The law assumes that you don't traffic in illegal goods.  And if you distribute any copy of the book you have, you have to transmit all of them or else destroy any other copy.

This is the essence of book returns to the printer and book destruction.  That's why you're not supposed to buy hard cover books that have been marked for destruction (usually a black mark on the top or bottom of the pages) or a paperback with the cover torn off.  Those books were marked for destruction and the publisher considers them destroyed.  Any reselling of those books is in violation of copyright because the author and publisher assume they are not being sold.  Therefore royalties aren't being transmitted up the line, etc.


----------



## rgard (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> So let's say I bought the PDF. Are you saying it would be wrong of me to print the book out?




No.  Not saying that.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> So let's say I bought the PDF. Are you saying it would be wrong of me to print the book out?






rgard said:


> No.  Not saying that.




Ok, wonderful!

So then I have only payed for the digital version of the book, but now possess both a digital and print copy of it.

How is this fundamentally different from me buying the hard copy and then downloading the PDFs? In that case, I've paid for the print version of the book and possess both a digital and print copy of it.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> So then I have only payed for the digital version of the book, but now possess both a digital and print copy of it.



No, you have paid for the digital version, and printed (at your own cost and effort) a paper copy of it.


> How is this fundamentally different from me buying the hard copy and then downloading the PDFs? In that case, I've paid for the print version of the book and possess both a digital and print copy of it.



If you had created a digital version from your own print copy (at your own cost and effort), then the comparison would be the same. But that's not what you are describing here. If you want a digital version, and you don't want to create it yourself, then you need to pay for it for it to be legal.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> No, you have paid for the digital version, and printed (at your own cost and effort) a paper copy of it.




I also downloaded the PDF at my own cost (internet service/bandwidth) and effort (finding it).

Cost and effort are completely irrelevant to the situation.



> If you had created a digital version from your own print copy (at your own cost and effort), then the comparison would be the same. But that's not what you are describing here. If you want a digital version, and you don't want to create it yourself, then you need to pay for it for it to be legal.




I completely concede that it's not legal. I've conceded that point for a while. I also don't care about what's legal and what's not. So I ask you this: what is the ethical difference between me scanning a book myself and my downloading the same book?

Let's take a whole new hypothetical situation. Let's say some fictional company called Sorcerers of the Heartland puts out The World's Simplest RPG (WSRPG). WSRPG is so simple, in fact, that it takes up only a single side of a single piece of paper.

WSRPG is available for purchase both as a PDF or as a piece of paper. And, of course, since WSRPG is so popular, it's also widely pirated and easy to find for anyone who cares to look.

Which of the following situations would you consider morally acceptable?

1. I purchase the WSRPG PDF. I print it out, which takes negligible effort and cost, and have something which is indistinguishable from the official dead tree version.

2. I purchase the sheet of paper WSRPG. I scan it in, which again takes negligible effort and cost, and have something which is indistinguishable from the official PDF version.

3. I purchase the sheet of paper WSRPG. I download a pirated copy of the official PDF, which is indistinguishable from the scan I could have theoretically made instead.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> I also downloaded the PDF at my own cost (internet service/bandwidth) and effort (finding it).



But *you* did not create the digital version from the paper copy that you legally owned. Therefore your earlier analogy does not hold up.

These two are comparable:
1. Buying the PDF and printing it yourself, for your own use.
2. Buying the book and scanning it yourself, for your own use.

These two are not:
1. Buying the PDF and printing it yourself.
2. Buying the book, and downloading a copy of a PDF which someone else has created by scanning their copy.

But these two are:
1. Downloading a copy of a PDF which someone else has created.
2. Being given (or buying) a printed copy that someone else has made from their digital version.

Note that this is in response to your question: "How is this fundamentally different from me buying the hard copy and then downloading the PDFs? In that case, I've paid for the print version of the book and possess both a digital and print copy of it."


----------



## Nightson (Feb 23, 2009)

I think the idea that the effort put into something determines the morality of the action is something that needs explanatory support.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Which of the following situations would you consider morally acceptable?
> 
> 1. I purchase the WSRPG PDF. I print it out, which takes negligible effort and cost, and have something which is indistinguishable from the official dead tree version.
> 
> ...



For me personally, I would consider 1 and 2 morally acceptable, but not 3. I own both printed and PDF version of almost all 4e releases. But none of my PDFs are pirated. I purchased all of them legally.


----------



## El Mahdi (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Which of the following situations would you consider morally acceptable?
> 
> 1. I purchase the WSRPG PDF. I print it out, which takes negligible effort and cost, and have something which is indistinguishable from the official dead tree version.
> 
> ...




_Which of the following situations would you consider morally acceptable?_ 

Me personally, all three are "morally" (and ethically) acceptable. However I do know that #3 is technically pirating. Personally, I don't care. Do I feel that I've stolen anything if I've paid for the hardcopy book? Nope! (And personally, I think most at WoTC feel that way also, or they wouldn't have initially tried to find a way to provide cheap pdf's for people who bought the books. The only reason they didn't is because they couldn't figure out an effective technical way to do it. But I think it's robbery to charge nearly full price for a pdf, especially after teasing with promises of lower priced versions).


----------



## grickherder (Feb 23, 2009)

And what about for those of us who are outside the jurisdiction of the DMCA?  Is it somehow immoral for us to buy the print copy and download the PDF if it is not a violation of the local law?


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Nightson said:


> I think the idea that the effort put into something determines the morality of the action is something that needs explanatory support.



I don't think it is the effort involved that determines the morality. For me, it is the involvement of a third party which is key. In other words, if I scan my own printed copy for my own personal use, that's fine. If I print out my digital version, for my own personal use, that's also fine.

But the second I make my efforts available to someone else (either by handing them a copy I've printed, or by distributing a digital version I have made), then that is no longer "for my own personal use". Now there is intellectual property being distributed for *someone else's* personal use. And that, for me, has a significant impact on the morality of the action.


----------



## Tewligan (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I bought the 4e books and then bought the PDFs. (Which isn't an option.)



Uh, if you _bought_ the PDF's, isn't the option you want obviously "Never pirated any of the books"?


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Tewligan said:


> Uh, if you _bought_ the PDF's, isn't the option you want obviously "Never pirated any of the books"?



Indeed, but given that "bought the book then pirated for pdf copy" is an option, it seems that "bought the book then bought the pdf" should also be an option. That reflects my situation far more closely than just "never pirated any of the books".


----------



## grickherder (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> For me, it is the involvement of a third party which is key. In other words, if I scan my own printed copy for my own personal use, that's fine. If I print out my digital version, for my own personal use, that's also fine.




What about if you had a print shop/service make your print copy of a PDF?  There are some online ones where you can submit a PDF and the print copy will show up in the mail.  Or you could go down to a local print shop.  Or a company can supply you with computer equipment, a printer, ink, etc., and you can then produce a copy.  A third party is always involved.



> Now there is intellectual property being distributed




No, there isn't because intellectual property doesn't refer to the works itself but to the exclusive rights to works.  A company's IP doesn't refer to their products but to their exclusive rights to reproduce, sell, license, etc., those works.  What you have is a violation of their rights, not a distribution of _their_ property.  WotC does not own in any way shape or form, the print copy you might have made from a PDF you bought from them.  They simply own the exclusive rights for distribution, sales, etc.,.


----------



## Aristotle (Feb 23, 2009)

I can't imagine paying for both the physical and digital versions. I was really disapointed when the "nominal fee PDF" we were supposed to get when we purchased physical books got the axe.

That said I'm finding the searchability and portability of PDF's on a netbook alluring enough that I may just stop collecting physical books, buy up the legal PDF's, and go digital fulltime.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I don't think it is the effort involved that determines the morality. For me, it is the involvement of a third party which is key. In other words, if I scan my own printed copy for my own personal use, that's fine. If I print out my digital version, for my own personal use, that's also fine.




But if you go to Kinko's, its not?  



> But the second I make my efforts available to someone else (either by handing them a copy I've printed, or by distributing a digital version I have made), then that is no longer "for my own personal use". Now there is intellectual property being distributed for *someone else's* personal use. And that, for me, has a significant impact on the morality of the action.




No one is arguing that the person making the .pdf available for anyone to download is not guilty of an offense, only that is not morally wrong to obtain a .pdf copy of a book you own.  It doesn't matter how the copy is obtained, if you have bought the book, you have the right to have digital and print copies of that work made, whether it is with your own scanner, Kinko's scanner, or some scanner from someone on the internet.  The result is the same, you have a copy of the work that you are entitled to have.  The actual act of downloading it might be a legal offense, MIGHT.  It would be difficult to establish that you broke the law by obtaining an "illegal" copy of something you already own and have paid for.

Let's try another example though.  You and your gaming buddies have all bought a PHB, but the books are nice and since 4e is the best edition of D&D ever, you plan on playing it for many years and want to preserve the books.  You are the only person with a scanner.  You scan your book, creating a .pdf and then pass the file to your gaming buddies, who all have a purchased copy and all have a fair use right to transfer media and have digital copies of the PHB.  Are you really going to say that is an act of piracy?  Would it be if each friend came over and scanned the book themselves on your scanner?  How would using your scanner differ from using your scan?  What if you made the scan while they were all in the room, and they each took a turn turning pages and hitting the scan button, since thats slow, tedious work?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> But if you go to Kinko's, its not?



Kinko or printers is a service. It does not retain any copyrighted work so there is no distribution involved. It just transforms it. Third parties involved in the distribution is the problem, not in transformation. I think.

Similarly there could be a service that scanned your books for a lower cost than buying that pdf. If such a thing would exist Wotc would immediately drop the prices of any pdf you purchased if you already owned a book.

I think both sides here, that is all of you guys, have a point in this discussion. So I guess it goes down to be a matter of personal choice. Personal choice regarding how you want to support Wotc and how you can afford it.

This is also true for the interests of someone here in the thread that said he is a poet. If you go on the aggressive and accuse people of selfishness you lose points on their desire to support you. Human society is way more complicated. You may be the best it can be but you also have to know how to promote yourself or your work to others or better say how to communicate with others. This is more important than the work itself if you expect some personal reward. I believe it is easy to understand this.


----------



## genshou (Feb 23, 2009)

Regardless of whether the fine print of legality says it's piracy or not, I know the best smooth-talking lawyers in the world are no match for a judge who sees me sitting on the witness stand HOLDING THE BOOK IN MY HANDS.  Can you say "case dismissed"?

Judges are allowed to throw frivolous cases right out of their courtrooms like last week's rubbish.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Aristotle said:


> I can't imagine paying for both the physical and digital versions. I was really disapointed when the "nominal fee PDF" we were supposed to get when we purchased physical books got the axe.



I agree.  Despite my feelings with regards to the illegal obtaining of a pdf just because you own the hard copy, I wish that there was some way that a PDF version could have been distributed based on proof of purchase of the hard cover.  Wizards went on record saying the logistics involved was simply too hard to follow through on, but that doesn't stop me from thinking that maybe there was a way.



> That said I'm finding the searchability and portability of PDF's on a netbook alluring enough that I may just stop collecting physical books, buy up the legal PDF's, and go digital fulltime.



This is pretty much my thought.  I intend to purchase a Kindle or Sony eReader and begin to do exactly that - purchasing legal versions of digital media.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 23, 2009)

My understanding is that it all boils down to "right to distribute."

The creator of the work has the exclusive right to distribute (or license others to distribute) the work.  The consumer (buyer) of the work has the right to use the work and/or make a digital copy and/or print out for personal use only (no distribution to third party).

The only (legal) issue with piracy is the violation of the distribution rights of the creator.  Anything else is probably extraneous discussion.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> The only (legal) issue with piracy is the violation of the distribution rights of the creator.  Anything else is probably extraneous discussion.



That's only half the problem.  The other half is the receipt of the pirated goods.  Since piracy indicates the goods being distributed are illegal, the receipt of said goods is also illegal.  Like my earlier analogy, a DVD player that "falls off the back of the truck" is being sold.  It's illegal for the seller to sell it or give it away.  It's also illegal for the "buyer" to buy/receive it (if they know).

And since the act of getting a PDF is a willful act, meaning someone had to actually search out for the product, it isn't hard to determine that someone knowingly received an illegal copy.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

It's rather stupid to claim that you are allowed to make a PDF for your private use of a book you own, but you're not allowed to download that PDF for a book you own. A legal system that does treat that differently is in dire need of some intelligence-boosting items so they can pass the "can communicate in grunts" level.

I buy most of my gaming books as PDFs anyway.

Morally, my stance is simple: If I buy a DVD, I see no problem in watching it on YouTube. Watching streams (as opposed to downloading movies) is not illegal anyway where I live.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Let's try another example though.  You and your gaming buddies have all bought a PHB, but the books are nice and since 4e is the best edition of D&D ever, you plan on playing it for many years and want to preserve the books.  You are the only person with a scanner.  You scan your book, creating a .pdf and then pass the file to your gaming buddies, who all have a purchased copy and all have a fair use right to transfer media and have digital copies of the PHB.  Are you really going to say that is an act of piracy?  Would it be if each friend came over and scanned the book themselves on your scanner?  How would using your scanner differ from using your scan?  What if you made the scan while they were all in the room, and they each took a turn turning pages and hitting the scan button, since thats slow, tedious work?



I don't believe that what you have written above is entirely true. Specifically this bit: "who all have purchased a [print] copy and all have a fair use right to transfer media and have digital copies of the PHB". I do not think that owning a printed copy of a PHB gives you any right to "have digital copies". Owning a book may well give you the right to *make* a copy of that book  for your own personal use, but owning a printed book does not mean that you inherently have the right to obtain a digital version from any other source. As least as I understand things.

So, if I had scanned my PHB and created a PDF of it, I certainly would _not_ share that PDF with my friends. I would indeed view that as an act of piracy. I don't have the right to give a digital copy of a book I have scanned for my own personal use to other people. Of course, I wouldn't be scanning my PHB to start with, since the effort involved in scanning a PHB is significant enough that I'd much rather pay for a legal PDF. And if I wanted my friends to also have access to PDF copies, I would pay for additional copies to give to them.

Thasmodious, from the wording of your example it is clear that you understand that there is additional value in having the PDF versions -- specifically, using a digital version will "preserve the books", so that you can play "for many years". Presumably, that is instead of buying replacement PHBs every few years due to wear and tear. Given that the PDFs offer this tangible benefit to everyone who has one, why is it wrong to expect everyone who enjoys this benefit to pay for it?

I'm genuinely a little surprised that so many people seem to think that owning a printed book entitles them to download a digital copy from whatever source they want. To me, that sense of entitlement is worryingly similar to saying "I already own a copy of the PHB, so I should be automatically entitled to a copy of the deluxe PHB, and that makes it okay for me to buy a cheap copy of the deluxe PHB that I know has fallen off the back of the proverbial truck." That doesn't make logical sense to me, and neither does the statement "I already own a copy of the PHB, so I should be automatically entitled to a copy of the PHB in PDF format, and that makes it okay for me to download a pirate copy of the PDF version that I know is being distributed illegally".


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> It's rather stupid to claim that you are allowed to make a PDF for your private use of a book you own, but you're not allowed to download that PDF for a book you own.



Keep the flames to yourself.  The law is the law.  You can argue all you want about the justness of such a law, but it's clear that legally you are in the wrong.  The PDF was obtained and distributed illegally.  Simply because you own the hard copy you are not suddenly absolved of committing a crime.  That's like arguing that just because you have your driver's license at home, the cop should let you go.



> Morally, my stance is simple: If I buy a DVD, I see no problem in watching it on YouTube. Watching streams (as opposed to downloading movies) is not illegal anyway where I live.



Morals are different from laws.

I would like to note that it would be nice if when you purchased a book, you got a key to download a PDF of that book.    A lot of DVD's now come with a version to view on iPods and some CDs I've bought have included links to download free mp3s of the songs.  It's nice because then I don't have to rip the songs myself.  Indeed, I am considering distributing a PDF with my chapbook.  I'll package the book with a CD which will include a PDF version of the book and audio files of the poems being read.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> That's only half the problem.  The other half is the receipt of the pirated goods.




Well, I figured it was clear that in order to distribute you need a giving source and a taker - otherwise there's no distribution.  

(But I agree with you on your point.)


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Keep the flames to yourself.  The law is the law.  You can argue all you want about the justness of such a law, but it's clear that legally you are in the wrong.  The PDF was obtained and distributed illegally.  Simply because you own the hard copy you are not suddenly absolved of committing a crime.  That's like arguing that just because you have your driver's license at home, the cop should let you go.
> 
> Morals are different from laws.




If I am required to carry my license with me when I drive - which is the case - then the cop will fine me. Should the law state that I am just required to own a license, then I'll not be fined. 

Fortunately, judges in my country would laugh at you for trying to call downloading a copy if I am allowed to make a copy myself a crime. If I can make copies for private use, then it doesn't matter if I make the copies myself, or if someone makes the copies for me, as long as it is not distributed to others who are not allowed to make or own copies.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 23, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Fortunately, judges in my country would laugh at you for trying to call downloading a copy if I am allowed to make a copy myself a crime. If I can make copies for private use, then it doesn't matter if I make the copies myself, or if someone makes the copies for me, as long as it is not distributed to others who are not allowed to make or own copies.




Funny, since the Berne Convention most certainly applies to Switzerland (if I can assume you are there based on your location) and that explicitly provides that copyright law from the country where copyright is claimed shall apply to any signatory.  Since WotC claims copyright in the US, and US copyright law supports what I've said, and since Switzerland is indeed a signatory (they wrote it), then US copyright law with regard to WotC books most definitely does apply in your country.  The judges may laugh and dismiss the case, but the laws of your country still support what I've laid out here.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> I would like to note that it would be nice if when you purchased a book, you got a key to download a PDF of that book.    A lot of DVD's now come with a version to view on iPods and some CDs I've bought have included links to download free mp3s of the songs.  It's nice because then I don't have to rip the songs myself.  Indeed, I am considering distributing a PDF with my chapbook.  I'll package the book with a CD which will include a PDF version of the book and audio files of the poems being read.




Baen does that semi-regularly with their Baen CD, including a bunch of formats of the book in question, along with art, back catalog, articles, and sometimes other things like an audiobook or screensaver.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 23, 2009)

The distribution in the first place is definitely not legal, and in particular in many cases it is not moral. In fact, due to the nature of torrents, anyone who downloads from a torrent is guilty not only of procuring a pirated PDF, but of helping to distribute it.

That said, I feel entitled to a digital copy of the book. I believe that someone should only have to buy something once and then should be able to use it however they want. In my mind, if you own an old 8-track tape, you're completely justified in downloading all the tracks from that tape illegally, even if there are cheap and legal alternatives, because you already purchased the content once. If you've got a movie on VHS or Beta or Laserdisk, then go ahead and download that too.

It is content that matters to me, not format, and I think that's the heart of the disagreement here.

Once you purchase some form of media, I believe you are entitled to use that media in any way, shape or form you want (limited to personal use, of course). Further, since it is not practical for the media distributors to provide every piece of media in every format someone might want it all for one price, I believe you are entitled to procure that media in the format of your choice by any means necessary. Further, since the infrastructure of piracy already exists, I believe that it is morally acceptable to use that infrastructure to get media to which you are entitled.

And this will be the case until every book, movie, game and album I purchase comes with a perpetual license and supporting infrastructure allowing me to download the media for free, whenever I want, as many times as I want, in any format I want, to any device I want.


----------



## Imban (Feb 23, 2009)

Krensky said:


> The poll is doubly meaningless because the only people who could say that the did pirate it would be someone who boarded a cargo ship in the middle of the sea and stole them.




You know how Dungeon Delve was delayed? Yeah, that stuff about the cover material was just a cover story...


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Asmor said:


> That said, I feel entitled to a digital copy of the book. I believe that someone should only have to buy something once and then should be able to use it however they want. In my mind, if you own an old 8-track tape, you're completely justified in downloading all the tracks from that tape illegally, even if there are cheap and legal alternatives, because you already purchased the content once. If you've got a movie on VHS or Beta or Laserdisk, then go ahead and download that too.
> 
> It is content that matters to me, not format, and I think that's the heart of the disagreement here.




But surely there are significant additional benefits to having a book in a digital rather than printed format? Don't those additional benefits make a PDF different to a book, even if the content is the same?

For example:

I can quickly search for something in a PDF. I cannot do that in a book.
I can easily copy and paste sections of text into my own game notes from a PDF. I cannot do that using a book.
PDFs weigh a lot less, which makes them easier to transport than books.
PDFs are not subject to wear and tear, and remain in the same condition no matter how often you use them.
It seems clear to me that owning a digital copy of a book provides a number of additional benefits that you would not have simply by virtue of owning a printed copy. Those are benefits that you have not paid for as part of your book purchase. So why should you be automatically entitled to those benefits without paying for them?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 23, 2009)

Halivar said:


> That said, a law telling you not to copy IP is not immoral. Inconvenient? Yes. Silly? Perhaps even so. But not immoral.




That part is severely debatable.  Individual morals differ and the overriding culture affects the morals of the people in the culture.

The current battle over piracy is exactly that, a battle of morals.  There are a number of people who disagree that it is not immoral.  There's a growing number of people who believe that TV Shows, Movies, Music, Books and the like belong to the society as a whole rather than the content creator.  They feel it is immoral for a law to tell them that they need enough money to get information.  Is it moral to restrict the intellectual, spiritual, and creative growth of a society based on money?

The content industries have recognized that they are in a battle for the morals of society.  This is why all their emphasis is on creating commercials that repeat over and over again that "Piracy is the same as theft and that you are personally hurting a lot of people by doing it".  They realize this war will be won once the majority of people feel that it is immoral, not by enforcing the law.

I wouldn't be surprised if, in 50 years, piracy is considered on the moral scale of bank robbery or murder.  Either that or Copyright law will be changed heavily and what is considered illegal today will be considered perfectly normal and acceptable then.  If that happens, it's certainly possible that the people in the future believe the laws of today to have been completely immoral and only in the best interest of large corporations.


----------



## Imban (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> It seems clear to me that owning a digital copy of a book provides a number of additional benefits that you would not have simply by virtue of owning a printed copy. Those are benefits that you have not paid for as part of your book purchase. So why should you be automatically entitled to those benefits without paying for them?




Certainly it has advantages, or no one would ever want a digital copy. Some of us just think that it's far, far better for consumers if what we're buying is the ability to use a product as we choose, as opposed to only in the way the company that created it chooses.

For instance, let's say I buy a digital download of a movie that grants me what is generally understood to be the perpetual ability to watch this movie (For instance, perhaps the service compared itself to purchasing the movie on VHS.) Because it is protected by Windows-specific security features, this digital download is only compatible with a Windows PC.

I later decide to purchase a Macintosh. It would then seem clear to me that owning a Macintosh-compatible copy of the movie would provide a number of additional benefits (for instance, being able to watch the movie ever again) that I would not have simply for virtue of owning a PC-compatible copy. I feel they are, however, benefits that I should be entitled to as part of my purchase, same as I feel entitled to rip a CD of music or VHS movie I own onto my PC, *especially* if the CD or VHS is showing signs of damage and is soon to become nonfunctional. (Heck, I just did that the other day - one of my CDs was scratched so bad it was playing the wrong tracks or jumping tracks mid-song half the time, and it took me about five tries to rip a working copy of every song on it.)

The text search and copy/paste are about the only issues that have merit, because they're actually an advantage you won't usually get if you scan the book yourself.

(Well, maybe also the effort part. As someone who's actually scanned and OCR'd an RPG book for his own use, it's not a negligible effort - I spent the better part of six hours on the darn thing and was using about $350 in equipment and professional software above and beyond just PCs, and I intentionally destroyed my book's binding in the process because I wanted a professional-quality digital copy more than the hardcopy book.)


----------



## xechnao (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> But surely there are significant additional benefits to having a book in a digital rather than printed format? Don't those additional benefits make a PDF different to a book, even if the content is the same?
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...




You should pay for those benefits regarding on how much it costs to produce them. If it costed 0 for example you should not pay about them.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

Imban said:


> Certainly it has advantages, or no one would ever want a digital copy. Some of us just think that it's far, far better for consumers if what we're buying is the ability to use a product as we choose, as opposed to only in the way the company that created it chooses.



Well, is there anyone who _doesn't_ think that it would be good for consumers to get both digital and paper copies of a product for the same price? I'd certainly like that, obviously.

However, my desire for that to be the case does not mean that I think it is morally okay to assume that that *is* the case.



> For instance, let's say I buy a digital download of a movie that grants me what is generally understood to be the perpetual ability to watch this movie (For instance, perhaps the service compared itself to purchasing the movie on VHS.) Because it is protected by Windows-specific security features, this digital download is only compatible with a Windows PC.
> 
> I later decide to purchase a Macintosh. It would then seem clear to me that owning a Macintosh-compatible copy of the movie would provide a number of additional benefits (for instance, being able to watch the movie ever again) that I would not have simply for virtue of owning a PC-compatible copy. I feel they are, however, benefits that I should be entitled to as part of my purchase, same as I feel entitled to rip a CD of music or VHS movie I own onto my PC, *especially* if the CD or VHS is showing signs of damage and is soon to become nonfunctional. (Heck, I just did that the other day - one of my CDs was scratched so bad it was playing the wrong tracks or jumping tracks mid-song half the time, and it took me about five tries to rip a working copy of every song on it.)



But in both of these examples, you are trying to simply retain the *same* rights that you originally had -- the right to watch the movie, and the right to listen to the CD. You are not gaining any _additional_ benefits. So these examples do not work as a counter to the argument I just presented that owning a PDF version of a book provides additional benefits that the purchaser of the book has not paid for.


----------



## Imban (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> But in both of these examples, you are trying to simply retain the *same* rights that you originally had -- the right to watch the movie, and the right to listen to the CD. You are not gaining any _additional_ benefits.




Sure I am, if you want to be as nitpicky as you did with the PDFs. I'm gaining the ability to watch the movie while not connected to the internet and the right to listen to the CD while playing a game which requires its CD in the drive. If I then convert the movie to play on my PSP, I've gained portability I previously didn't have.



> So these examples do not work as a counter to the argument I just presented that owning a PDF version of a book provides additional benefits that the purchaser of the book has not paid for.




Every format switch is going to result in the work providing different benefits. Especially if you can make these format switches yourself, or the difficulty inherent in doing it is only that the provider actively attempts to make it more difficult, the format switch is about as immoral as putting an unlicensed pad on the seat of your chair to make it more comfortable.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> But in both of these examples, you are trying to simply retain the *same* rights that you originally had -- the right to watch the movie, and the right to listen to the CD. You are not gaining any _additional_ benefits. So these examples do not work as a counter to the argument I just presented that owning a PDF version of a book provides additional benefits that the purchaser of the book has not paid for.




Except that you are given license to scan your book, OCR it, put in bookmarks and carry it around on your laptop if you buy a physical copy of the book.

So, I've already paid for the right to have a PDF.  All the "additional benefits" you are talking about are already legally mine.  The only thing you get out of downloading is the time it would have taken it to do the scanning, OCRing and bookmarking.

That's the problem with these sorts of discussions.  When technology makes something so easy that its PERCEIVED value is nearly 0, people stop believing that it is morally wrong.  How much do I perceive the amount of time it would take me to scan, OCR and bookmark one of my books to be worth?  Around 1 dollar.  If all my book prices increased 1 dollar and came with a PDF, I'd be happy.  If companies asked me for the 1 dollar if I downloaded a PDF of it, I'd probably pay it.


----------



## Fenes (Feb 23, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Funny, since the Berne Convention most certainly applies to Switzerland (if I can assume you are there based on your location) and that explicitly provides that copyright law from the country where copyright is claimed shall apply to any signatory.  Since WotC claims copyright in the US, and US copyright law supports what I've said, and since Switzerland is indeed a signatory (they wrote it), then US copyright law with regard to WotC books most definitely does apply in your country.  The judges may laugh and dismiss the case, but the laws of your country still support what I've laid out here.




Sorry, but over here we're not as stupid as to believe that if you have the right to copy something that it matters how you copy it - provided that through your actions no one who is not allowed to gets a copy.

As you may notice - by downloading something I have a right to have a copy of (not through a torrent, but simple downloading without seeding it) I am not making it available to anyone who is not allowed to have it.

Now, if a PDF is available for sale I'll buy it - no matter if I already have the book or not in paper. But if there's no PDF available I'll get myself a copy if I want it - either through scanning, or downloading.

I do not pass on any PDFs I bought to anyone, and neither do my friends, but I draw the line at stupidity.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 23, 2009)

> All the "additional benefits" you are talking about are already legally mine.  The only thing you get out of downloading is the time it would have taken it to do the scanning, OCRing and bookmarking.



I do not think that buying a printed book gives you any _legal_ rights to the additional benefits of a PDF version. You might be of the opinion that it gives you the _moral_ right to those additional benefits, but that certain doesn't translate into legal rights!

And, according to Imbran, the time it would have taken you to do the scanning, OCRing and bookmarking is far from negligible:


Imban said:


> As someone who's actually scanned and OCR'd an RPG book for his own use, it's not a negligible effort - I spent the better part of six hours on the darn thing and was using about $350 in equipment and professional software above and beyond just PCs, and I intentionally destroyed my book's binding in the process because I wanted a professional-quality digital copy more than the hardcopy book.



That sounds like a lot more than one dollar's worth of effort to me....


----------



## Shadeydm (Feb 23, 2009)

Just finished reading the thread, and it was a pretty good one.

I would just like to point out that some folk are clinging a little too tightly to the notion that "its a law and if you don't like, then you should change it, but until its changed you should obey it". I think that there are many laws and each should be weighed on its own merit and not be given the same weight just because its the law. Case in point Massachusetts was tired of arresting and processing people for smoking marijuana, as a result it was decriminalized. I can assure you that if everyone had been obeying the law and not smoking it, it would never have been decriminalized. It was the very refusal of people to obey the law which created the change.

This is not to say that this could not be taken to an extreme, it merely illustrates that sometimes willful disobediance is required to draw attention the laws that need to be fixed, or that sometimes people refuse to obey a specific law simply because its stupid (for example there are cities where spitting on the ground is against the law but you will never see anyone getting arrested for it even when done in the presence of an officer of the law).


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 23, 2009)

Shadeydm said:


> I think that there are many laws and each should be weighed on its own merit and not be given the same weight just because its the law.




Agreed.


----------



## Kask (Feb 23, 2009)

I made indexed PDFs of all the Core books I own & some non-core.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 23, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I do not think that buying a printed book gives you any _legal_ rights to the additional benefits of a PDF version. You might be of the opinion that it gives you the _moral_ right to those additional benefits, but that certain doesn't translate into legal rights!



No, you really do have the legal right to change your media from any format to any other format(with all the advantages and disadvantages of each), if you are capable of making the transfer.  If 3d books come out in the future, I'm allowed to change my hardcover books into 3d books, even if I didn't pay extra for the 3d version.

This has been covered a couple of times in the thread.  You can turn your CD into MP3s, you can transfer your DVDs into video files on your hard drive so you can watch it on your laptop without carrying around the DVD.

The only caveat with this is that the DMCA made it illegal to bypass copy protection.  What was happening was that people were ripping their CDs so they could listen to them anywhere and any time without the CD itself.  Which the content providers didn't like, even though it was completely legal.  So, when they made DVDs, they worked copy protection into the design, to make it nearly impossible to copy the information and used some other technology to make it difficult to copy using a VCR.  Hackers eventually figured out the copy protection everyone was able to rip the data off of DVDs in order to use their legal right to transfer data from one format to another.  So, the content providers lobbied the government to pass the DMCA, which says that it is illegal to bypass any form of copy protection.

IMHO, it seems kind of backward that we are legally allowed to copy stuff from one format to another, but the people who make that content are allowed to lock them down with copy protection and infringe on my rights as a consumer and the government not only allows them to but makes it illegal for me to bypass the copy protection.  And people feel that I'm the thief and the law is moral.



Echohawk said:


> And, according to Imbran, the time it would have taken you to do the scanning, OCRing and bookmarking is far from negligible:
> 
> That sounds like a lot more than one dollar's worth of effort to me....



It takes a decent amount of time, and you need to own a program to do it.  That's basically it.  You often have to destroy the spine of your book in order to get a good quality scan as well.  But the process is still: put the book on a scanner, hit the scan button, hit the OCR button, then correct any mistakes the OCR program makes manually.

How much time it takes depends on the size and speed of your scanner and the accuracy of your OCR software.  If you can scan 2 pages at once, quickly, and your OCR software makes nearly no mistakes, you can probably do an entire 300 page book in 2-3 hours or so.  If you have a slow scanner, take the time to separate all of your pages, or do a lot of proofreading on the document to make sure the OCR did its job, then it might take you 10 hours.

Yes, I admit that if we're talking purely man hours, that it costs around 300 bucks to pay someone to do it.  But it only needs to be done once and then sold to everyone who buys it.  If you add a dollar to the price and sell 300 copies of it, you've already made your money back.

It's even easier to do if you are the original publisher of the book, because it might be a 30 minute conversion process that no one has to monitor from the original file rather than scanning your own book.  No editing, no sitting there constantly putting pages on a scanner or anything.  It costs almost nothing at all.


----------



## Kask (Feb 24, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> You often have to destroy the spine of your book in order to get a good quality scan as well.




High end scanner/copiers have a book setting that corrects for that curve.  And, you are correct, you can scan any book you own.  You can't give someone else the PDF of course.


----------



## Oldtimer (Feb 24, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Funny, since the Berne Convention most certainly applies to Switzerland (if I can assume you are there based on your location) and that explicitly provides that copyright law from the country where copyright is claimed shall apply to any signatory.  Since WotC claims copyright in the US, and US copyright law supports what I've said, and since Switzerland is indeed a signatory (they wrote it), then US copyright law with regard to WotC books most definitely does apply in your country.  The judges may laugh and dismiss the case, but the laws of your country still support what I've laid out here.



I cannot believe that you think that US copyright law would apply anywhere outside of the US. You have seriously misunderstood the Berne Convention. The _copyrights_ apply in the country of the signatory, not the copyright _laws_. That would be absurd.

And copyright laws can be very different in different countries. It's even allowed for in the Berne Convention (I think private use exceptions are covered in article 9, but I haven't got the actual text here) that signatories have different implementations of copyright laws.

US laws are not universal. Not even for US copyrighted works.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 24, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> No, you really do have the legal right to change your media from any format to any other format(with all the advantages and disadvantages of each), if you are capable of making the transfer.  If 3d books come out in the future, I'm allowed to change my hardcover books into 3d books, even if I didn't pay extra for the 3d version.



Sure, I understand that. What you are describing is the legal right to transform something you have purchased into another format. It makes sense that if you put the effort into transforming something you own into some other form, that you should be entitled to do so, and that you also be entitled to use that transformed work however you want (as long as you don't share it).

But that doesn't equate to a legal right to automatically "have" the work in a different format (unless you transform it yourself). Buying a book doesn't give you a legal right to download the PDF of that book. It doesn't give you the legal right to download an audio book version of the same work. It doesn't give you the legal right to download the movie of the book.

It is quite possible to be of the opinion that consumers should, morally, gain the right to download a book in a different format once they have purchased it. But legally, the only right you gain is the right to transform the work into a different format yourself.



> Yes, I admit that if we're talking purely man hours, that it costs around 300 bucks to pay someone to do it. But it only needs to be done once and then sold to everyone who buys it. If you add a dollar to the price and sell 300 copies of it, you've already made your money back.




I think that WotC's PDFs are currently overpriced, and would love to see some mechanism for owners of the printed books to get a cheaper PDF. However, I have a bit of a moral problem with the line of thought that says "because the PDFs are overpriced, that makes it okay to download illegal copies, which I wouldn't do if they only cost $1". (I realise that you didn't say that at all Majoru Oakheart -- I'm just paraphrasing what seems to be the philosophy of some posters, and borrowing your $1 price point to make the point.)

I'd really like to see WotC reexplore the idea of a PDF activation code in the printed books, possibly linking that to a DDI subscription to try to reduce fraud. I know that there are several logistical problems inherent in that model, but it seems like the right way to go in the long-term.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 24, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> I don't believe that what you have written above is entirely true. Specifically this bit: "who all have purchased a [print] copy and all have a fair use right to transfer media and have digital copies of the PHB". I do not think that owning a printed copy of a PHB gives you any right to "have digital copies". Owning a book may well give you the right to *make* a copy of that book  for your own personal use, but owning a printed book does not mean that you inherently have the right to obtain a digital version from any other source. As least as I understand things.




It does give you that right.  You can make a copy for personal use.  If you own a copy of the book and have a copy of said book in digital form on your PC, how does it matter from where that digital came?  Scanning it is fine, but getting it scanned from someone else isn't?  That doesn't make any sense.  

While I am no lawyer, I think any prosecutor would have a hard time proving you did anything wrong if you downloaded copies of things you own.  A .pdf of a book, DRM free copies of songs you have on CD, things like that. 

And I definitely don't see the case that downloading a copy of something you already own is somehow immoral.  That just doesn't make any sense.  You bought the book, you wish to make a copy of it, so you do.  Whether you make the copy by scanning it yourself or acquiring a .pdf scan or use a copier and stick the pages in a binder, its all the same.  The end result is you get your copy, that you are legally allowed to have.



> So, if I had scanned my PHB and created a PDF of it, I certainly would _not_ share that PDF with my friends. I would indeed view that as an act of piracy.




If your friends own the PHB, too, you would be wrong.  How can you pirate things you already own?  You can't.



> I don't have the right to give a digital copy of a book I have scanned for my own personal use to other people.




Didn't say you did.  That is distributing copyrighted material.  That is illegal.  That is not what you are doing if you and your friends all own the PHB and you happen to be the only one with a scanner.  You are not making it available to people to possess illegally.  Everyone who would get a copy from your scan has the legal right to such a copy.  



> Thasmodious, from the wording of your example it is clear that you understand that there is additional value in having the PDF versions -- specifically, using a digital version will "preserve the books", so that you can play "for many years". Presumably, that is instead of buying replacement PHBs every few years due to wear and tear. Given that the PDFs offer this tangible benefit to everyone who has one, why is it wrong to expect everyone who enjoys this benefit to pay for it?




Because I already did.  I bought the book.  I shouldn't have to pay the same cost to have a copy of the book.  And I won't, incidentally.  I can copy the book, scan the book, download a copy of the book... it's all the same.  Sure, the site I download the book from may well be an illegal operation, making such things available to the public for free.  But I am not using it in that manner, I am exercising my rights as a consumer in regards to something I purchased.  Again, I would love to see a prosecutor go after someone for having a digital copy of something they legally bought.



> I'm genuinely a little surprised that so many people seem to think that owning a printed book entitles them to download a digital copy from whatever source they want.




I'm genuinely surprised that there is contention over this point.  Sure, it would be nice if the pirate sites could be shut down.  Well, not really.  I am glad for the existence of piracy as long as the industries involved continue to try and strip their consumers of their basic fair use rights and tell us how many times we can play their game or how many devices we can put the music we bought on and things like that.  But that is another discussion.



> To me, that sense of entitlement is worryingly similar to saying "I already own a copy of the PHB, so I should be automatically entitled to a copy of the deluxe PHB




Two different products, not the same thing at all.


----------



## Thasmodious (Feb 24, 2009)

The idea that it legally comes down to effort is absurd.  "Acquiring" the .pdf by scanning it myself or finding it online or getting it from a friend all result in my legal right to have a copy of the book I own.  The site offering such downloads may well be illegal, but that is their problem, not mine.  

The law says nothing about "effort" and where would such a line be drawn anyway?  Technology?  Once books had to be copied by hand, and I believe you had to have several levels of monk, too.  Now, of course, we have scanners.  Echo says you making your own scan is fine.  But what if you don't own a scanner?  Kinko's has scanners, does that still count as "effort", especially since they charge for use.  What about a friends scanner?  Are you, echohawk, really going to argue that the line exists here.  That if your friends scans it for you, it is illegal but if you scan it yourself on his scanner it is legal?  I would really require even the most basic of evidence to support that assertion before dismissing it outright.


----------



## resistor (Feb 24, 2009)

Echohawk said:


> "I already own a copy of the PHB, so I should be automatically entitled to a copy of the deluxe PHB, and that makes it okay for me to buy a cheap copy of the deluxe PHB that I know has fallen off the back of the proverbial truck."




Alright, I'm calling strawman on this one.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that physical property rights don't or shouldn't apply to the physical entity of a book.

This discussion is about _intellectual property rights_, which are a different thing altogether, and all too often sensationalized with invalid analogies like this to try to sway observers.

To make it absolutely obvious: *COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.*

It is its own offense, governed by its own set of laws, and, for many people, a distinct set of moral/ethical questions.  You're welcome to hold particular views on those questions, but do not attempt to muddy the issue by conflating it with something it is not.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 24, 2009)

Thasmodious said:


> Two different products, not the same thing at all.



I'm of the opinion that a PDF of the PHB and a printed PHB are also different products. Certainly there is a lot more difference in functionality between the PDF and print versions of the PHB than there is between the Deluxe PHB and the ordinary PHB. Why then are the Deluxe PHB and the PHB different products, but the PDF and print versions not?


Thasmodious said:


> The idea that it legally comes down to effort is absurd.  "Acquiring" the .pdf by scanning it myself or finding it online or getting it from a friend all result in my legal right to have a copy of the book I own.  The site offering such downloads may well be illegal, but that is their problem, not mine.



I don't think it comes down to effort. My understanding is that it is the involvement of a a third party that changes the situation. My understanding (which may not be correct, I concede) is that I am entitled to transform a work that I have purchased, but that I may not distribute my transformed work to anyone else. Therefore, if I am obtaining a transformed work from someone else, then there is a crime being committed. That crime might not be committed by me, depending on the jurisdiction, but since there does seem to be crime committed by the distributor, it seems to me that downloading that transformed work is morally questionable.

Of course, I understand and respect the fact that other people do not view that as morally questionable. I can only try to explain why *I* have a problem with this.


resistor said:


> To make it absolutely obvious: *COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.*



I'm aware of that. I have avoiding labeling copyright infringement as theft. (At least I hope I have!) But go back and reread my example. I was not equating downloading a PDF with stealing a Deluxe PHB. I was comparing downloading a PDF from a source that is clearly distributing that PDF illegally, with buying a Deluxe PHB from someone who has probably obtained a copy of the physical book illegally. I realise that those are still not quite the same thing, since most countries have laws specifically against knowingly purchasing stolen goods, while the legality of knowingly downloading illegally copied content is far more grey. However, for the purpose of illustrating why I personally have a moral issue with downloading illegal PDFs, I believe that the comparison is a reasonable one. In both cases the recipient of the product is transacting with someone that they know is committing a crime. And that causes my moral compass to spin.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 24, 2009)

I've said my peace and I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but I really do need to agree with Resistor. The scenario with the 'fallen off the truck' deluxe PHB is opening a huge can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

Perhaps a better analogy for you to use would be if someone scanned their PHB and offered to sell you a memory stick with it, or something like that. Or, if you don't mind getting off the topic of RPGs, buying bootlegged video cassettes/DVDs.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 24, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Perhaps a better analogy for you to use would be if someone scanned their PHB and offered to sell you a memory stick with it, or something like that. Or, if you don't mind getting off the topic of RPGs, buying bootlegged video cassettes/DVDs.



Thanks Asmor, I think both of those analogies are better than mine .


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Feb 24, 2009)

Bit off topic, but, even as an artist, I want the current, lunatic, extreme and dangerous copyright and IP laws _gone_.

Totally about "Immortal non-human entities" (that's corporations not Chtulhu ) having more power than _real _people, it's not about genuine honest protection and logic, plus you cannot ever own anything you can't touch and hold and defend perosnally.
"_Own a photon, you cannot!"_ says Yoda. 

I've never met a "corporation" they don't exist except as fictional entities.
Artists and writers though, do exist.

Art's gone once you make it.
The moral right of the creator to be identified as _the _creator is what's important.

Folk (especially lawyers and corporates hehe) are still thinking with 19th century mindsets.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 24, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Art's gone once you make it.
> The moral right of the creator to be identified as _the _creator is what's important.



No, it's not.  The moral right of the creator to be compensated (if he chooses) and to control the distribution of the art is what's important.

It does me no good if someone has my work and says, "Oh, that's a poem by Cameron."  I want to be heard and read, sure, but I'd also like to be able to make a living at it as well.  Simply identifying me as author isn't enough.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 24, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> No, it's not.  The moral right of the creator to be compensated (if he chooses) and to control the distribution of the art is what's important.
> 
> It does me no good if someone has my work and says, "Oh, that's a poem by Cameron."  I want to be heard and read, sure, but I'd also like to be able to make a living at it as well.  Simply identifying me as author isn't enough.





This. As I said before, the express point of copyright law in the US was to give artists absolute control over their work for a period of time. Once that period was over, the work would enter the public domain. It was an implicit deal. You make stuff, you profit from it, you let it go. This was to encourage artists to produce, and to create a body of work for them to produce with and from.

Artists have a moral right to be compensated and credited for their work if they so choose. They also have a moral obligation to allow their works to enter the public domain eventually. Media and software corporations, chiefly Disney) have been pushing to have eventually pushed so far off it effectively becomes never. So far they've been succeeding. As it stands now, _Steamboat Willie_ will enter the public domain in 2023. Expect to see Disney buy another retroactive extension law from Congress before then.


----------



## Halivar (Feb 24, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Artists have a moral right to be compensated and credited for their work if they so choose.



Gotta pick this nit because I think it's important. "Moral rights" are a big deal in international copyright law, and not all countries take the same side on the issue.

During the Berne Convention, the United States refused to sign on because it objected to the concept of "moral rights" of IP holders. In 1952 the Universal Copyright Convention was convened to address the concerns of the US. Even after the Berne Convention Impelmentation of 1988, the US still does not completely recognize IP holders as having moral rights to the extent that the Berne Convention envisioned.

In the US, content creators have the following moral rights (under VARA and other laws [I'm not a lawyer and I'm not that well read ]):
- The right to claim authorship or prevent false claims of authorship
- The right to non-attribution (using a pseudonym)
- The right to prevent changes to content ("mutilation")

There are others, I'm sure, but the right to not have content swiped is not a moral right in the US; it more closely akin to fraud and unfair competiton laws.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 24, 2009)

Asmor said:


> Perhaps a better analogy for you to use would be if someone scanned their PHB and offered to sell you a memory stick with it, or something like that. Or, if you don't mind getting off the topic of RPGs, buying bootlegged video cassettes/DVDs.



I don't think so.  The problem is that physical objects have value.  They may not have much value but, just by being made of physical matter, there is some intrinsic value to them.  Data is not the same way.  Information can be useful, but if a piece of information is extremely widely known or of very little use, it doesn't have any value at all.

Try selling a PDF of the PHB to someone who has no desire to play D&D.  They will think it has no value at all.  If you try selling a physical copy of the book to someone for 50 cents, they might consider it in that they could sell it to a used book store for more than that and make a profit.  Or recycle the paper and maybe get more than 50 cents for it.

That's the problem with the entire discussion.  We are now moving toward an information based economy.  But information doesn't have any value except whatever value we assign it.  Those who want to make money off of information are attempting to influence society so that it views information as having value.  But there is a large group of people who don't believe it does.

And that's the core of the pirating argument.  A bunch of people are saying, "This video file on my hard drive is just a piece of information that was copied for free, it's worth nothing.  It can be copied 100,000 times for free.  It's something I'm going to watch for 2 hours and maybe never look at again."

The people making the movies are saying, "It cost us 200 million dollars to make this movie.  The resulting video file is worth 200 million dollars."

But there is no objective way of measuring the cost of information and data.  The value becomes even muddier when you consider things like movies that make a PROFIT equal to how much money I make at my job if I worked 13,000 years at it.  Is it worth that much, or is the value of it overinflated?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I don't think so.  The problem is that physical objects have value.  They may not have much value but, just by being made of physical matter, there is some intrinsic value to them.  Data is not the same way.  Information can be useful, but if a piece of information is extremely widely known or of very little use, it doesn't have any value at all.
> 
> Try selling a PDF of the PHB to someone who has no desire to play D&D.  They will think it has no value at all.  If you try selling a physical copy of the book to someone for 50 cents, they might consider it in that they could sell it to a used book store for more than that and make a profit.  Or recycle the paper and maybe get more than 50 cents for it.
> 
> ...




Nice post. 

In ancient Greece theatric play competitions had to be sponsored by the law -it was something as a tax paid from the high class towards entertainment. I am not sure about this but I believe that eurovision is sponsored by EU. Perhaps the state should get involved and try to control this...entertainment-information quality we are talking about.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 24, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Gotta pick this nit because I think it's important. "Moral rights" are a big deal in international copyright law, and not all countries take the same side on the issue.



Okay - actual legal terminology aside, the point still stands.  Authors have the right to compensation for their work just as much as salesmen, etc.  That's all based on market whims, of course, but a large point behind copyright laws was to prevent people other than the creator from profiting from the creator's work as though it was their own.

Hence, I write a book of poems and publish it.  I sell copies of it.  Someone takes it home and makes copies of it to distribute it.  That's copyright infringement at its essence.  Now take it a step further.  The infringement on the copyright doesn't bother me half as much as the fact that there are now people out there with copies of the work that I didn't profit from.  They are recipients of an illegally copied work, and it doesn't matter one whit to me that they can attribute it to me.  That attribution does me no good when the next electric bill comes in.  That's what I'm arguing against.


----------



## DaveMage (Feb 24, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But there is no objective way of measuring the cost of information and data.  The value becomes even muddier when you consider things like movies that make a PROFIT equal to how much money I make at my job if I worked 13,000 years at it.  Is it worth that much, or is the value of it overinflated?




"Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it."

Personally, (and I know this would be unpopular amongst many game designers and authors) I think creative expression (art, fiction, lyrics, poetry, music, gaming material, etc.) should have an exclusive rights limit the same as a patent (14-20 years) after which time it enters the public domain.  (The "start" time on the exclusive rights would begin the moment such a work is first offered for public or private sale.) That gives the creator time to profit off of it, but not generations of decendents, etc.


----------



## CharlesRyan (Feb 24, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> The problem is that physical objects have value.  They may not have much value but, just by being made of physical matter, there is some intrinsic value to them.  Data is not the same way.  Information can be useful, but if a piece of information is extremely widely known or of very little use, it doesn't have any value at all.




It's easy to think that something you can hold has intrinsic value, but is there really that big a difference between the physical and the intangible, in terms of value?


If physicality confers value, nothing should be more valuable than real estate. And yet we've seen real estate values plummet in the last year. In some places, there's simply no floor--the only thing supporting any price at all is the willingness of speculators to come in and grab the property for a song, on the prospect that it will, someday, again increase in value. Absent such speculators (in other words, absent people who are assigning imaginary value to the property), the property is literally unsellable at almost any price.
Look at the car lots--especially those packed with Hummers. Big, physical items. The dealerships practically can't give them away.
Consider the fully-recyclable plastic packaging I throw away because my council won't take it in the recycling bin. Why not? Because there's insufficient market for recycled plastic. It has value in the sense that it's useful, but nobody wants it. So, in a monetary sense, it has no value.
What about services? Do they have less inherent value than goods, simply because they can't be weighed or measured?

I think recent events in the economy really do illustrate that physicality does not equal inherent value. (Just ask anybody currently paying a mortgage that's twice what their house is currently worth.) Some of my points above might be slightly exaggerated for effect, but my broader point is that you can't really assess IP value properly if you cling to the idea that physical objects somehow have "real" value that intangible properties do not.

At the end of the day, every single thing is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. That's the only definition of monetary value, and the subject's physical or nonphysical nature have absolutely nothing to do with it.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Feb 24, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> They are recipients of an illegally copied work, and it doesn't matter one whit to me that they can attribute it to me.




So your arguments are about greed.

If you've finished all labor on a project, there is no fundamental reason you should be rewarded in perpetuity for already completed projects.

There is a lot of reason to make an artificial construct to encourage creative works, but no, its not fundamental.

It's about using greed as a motivator for artistic creation.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> It's easy to think that something you can hold has intrinsic value, but is there really that big a difference between the physical and the intangible, in terms of value?
> 
> 
> If physicality confers value, nothing should be more valuable than real estate. And yet we've seen real estate values plummet in the last year. In some places, there's simply no floor--the only thing supporting any price at all is the willingness of speculators to come in and grab the property for a song, on the prospect that it will, someday, again increase in value. Absent such speculators (in other words, absent people who are assigning imaginary value to the property), the property is literally unsellable at almost any price.
> ...




I would accept this if everybody had the same value of money or from a different POV if every money had the same value or even a stable value. This is not the case. One could even say it is not that houses cost less, it is that some money lose their value.


----------



## Asmor (Feb 24, 2009)

Charwoman Gene said:


> So your arguments are about greed.
> 
> If you've finished all labor on a project, there is no fundamental reason you should be rewarded in perpetuity for already completed projects.
> 
> ...




Whoa, I don't think I could possibly disagree with that more.

A movie company isn't paid to make a movie, for example. They make the movie at their expense, and then try to recoup that expense afterward.

I agree that the movie company isn't fundamentally entitled to recoup their costs or make a profit, but they certainly should have the exclusive rights to sell that movie for a _reasonable_ amount of time.

The arts are strange; they're similar to other professions in that they must produce something to make a living. The problem is, all the difficulty is in the original production; once something is created, it is trivial to recreate it. Anyone can re-type a best selling novel, for example, or make a movie which is virtually identical to a blockbuster hit (never mind literally copying the movie...).

This might not seem like such a big problem for a major movie or album. Even without copyright law, it would have been foolish for someone to try and copy Schindler's List, for example, since that movie saw a major worldwide release and was well known already. At the very least, people have already seen it, diminishing the potential audience; even worse, the copycat studio could suffer some bad PR for the stunt.

The problem is when someone tries to make a large, wide-scale re-release of a small project, or even a small-scale one in a different market. If I take a great photograph, it might make me some money and get me a bit of fame in my local area. If the New York Times then published that photo without attributing it to me, they'd get all the credit everywhere else for it and make all the money off my work.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 24, 2009)

CharlesRyan said:


> It's easy to think that something you can hold has intrinsic value, but is there really that big a difference between the physical and the intangible, in terms of value?



I still believe there is.  It is true that a physical item's value can be so low that it becomes pointless to own it or try to sell it, but it still does have SOME value.  Sure, a property might be perceived to have enough value so that they refuse to sell it for what people will actually pay for it.  Sometimes it becomes more expensive to own something than it is worth.

In fact most of your examples just prove my point that items are worth what people are willing to pay for them.  Big ticket items like real estate, Hummers, are perceived to have so much value that people refuse to sell them for what they are actually worth, so they sit there unsold.

Your point about the plastic just means that it costs more to collect all the plastic and to recycle it than it is worth.  However, they still HAVE value, just not enough to set up a wide scale collection program.  On the other hand, plastic bottles can still be used for all sorts of things on a smaller scale.  Someone might use them for crafts, to hold water in, or any number of other things I'm not thinking of.  And on a small scale, some company might actually pay to recycle them.  Someone has a use for it somewhere, even if its just as a paperweight.  Because they DO something they are worth money.  Even if its so little money that you'd need thousands of them to get a penny.  Even if the economy collapses and we have to resort to the barter system, they are worth something.

The same is not really true of a text file that says "The sky is blue".  It doesn't have any value at all.  Even if you have 10 million of them no one would even pay you a penny for them.



CharlesRyan said:


> At the end of the day, every single thing is worth exactly what people are willing to pay for it. That's the only definition of monetary value, and the subject's physical or nonphysical nature have absolutely nothing to do with it.




I agree with the first point but disagree with the second.  There is a minimum value on everything physical.  An item is worth something even if it is just being used to prop something up.  I will agree that the value of certain physical objects is so negligible so as to be worthless.

Also, I find that information and non-physical items are simply more subjective about how useful they are.


----------



## Oldtimer (Feb 24, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> They are recipients of an illegally copied work, and it doesn't matter one whit to me that they can attribute it to me.  That attribution does me no good when the next electric bill comes in.  That's what I'm arguing against.



We all want more money.

Personally (and as a creator of written works) I subscribe fully to the scandinavian tradition of creator rights - attrbiution, the right to be honored as the creator of one's work. I do think the anglo-saxon invention of copyright is weird thing. They got joined at the hip with the Berne Convention in 1886, but in this day and age copyright has become the albatross around our society's collective neck.

The idea that a creator has some sort of "moral right" to get paid for every copy made, even when someone else does the work of copying it, is totally alien to me. Of course we all wish we had more money, but there is absolutely no reason to have separate laws for one particular group of people. Everyone else either does work-for-hire or produce some physical product or service that can be sold.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 24, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I still believe there is.  It is true that a physical item's value can be so low that it becomes pointless to own it or try to sell it, but it still does have SOME value.




I'm not at all convinced that this is the case.  Imagine that all people in the world die.  Do physical objects still have value?  

Value cannot be intrinsic to the item for one very simple reason - "value" is a human concept.  Without humans, there is no "value".  That means the value comes from the people, not the object.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 24, 2009)

Umbran said:


> I'm not at all convinced that this is the case.  Imagine that all people in the world die.  Do physical objects still have value?
> 
> Value cannot be intrinsic to the item for one very simple reason - "value" is a human concept.  Without humans, there is no "value".  That means the value comes from the people, not the object.




When we humans speak of objects we speak of something that can be exchanged. This need not be something stable. Labor has value for example. But humans will not work without some solid material values: food for example. So even if you give them all the gold of the world without food they will not work for you.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 24, 2009)

Umbran said:


> Value cannot be intrinsic to the item for one very simple reason - "value" is a human concept.  Without humans, there is no "value".  That means the value comes from the people, not the object.




Alright, then let's say that physical objects simply have more uses to humans by being physical objects than non-physical objects.  So, because of the nature of our physical existence, a rock has more value than a txt file with "the sky is blue" written in it.

I agree that the value is not intrinsic to the object.  But the rest of what I said I stick by.  Physical objects still have more value to humans.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 25, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> Personally (and as a creator of written works) I subscribe fully to the scandinavian tradition of creator rights - attrbiution, the right to be honored as the creator of one's work. ... The idea that a creator has some sort of "moral right" to get paid for every copy made, even when someone else does the work of copying it, is totally alien to me.



What do you do for a living?  Do you create written work for the sheer hell of it and then release it into space?



> Of course we all wish we had more money, but there is absolutely no reason to have separate laws for one particular group of people. Everyone else either does work-for-hire or produce some physical product or service that can be sold.



There isn't a separate law for a particular group of people.  It's for any person anywhere who creates anything.  Writers do work-for-hire, and part of the "hiring" is royalties on works sold.  Stephen King gets an advance on his novels, but he gets far more in the royalty checks from the number of product copies sold.

Actors are the same.  They get paid to be in the movie, and many of them also take a share in the profits.

Also - tell me how a book is NOT a physical product that can be sold.  You just shot your own argument in the foot.




> So your arguments are about greed.



Greed?  No.  Expecting to be fairly paid for work, absolutely.



> If you've finished all labor on a project, there is no fundamental reason you should be rewarded in perpetuity for already completed projects.



Except that writers *don't get paid while doing the labor* so that argument's a non-starter.  And what do you do for a living?  (EDIT - I don't mean that as a way to start a flame.  I mean it because if you get a salary, you get paid for already completed projects all the time.  This is true even for hourly wage earners.  Unless you are a manual laborer who gets paid a set amount for a specific job accomplishment [you packaged 4000 VCRs today at 10 cents a VCR], you get paid for your past work, present work, and future work.)



> There is a lot of reason to make an artificial construct to encourage creative works, but no, its not fundamental.



No, it's not.  I'd write poetry regardless.  However, I can't do that *as my full-time occupation* if I don't make enough money from it.

You are effectively telling artists that they shouldn't be entitled to make a living at their art.  Is that correct?  You want them to make art for you, but you think they shouldn't be able to sell it?


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 25, 2009)

> There isn't a separate law for a particular group of people. It's for any person anywhere who creates anything. Writers do work-for-hire, and part of the "hiring" is royalties on works sold. Stephen King gets an advance on his novels, but he gets far more in the royalty checks from the number of product copies sold.
> 
> Actors are the same. They get paid to be in the movie, and many of them also take a share in the profits.
> 
> Also - tell me how a book is NOT a physical product that can be sold. You just shot your own argument in the foot.




One author who explained this really well was Steven Grant.  On his regular column on Comic Book Resources, while being a critic of the RIAA and MPAA, he also points why creative people get royalties.

I'm gonna quote the relevant block, since I think people need to understand this as much as possible.



> Meanwhile a friend who took part in the recent Writers Strike mentioned how his friends, with "normal" jobs, questioned by writers (and, by extension, all creative types) have the audacity to think they should be paid "more than once" for their work. This is all part of the same mentality, the idea that whatever you do your employer gets to make the money off it because it's his risk and he's paying you, and you knew that going in.
> 
> Well, there's an easy enough answer to that one: if you believe that you're an idiot.
> 
> ...




So, think of royalties as similar to pension plans, 401k, incentive bonuses, tips, etc...

One reason I'm critical of the anti-copyright movement is the arguments that it's only big companies that will be pulled down if we destroy it or turn back the clock.  Wrong, I believe it's the little guys who will suffer the most.  A lot of the guys arguing against copyright work for tech companies that can exploit the properties better if the laws were reduced, like YouTube and other sites, and a lot of the guys sharing music, videos, and games are just being selfish and self-centered.  

If we're not careful, we'll end up setting things back for creators 500 years, while the big corporations just get bigger and we all get paid less and lose labor rights we've tried to get for decades.  Or we'll end up with a system where the Internet is locked down and there will be no expectation of privacy anywhere, you'll have a fully identifiable unit to access the Internet and the government can see all attempts to infringe.  

As far as tangible vs. intangible, that's a cultural thing.  Keep in mind primitive indigenous peoples like the Native Americans didn't have concepts of land, while some African tribes had no concept of time measurement like we did.  The arguments over sematics about intellectual property just seem to me to be attempts to try to bring about change in the existing culture.  And that's not always successful.


----------



## drothgery (Feb 25, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Alright, then let's say that physical objects simply have more uses to humans by being physical objects than non-physical objects.  So, because of the nature of our physical existence, a rock has more value than a txt file with "the sky is blue" written in it.
> 
> I agree that the value is not intrinsic to the object.  But the rest of what I said I stick by.  Physical objects still have more value to humans.




Okay, your DVD player undoubtedly has a chip in it specifically designed to decode DVD movies. If you play a DVD on your computer, a program is likely accomplishing the exact same task. Why is the work of the electrical engineer who designed the chip worth more than the work of the software engineer who wrote the program?

And this isn't an odd case at all. There's a wide range of applications that can be done with either hardware or software, and often are done either way. And as a software guy, albeit not an embedded system guy, I'm inclined to think the software is at least as valuable as the hardware, even though it's not a tangible good.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 25, 2009)

JohnRTroy brought up a good point and that led me to another thought.

Artists don't know how successful they'll be.  For all I know, in 10 years I could be failed poet or a successful one.  You cannot prejeudge the value of art and pay for it accordingly.  The value is not immediately apparent.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> JohnRTroy brought up a good point and that led me to another thought.
> 
> Artists don't know how successful they'll be.  For all I know, in 10 years I could be failed poet or a successful one.  You cannot prejeudge the value of art and pay for it accordingly.  The value is not immediately apparent.




This is why some kind of sponsorship to the whole process seems a good idea. Of course to sponsor you also need to control and if we are talking about state sponsorship then the various academies would become the control centers. This may seem tricky though if one sees the various artistic movements historically (for example the conflicts or polemics with the academics) but in the information age perhaps academic institutions would fare better than how they did in the past.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> This is why some kind of sponsorship to the whole process seems a good idea. Of course to sponsor you also need to control and if we are talking about state sponsorship then the various academies would become the control centers. This may seem tricky though if one sees the various artistic movements historically (for example the conflicts or polemics with the academics) but in the information age perhaps academic institutions would fare better than how they did in the past.




Patronage can work. It can also produce crap that a tasteless millionaire likes. And, really, work-for-hire is really another form of patronage.

However, it 's not the only or best way. The issue with modern copyright isn't that it exists or that it allows right holders (artists or otherwise) to male money, it is that the terms are ludicrously long, and there's no method for reclaiming abandoned or orphaned copyrights for the public domain. Shorter terms would allow more creativity, more people to actually see some of these works, and might actually encourage some more creativity in Hollywood or where ever because they wouldn't get to milk something for 120 years, they'd have to make something new.

My issue with software and technology companies isn't copyright related, it's patent related. Which is a completely different subject.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Feb 25, 2009)

Oldtimer said:


> We all want more money.
> 
> Personally (and as a creator of written works) I subscribe fully to the scandinavian tradition of creator rights - attrbiution, the right to be honored as the creator of one's work. I do think the anglo-saxon invention of copyright is weird thing. They got joined at the hip with the Berne Convention in 1886, but in this day and age copyright has become the albatross around our society's collective neck.
> 
> The idea that a creator has some sort of "moral right" to get paid for every copy made, even when someone else does the work of copying it, is totally alien to me. Of course we all wish we had more money, but there is absolutely no reason to have separate laws for one particular group of people. Everyone else either does work-for-hire or produce some physical product or service that can be sold.




Exactly! Maybe cause I'm Scots the older traditions have more relevance with me, hehe!

look, if I said any more it would get political, but folk who support the current copyright lunacy: Greed is Evil. Current unfolding history proves that.
We're running out of time, _fast_. We need to think of new ways of working.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 25, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> look, if I said any more it would get political, but folk who support the current copyright lunacy: Greed is Evil. Current unfolding history proves that.
> We're running out of time, _fast_. We need to think of new ways of working.




Greed, however, goes both ways.  It's also greedy to download hundreds of songs, videos, and watch and enjoy them without paying for them if that was the intent.  Basic economic realities are a fact of life, and artists should be compensated for their work.  The reason we have free radio and TV is because of advertising.  Just because the computer makes it easier to copy stuff doesn't mean it's already to do it.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Greed, however, goes both ways.  It's also greedy to download hundreds of songs, videos, and watch and enjoy them without paying for them if that was the intent.  Basic economic realities are a fact of life, and artists should be compensated for their work.



There is no such thing as greed for information if this is what you are implying. There may be greed for prestige with a class based society but I doubt that downloading stuff has anything to do or promotes a distinction to classes.   



JohnRTroy said:


> The reason we have free radio and TV is because of advertising.  Just because the computer makes it easier to copy stuff doesn't mean it's already to do it.



If it is right or not to do it depends on how productive it is-in this case how productive it is to copy stuff.
The whole discussion is about productivity. It seems there is no clear solution yet and this means that people will have to work on finding out this one.
But is this what the owners of the current commercial rights are doing? Instead of going against people to save their investment on the old infrastructure and its exploitation shouldn't they focus their efforts on how to evolve in the current levels of technological progress? 
I dunno. I am not an insider, perhaps they have researched it and found out they would make more money by milking out the cow. Perhaps they have not been researching. In any case they are wrong.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> There is no such thing as greed for information if this is what you are implying.



Songs, books, and movies are PRODUCTS, not information.  Your greed to obtain those products without fair compensation is flat-out wrong.  Period.  There's no question in that you are advocating the willful theft of personal property to which you do not have the legal right.



> But is this what the owners of the current commercial rights are doing? Instead of going against people to save their investment on the old infrastructure and its exploitation shouldn't they focus their efforts on how to evolve in the current levels of technological progress?



So you expect every book, every song, every movie to have advertisements held within them? 



> I dunno. I am not an insider, perhaps they have researched it and found out they would make more money by milking out the cow. Perhaps they have not been researching. In any case they are wrong.



And what do you suggest?

In any event, artists have functioned in the same manner since man became civilized.  In return for the art, the artist was paid either directly or through trade so that he could continue to make art.  Artists that weren't paid went back to whatever they were doing before they thought they could live by their art.

You're advocating, effectively, for a socialistic approach to art (note, I'm not attempting to bring politics in, just referencing the idea) in that whatever one person, has everyone is entitled to as well.  But that doesn't work in the real world where people need money to provide food, shelter, and safety for themselves and their loved ones.  By advocating the free distribution of art (and art alone, since I assume YOU have a job and get paid and are unwilling to part with all of your stuff just to help me out), you want to force artists to find other means to survive.

The idea that people shouldn't be paid for their work is ludicrous.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Songs, books, and movies are PRODUCTS, not information.  Your greed to obtain those products without fair compensation is flat-out wrong.  Period.  There's no question in that you are advocating the willful theft of personal property to which you do not have the legal right.
> 
> So you expect every book, every song, every movie to have advertisements held within them?
> 
> ...




I am not sure I understand your points. I told you about a state controlled -through institutions for example as in ancient Greece- plan. Artists would exist in the same way as they do today - individuals educated in their society. And they would get paid -as anyone that can get paid in the various states where he can work in the public/state sector.

The problem brand owners see right now is that if they evolve towards a new model they would lose much of their relative status. The small little guys will become bigger(I guess you belong here) and they will become smaller -this regarding your relative positions right now. Why would this happen? Because technology flattens production difficulties and lowers the need of management. 

Look at POD for example. Of course marketing remains a problem and here is where a central institution could be really helpful. Conventions and dedicated festivities to promote the art and artists themselves - to help promote the art and artists themselves. Things alike to gen con or museums.

You could be paid directly from the state -those you teach art in universities are paid by the state -if we are talking about a public university- . Competitions or popularity contests could be organized to grand bonuses to the winners too. And the 1st prize goes too...this is possible to do today with the technology we have. And I believe -unless you are somebody "recommended" you will make a better living out of it than struggling as a poet to get by in today's industry and market.

These are just ideas that pop out of my mind. I bet professionals could research and find good solutions, more productive solutions -for the common good- that the ridiculous fallacies of the entertainment industry and market that we have today -regarding the common good that is and not the deep pockets of a bunch of guys.


----------



## grickherder (Feb 25, 2009)

As a matter of civil disobedience to effect change, I don't recognize the _personhood_ of non-natural people (ie. corporations and similar legal fictions).  Thus, I consider them to have no right to the protection afforded by copyright laws.  I see such protection as only belonging to natural persons who retain ownership of the rights to their works and who don't engage in the formation of artificial legal constructs that somehow have greater rights than natural people and reduce liability and resonsibility in society.

Thoughts?


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 25, 2009)

I really appreciate Old Timer's description of the Scandinavian Tradition of attribution as the only benefit of authorship. I hadn't seen that before.

But I come down with DaveMage: Copyright is good, but the current term is way too long.

Just to sum up where that comes from:
1. Ceteris paribus, society is better with more art than less art. I think we can all agree that (regardless of any other strengths and weaknesses) Venice and Rome are more pleasant to visually behold than Moscow or New York. We are all better off (happier) with Shakespeare the playwright than Shakespeare the accountant. Etc.

2. As a matter of general economic principles you get more of a good (any good) when you pay people to produce it.

2.a. If you want more art, artists need to get paid.

3. There are any number of ways we can pay artists (in order to get more art (in order to be happier)). And pretty much all of them have been (and continue to be) used to one degree or another.  Artists work on commission, take salaried positions at universities and non-profits, get grants from public tax coffers, produce a physical work and sell or auction it at galleries, etc. etc. 

3.a. Copyright is just one more way of getting artists paid. The public grants to the artist a temporary (but very narrow) monopoly on the otherwise perfectly legal activities of painting, writing, etc. to the extent that these activities are "copies" of his work. It's a public contract (sometimes called "law") between the art-appreciating public and the art-generating public; "We want art; you produce art; we'll voluntarily give up the right to paint and write these "copies" in order to provide an incentive to you to do original work."

There's nothing moral about it in my opinion. It's just a contract of convenience written in law. Each side gets what they want (art / a living). In the absence of this law each side would be free to do as they please (including producing art that's just a copy of someone else's art - after all, the copier may not be original, but how would you propose stopping the whole public from engaging in copying activities? Would you ban the ownership of paint or writing tools? That certainly would not leave society better off, for then we'd surely have Picasso the pencil-sketcher instead of Picasso the painter).

But because it's a contract between two public groups of people (the art appreciators and the art producers), each side can go back to the table and renegotiate the terms if they feel like they're paying too great an amount for the benefit received. Right now I think the art appreciators are paying far too much, given the length of copyright.  Any many of them are demonstrating they agree with me by "opting out' of the legal arrangement and acquiring the copyrighted works by extra-legal means. 

Further, recall that copyright is created in the first place to increase the public good (by encouraging the production of original art). But as it stands the great length of copyright term is harmful to the public good because art is "lock up" for a century and cannot be recycled back into the creative mix. Don't we all enjoy a good Ravenloft campaign? Do you think Ravenloft would have been written if Dracula had still be under copyright to someone? Probably not, as the licensing negotiations would have made what was supposed to be a one-off adventure module just not worth it.  We (the gaming public) are better off with Ravenloft, the re-mix of gothic novels and D&D adventuring, than without. And copyright would probably have killed it.

So it's a balancing act of term-length, seeking the maximal point on the parabola of societal value. As a legal right, copyright is a gift to the artist from the public, and so the public has the right to name the terms of the gift. The artist has the right to not produce art if he feels the rewards are insufficient.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Feb 25, 2009)

grickherder said:


> As a matter of civil disobedience to effect change, I don't recognize the _personhood_ of non-natural people (ie. corporations and similar legal fictions).  Thus, I consider them to have no right to the protection afforded by copyright laws.  I see such protection as only belonging to natural persons who retain ownership of the rights to their works and who don't engage in the formation of artificial legal constructs that somehow have greater rights than natural people and reduce liability and resonsibility in society.
> 
> Thoughts?



The form of ownership should not effect moral choices, as corporations are ultimately owned by people. If an artist forms a corporation for tax purposes, and assigns all his work to the corporation, do you still feel no obligation to respect the copyright merely because of the legal ownership structure?

Corporations (and trusts, partnerships, etc.) are just a conduit for property rights, not a destination. They ultimately lead back to the people that own them. Actions that harm corporations harm their owners.

EDIT: I should note, to avoid confusion, that whether or not you consider IP theft to be harmful is a separate issue. All I'm saying is that if you respect IP when it's held by an individual (in order to avoid harming a person) you must also respect IP when it's held by a legal entity (in order to avoid harming its owners, who are after all people too).


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> I am not sure I understand your points. I told you about a state controlled -through institutions for example as in ancient Greece- plan. Artists would exist in the same way as they do today - individuals educated in their society. And they would get paid -as anyone that can get paid in the various states where he can work in the public/state sector.



I think this is the essence of where we disagree.  You do believe in a statist economical model whereby everyone is supported by a state and is paid accordingly, as opposed to a capitalist model where people are paid according to the free market based on how well they create, market, and sell their products.

You are, in essence, advocating for a patronage model of the arts, but rather than it being some rich dude paying, it's the state (which means subsidized art, effectively).  I think that leads ultimately to the reduction in quality as it is the competition that drives people to reach new heights of performance.  You manage to sort of get around that by proposing contests, but contest are judged by and at the whims of only a select few people.  The free market allows for everyone everywhere (well, those within a selected market - for me, poetry readers in the metro-Boston area) to determine the value of my work and what they're willing to pay.  If my work doesn't sell I can use that to shift styles or substance, or else just take my lumps and move on.

The single-payer model will result in stagnation, and not just in art.

But now we risk moving into politics, so I'll stop.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> I think this is the essence of where we disagree.  You do believe in a statist economical model whereby everyone is supported by a state and is paid accordingly, as opposed to a capitalist model where people are paid according to the free market based on how well they create, market, and sell their products.
> 
> You are, in essence, advocating for a patronage model of the arts, but rather than it being some rich dude paying, it's the state (which means subsidized art, effectively).  I think that leads ultimately to the reduction in quality as it is the competition that drives people to reach new heights of performance.  You manage to sort of get around that by proposing contests, but contest are judged by and at the whims of only a select few people.  The free market allows for everyone everywhere (well, those within a selected market - for me, poetry readers in the metro-Boston area) to determine the value of my work and what they're willing to pay.  If my work doesn't sell I can use that to shift styles or substance, or else just take my lumps and move on.
> 
> ...




It am not sure what you mean by statist. I am neither sure what you mean by subsidized art but I think that your further arguments could be seen as an insult to the classics and the historic geniuses of art that we have the joy to experience still today.
Show me a work of free market than has surpassed ancient greek tragedy. Show me how the free market surpasses the development, the artistic progress achieved by the renaissance masters.   
You are worrying about exposition. Why? If you are good you can be exposed, especially today with the internet and whatever. If Boston for example assumes control, if you gathered enough support by your fellow bostonites (or bostonians?) through the internet you could be assumed to work for the Boston accademy of literature or even partecipate in a contest or festival that you would be paid either without winning -winners could get extra prizes or recognition -which is still equally important as it is in the free market -accademies work as a free market -only without the marketing.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 25, 2009)

xechnao said:


> It am not sure what you mean by statist. I am neither sure what you mean by subsidized art but I think that your further arguments could be seen as an insult to the classics and the historic geniuses of art that we have the joy to experience still today.
> Show me a work of free market than has surpassed ancient greek tragedy. Show me how the free market surpasses the development, the artistic progress achieved by the renaissance masters.



Hate to tell you, but Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci existed in a free market.  They were commissioned by people to make art and then were paid for the completed object.  They weren't paid by the government, they didn't receive salaries, etc.  They were paid for each work.

In fact the very REASON Michelangelo even painted the Sistine Chapel was because of the free market.  He was competing with Raphael and other contemporaries.  He was trying to outdo them.  They weren't "managed" by the state.  Their works were bidded on and they competed in a free market.  Indeed, that market was probably freer than the world market today.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 25, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> Hate to tell you, but Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci existed in a free market.  They were commissioned by people to make art and then were paid for the completed object.  They weren't paid by the government, they didn't receive salaries, etc.  They were paid for each work.
> 
> In fact the very REASON Michelangelo even painted the Sistine Chapel was because of the free market.  He was competing with Raphael and other contemporaries.  He was trying to outdo them.  They weren't "managed" by the state.  Their works were bidded on and they competed in a free market.  Indeed, that market was probably freer than the world market today.



If you consider the catholic church or the power of the de medici as a free market I could see everything as a free market. I am not sure what you have in mind when you say a free market and a non free market.


----------



## Campbell (Feb 25, 2009)

Here's my issue with a state-based solution: it accounts for the producer of content, but not those who add value to the products that contain that content.

*Fictional Example*
Let's say a publisher likes Mercutio's poetry enough to want to publish a compilation of his work. Mercutio is a poet and doesn't know how to compose a compilation, so the publisher assigns an editor to compile some of Mercutio's work in a form that works for poetry books. To help transition from one poem to the next the publisher hires a freelancer to work with Mercutio to write some copy to help introduce the poems in the compilation. Now that the project is coming along nicely, an art director at the publisher works with Mercutio to create art orders that complement Mercutio's poems and help the reader gain a feel for each poem. At the same time, a graphic designer is brought on to create a look and feel that is consistent with the content. After some basic layout work is started, and artwork starts coming back the graphic designer(s), art director, and typesetter(s) work to bring the book's layout and typography together. Once the book is typeset it gets proofed, and the graphic designer(s) consult the color books for the printer they're using and do any color correction work that needs to be done. Finally, the book is sent in digital form to the printer who prints and binds the book after they get approval for their proofs.

The final book that people hold in their hands or look at on screen is the result of lots of people who worked very hard to add value to it and they all deserve to get compensated for the value they added. When you remove these people from the process you're often left with solid content that doesn't captivate an audience. Should the state also hire these people?


----------



## resistor (Feb 25, 2009)

Irda Ranger said:


> Further, recall that copyright is created in the first place to increase the public good (by encouraging the production of original art). But as it stands the great length of copyright term is harmful to the public good because art is "lock up" for a century and cannot be recycled back into the creative mix. Don't we all enjoy a good Ravenloft campaign? Do you think Ravenloft would have been written if Dracula had still be under copyright to someone? Probably not, as the licensing negotiations would have made what was supposed to be a one-off adventure module just not worth it.  We (the gaming public) are better off with Ravenloft, the re-mix of gothic novels and D&D adventuring, than without. And copyright would probably have killed it.




A very good post overall.  I'd just like to throw in one example to reinforce this point:

My grandparents saw Snow White in theatres on one of their first dates.  Because of the repeated extension of copyright since then, *MY* children (or grandchildren, if it gets extended again) will be dating before it becomes public property.

Something that has been part of my family for three generations isn't a product anymore.  It's part of my cultural heritage, just like Shakespeare, and all the other classic authors.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 26, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Okay, your DVD player undoubtedly has a chip in it specifically designed to decode DVD movies. If you play a DVD on your computer, a program is likely accomplishing the exact same task. Why is the work of the electrical engineer who designed the chip worth more than the work of the software engineer who wrote the program?




I don't think that the WORK is less valuable, just the resulting product.  The thing about hardware vs software is that if you pay a guy in a factory X dollars to build a piece of hardware, and Y dollars on the raw materials to build the item, then it costs Z(which is the total of X and Y) dollars to make a second item exactly the same.

On the other hand, that device had to be researched by someone, that research and design is certainly worthwhile.  Without it, there would be no hardware.  Someone had to write the software that makes the hardware work, that work is worthwhile and should be rewarded.

But what I'm saying is that the resulting hardware only has a value of Z, not Z plus whatever it cost to code the software that goes with it.  Because the software can be duplicated infinite times for free.  Nor do you add the hardware design costs to the resulting item either.  You don't need to redesign it each time you produce one.

When you produce an item like this, you hope to make enough profit to recoup the costs of design and code and still make more profit.  However, I disagree with the philosophy that says that the resulting object has a value equal to all the design costs and programming costs.  It doesn't.

I agree with some other people here who say that the solution to the problem is to reduce the time dramatically that Copyright can be held.  I'd support something akin to 5 or 10 years.  Companies would be able to produce a product, make profit for a couple of years then make something new.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 26, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> One author who explained this really well was Steven Grant.  On his regular column on Comic Book Resources, while being a critic of the RIAA and MPAA, he also points why creative people get royalties.
> 
> I'm gonna quote the relevant block, since I think people need to understand this as much as possible.
> 
> ...




This is one I just need to reply to.  I know the author isn't going to actually read this reply, but I think that the ideas behind it need to be replied to.  So, here it goes:

I work in the IT industry.  I am currently contracted to a large, multinational IT company.  I don't even work for them, I work for an employment agency because the company doesn't want to have to pay everyone working for them health benefits, pension and the like.  So, I get none of these.  I keep working there because there is a chance that if I keep working for them, I will be hired on as a real employee and get those benefits.  Even if I don't get hired on, I can use the experience I get here to find another job in the field.

So, I don't have a pension.  I have no way to pay for my life after I retire yet.  I'm 30, I still feel there is time to either start contributing to my own retirement fund or to find a job that does provide these benefits.

So, you are asking my WHY my job doesn't work like yours?  Because none of them do.  Or, I should correct that, VERY few of them do.  I don't seem to have the same self-centered sense of entitlement you do over the situation, mind you.  I work every day for the wage I receive.  I don't consider whether something I do today is going to make the company millions of dollars.  It might.  Then again, I might not do anything valuable and be a drain on the companies funds.  That's the way most people live their lives.

Even if I had profit sharing or such things, I only get paid the extra while I'm with the company.  It doesn't pay me after I leave.

I am aware that it is common in your industry to be paid for your work forever.  Let me get this off my chest now.  That's just plain crap.  No one gets paid for their work forever except for you.  I know you are thinking, "But the companies we work for are going to be paid forever for my work, why aren't I?".  And I agree with you, they should not be paid forever for your work either.

There is a system here that runs the booking system for a major airline.  The programmers who designed the system do not currently get paid for their work.  It is still in use and it makes the airline millions.  They got paid for their work.  They do, however, get paid to write new software for the company.  As it should be.  Your industry should work the same.

Your industry should either pay you for one time work in a big enough number to be worth the full value of the work or they should hire you on long term with all of the benefits that most companies offer.

And here's the kicker.  Their rights to profit off of your work should only last 10 years at most.  After that time, it should enter the public domain.  This should encourage both you and them to come up with new ideas to profit off of rather than resting on the old ones.

If you want to be the one profiting off your own work, then you need to be the one who leads the project.  Start making deals with the backers to fund you in exchange for 150% or 200% of the money back and the rest goes to you.  Be the one in charge if you want to make the millions off your movie.  If you don't want to be the one who takes care of all of that, hire someone else to be your employee who does.  Otherwise, stop bitching and accept that you'll get a one time fee for your work.  You've had it too good for too long.  I understand that it is hard when someone takes away something in order to make you equal to everyone else.  It'll be hard for a while.  You'll survive.  The rest of us do.



JohnRTroy said:


> One reason I'm critical of the anti-copyright movement is the arguments that it's only big companies that will be pulled down if we destroy it or turn back the clock.  Wrong, I believe it's the little guys who will suffer the most.  A lot of the guys arguing against copyright work for tech companies that can exploit the properties better if the laws were reduced, like YouTube and other sites, and a lot of the guys sharing music, videos, and games are just being selfish and self-centered.



And this is where you are wrong.  The entire industry is in need of a large kick in the pants.  Technology changes culture not the other way around.  Right now the movie and music industry are attempting to change culture in a counter direction to the direction technology is pushing.  They will lose.  But they have a lot of money, so the fight will go on for some time.

The way technology works now encourages information to be free.  I can easily post a movie to the internet, have it in thousands of people's hands within hours and have it decentralized so that not a single one of us is the "linchpin" to removing it from the internet.  Information is too easy to get and too difficult to remove.

We can rail against this change all we want, but it's coming.  The more people who know how to use it, the more prevalent it becomes.  Right now, we deal with it by criminalizing the act and trying to punish each and every person who does it.  The problem is, when that is 90% of the population, how do you justify it?

I don't view it as the people trading things on the internet as being selfish and self-centered.  They just know how to use technology and feel that it is only useful when you use it to its logical conclusion.  I actually feel it's the opposite.  People who create art of any kind, be it music, movies, television, paintings, or whatever, should be looking to enrich the lives of the human race rather than becoming millionaires.  That was the original purpose of art.  When did it become about money?

I'm not saying the people who make these things don't deserve to eat and have a roof over their head.  Of course they do.  I'm saying that with the change in technology comes a change in the way you think about getting paid for your work.  Musicians might need to make 100% of their money for live shows, television appearances, or other avenues.  People who make movies might need to make 100% of their profit from the "experience" of seeing a movie in a theater or off of toys or games based on their movies.

I don't have all the answers.  I don't know exactly how certain things will make profit.  Someone smarter than me is going to have to come up with a completely different model for these sort of things.  But to simply point at those sharing media on the internet and call them selfish and self-centered is being short sighted.  People want to enrich themselves.  They want to read a story, hear a song, or watch a movie as part of their personal growth.  The same reason that the people wrote or filmed these things in the first place.

I think both the big companies AND the little guy will end up hurting in the crash to come.  But I think those with more to lose will be hit harder.



JohnRTroy said:


> If we're not careful, we'll end up setting things back for creators 500 years, while the big corporations just get bigger and we all get paid less and lose labor rights we've tried to get for decades.  Or we'll end up with a system where the Internet is locked down and there will be no expectation of privacy anywhere, you'll have a fully identifiable unit to access the Internet and the government can see all attempts to infringe.



I think things need to be set back for creators 500 years.  That's about when they were treated like the rest of us.  Well, scratch that, I think they need to be set FORWARD 50 years with real, forward thinking.

As I see the future, it will be a period where people make movies to gross 100 million in the box office, 50 million off of toys and other products due to the movie, and simply don't care what happens after that.  People either go see the movie in theaters, buy games or other physical products based around the movie or they simply aren't a factor.  Even if all of those people have seen the movie for free by downloading off the internet.

The movies that wouldn't have made enough money in theaters to break even would stop being made.  There will be some sacrifices.  These things will likely end up being direct to internet releases for free that will instead attempt to capitalize off of the semi-popularity of their work with advertising, toys, games, and the like.  It's being done today in small amounts and I see it being done much more in the future.  People will make things for free and use the popularity to make money rather than the product itself.



JohnRTroy said:


> As far as tangible vs. intangible, that's a cultural thing.  Keep in mind primitive indigenous peoples like the Native Americans didn't have concepts of land, while some African tribes had no concept of time measurement like we did.  The arguments over sematics about intellectual property just seem to me to be attempts to try to bring about change in the existing culture.  And that's not always successful.



No, but the thing that almost always changes cultures is technology.  It has nearly a 100% effectiveness rate in changing culture when it was adapted.

The other thing is necessity.  Native Americans didn't have any concepts of property because there wasn't enough people to fight over it or any necessity to do so.  When you have too many people, you get disputes, you need to come up with ways to resolve them.  Thus, land titles and the like.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 26, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> So, you are asking my WHY my job doesn't work like yours?  Because none of them do.  Or, I should correct that, VERY few of them do.  I don't seem to have the same self-centered sense of entitlement you do over the situation, mind you.  I work every day for the wage I receive.  I don't consider whether something I do today is going to make the company millions of dollars.  It might.  Then again, I might not do anything valuable and be a drain on the companies funds.  That's the way most people live their lives.
> 
> Even if I had profit sharing or such things, I only get paid the extra while I'm with the company.  It doesn't pay me after I leave.
> 
> I am aware that it is common in your industry to be paid for your work forever.  Let me get this off my chest now.  That's just plain crap.  No one gets paid for their work forever except for you.  I know you are thinking, "But the companies we work for are going to be paid forever for my work, why aren't I?".  And I agree with you, they should not be paid forever for your work either.




You completely miss the quote he makes about sales people, lawyers, etc.  And I don't think you have a lot of knowledge on the way Hollywood and other writing endeavors work.  I'm sure as an IT person you get paid a solid wage for what you do.  A lot of writing is fronted by whether or not its a hit.

And I think you seem to think writers are overpaid spoiled brats, they aren't.  The people who make it rich screenwriting are very few.  

And some software does get royalties--there are people using other people's libraries of code, etc.



> There is a system here that runs the booking system for a major airline.  The programmers who designed the system do not currently get paid for their work.  It is still in use and it makes the airline millions.  They got paid for their work.  They do, however, get paid to write new software for the company.  As it should be.  Your industry should work the same.




This analogy is flawed because software is not like prose writing.  Software usually needs maintenance over time.  Plus, in the world of software, hardware changes, OS changes, etc.  By rights, they need constant maintenance over time.



> Your industry should either pay you for one time work in a big enough number to be worth the full value of the work or they should hire you on long term with all of the benefits that most companies offer.
> 
> And here's the kicker.  Their rights to profit off of your work should only last 10 years at most.  After that time, it should enter the public domain.  This should encourage both you and them to come up with new ideas to profit off of rather than resting on the old ones.




It doesn't work like that because for every success there are 10 failures.  Only with success does the money always come in, I thought he made that pretty clear.  




> You've had it too good for too long.  I understand that it is hard when someone takes away something in order to make you equal to everyone else.  It'll be hard for a while.  You'll survive.  The rest of us do.




You're being pretty ignorant here.  First of all, Steven Grant is by no means a rich man.  Secondly, you seem to be thinking all writers are rich, they are not.  The whole royalty thing is a way of compensating for the fact that a lot of writers aren't paid much for their efforts, especially in Hollywood where they can be easilly exploited if they didn't have their own union.  In fact, in some ways writers are suffering because the people with the money are starting to take the same attitudes you have and make it seem like the writers are the ones being greedy.



> And this is where you are wrong.  The entire industry is in need of a large kick in the pants.  Technology changes culture not the other way around.  Right now the movie and music industry are attempting to change culture in a counter direction to the direction technology is pushing.  They will lose.  But they have a lot of money, so the fight will go on for some time.




You don't really know that for a fact.  I'm a little disturbed by the "techno-worship" I see, that technology changes everything.  Yes, well laws do catch up with that.  Modern society is filled will laws.  We can drive twice the speed limit, for instance, but we don't.



> The way technology works now encourages information to be free.  I can easily post a movie to the internet, have it in thousands of people's hands within hours and have it decentralized so that not a single one of us is the "linchpin" to removing it from the internet.  Information is too easy to get and too difficult to remove.




Yes, but you can also be tracked, your data recorded, etc, and there aren't that many ISPs out there you can use in a single geographical area.  Encryption works both ways.  I suspect there will be tools to help combat piracy--especially if criminal hackers, the kind who want to steal money from banks, make major successes.  I find it interesting that the technophiles always say "there's no way to stop piracy", when people are working on the solution.



> We can rail against this change all we want, but it's coming.  The more people who know how to use it, the more prevalent it becomes.  Right now, we deal with it by criminalizing the act and trying to punish each and every person who does it.  The problem is, when that is 90% of the population, how do you justify it?




Well, you could say that about laws on the books.  

What I personally thing should happen is that ISPs work with the government to punish infrignement by setting up something similar to speeding tickets.  There's a cap on punishment unless you are a blantant violated.  Say if they discover you illegally downloaded a book and were caught by the logs and CRC checks.  You get charged a $100 to a $500 fine.  It's added to your ISP bill--don't pay, get cut off.  You can argue against this like a traffic ticket.  But just like most traffic tickets, people would pay the tickets and avoid the behavior.  If we did this, I think it would stop most piracy since the younger set would get in trouble with their parents, and it wouldn't be see by the masses the same way as a 250,000 suit against an individual world.



> People who create art of any kind, be it music, movies, television, paintings, or whatever, should be looking to enrich the lives of the human race rather than becoming millionaires.  That was the original purpose of art.  When did it become about money?




Oh, c'mon.  I am getting a bit sick of the "people should do it for the ART, not the MONEY" meme that keeps coming back.   Art from ancient times only lasted because it was popular and respected enough to be preserved.

This seems to be a class warfare thing--it's like the people look at the richest ones, the ones that are the most successful, and think everybody is like that, and that they have it too good.  Wrong.  Only the top of the class gets that way.  J.K. Rowling made her money the old fashioned way.  I don't begrudge people who get rewarded for there skills.  

Economic realities are a fact of life.  If you cut out paying for artists, you just have people who will do it part-time, or do a quick burn then fadeout as they get less free time, or a few poor suckers who do it "for their art" and not getting anywhere in life.  In fact, a lot of businessmen have conned many writers into working on stuff for free.  



> Musicians might need to make 100% of their money for live shows, television appearances, or other avenues.  People who make movies might need to make 100% of their profit from the "experience" of seeing a movie in a theater or off of toys or games based on their movies.




That's the easy answer all the opponents to copyright say.  Note that the people judging are not usually in the industry and don't usually know enough about it, just make judgments from the outside based on their own perspectives.

Personally I think this cartoon says it best.

AAEC - Political Cartoon by Ted Rall, Universal Press Syndicate - 03/24/2008



> But to simply point at those sharing media on the internet and call them selfish and self-centered is being short sighted.  People want to enrich themselves.  They want to read a story, hear a song, or watch a movie as part of their personal growth.  The same reason that the people wrote or filmed these things in the first place.




But then, assuming they feel that way, then there are free alternatives, aren't there?  Entertainment on traditional channels is free, with advertisements being the price you'd pay.

Part of the problem is lack of empathy.  I know what it's like to create, and I'm sympathetic to people who lost their jobs.  I can understand questioning the benefits of copyright.  But I think a lot of the people who are actually pirating music, movies, and games are young people without money, who pay a bit of lip service to the copyleft movement as well as think they are "screwing the rich", but they are motivated to get everything they can get without paying for it because they can.  Then they use these arguments to justify their actions, without ever understanding the other side.

(And I'm not saying everybody feels this way, but I think the idealists out there are outnumbered by the self-justifiers.  The complaints about SPORE on Amazon proved this to me.  When people started the protests about the Spore DRM, I noticed that anybody with a contrary opinion on Amazon's message forums were "voted down", so you couldn't read the opposing posts, even if the person started a thread.).

When I mentioned "hundreds of years of precedent", I mentioned stealing, etc.  Everything those moral laws taught me tells me it's wrong because it hurts the other person--the owner of the good, the shopkeeper, etc.  Apply that to non-tangible goods and I can see taking a copy of something that's taken a lot of time to develop and where there's a lawfully setup way for that person to get compensated, whether it's the writer, artist, programmer (for games), and I can see that its not right to copy that.  Saying "it's not theft" just doesn't seem right to me, and I don't think this semantic argument makes much sense.



> I think both the big companies AND the little guy will end up hurting in the crash to come.  But I think those with more to lose will be hit harder.




I believe your wrong.  Let's say most content is commoditized.  What I see ending up happening is there will only be a few places to get content, and those that hold the content.  So, instead of companies like Sony, etc, getting rich, it might be Google.  At the same time, since you've scrapped the system that pays the actual creative types, all of the lower-paid creative types suffer the most.



> I think things need to be set back for creators 500 years.  That's about when they were treated like the rest of us.  Well, scratch that, I think they need to be set FORWARD 50 years with real, forward thinking.




Agreed, but Forward thinking also has to take into account all factors of the business and its economic impact.  You need to see all sides, and not just say "out with the old, in with the new", "sucks to be part of old media", etc.  

I am not advocating charity, in fact in some cases I think the media should change, and I think certain choices they made regarding technology, such as the newspaper industry, hurt them.  (Too many big companies just put their content on-line for free in an effort to get eyeballs instead of profit, creating a free expectation).

But I think a lot of people need to study all sides--study why copyright was made, study economic models and theories, study how the payment systems work in the media, study past historical changes, understand why minority interest groups get power and why sometimes that's okay (somebody up-thread mentioned the US is a Republic--a Republic prevents a tyranny of the majority, which is why we have laws for instance protecting certain unions, laws for the handicapped, laws to protect certain business interests, etc ).  Don't be attached to your own opinion without studying all sides, as well as history.  

One of the problems is there's no compromise between the camps and something will have to give to make a better future for us.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Feb 26, 2009)

Irda,
yeah that's my way fo thinking. Corporations = truly evil, because all they care about is *profit*, with absolutely no social responsibility and damn little to stop them. See current crisis as proof.

Now, as another bit to show why copyright etc is all lunatic now...
In a few years time, they'll have DVDs with a capacity of over 1000 gigabytes (seriously). Think about that...you could have 100 HD movies on ONE disc.

Now, why the hell should I have to pay for individual films at say $10 each, or as I@m sure the rat-pukes will try to do, 100 films on 1 disc for $500 or so...
we should be getting 100 films, Of OUR CHOICE, burned to disc, or entire catalogue sof 1 star or studio for $10.

Why? cause they are old, cause the tech means we'll one day be able to have entire collections of all works on one storage unit so why the blazes should we pay for every item except for a few cents (you wanna pay $10,000 for a bloody single DVD?!)...and we, as cosnumers need to stop being lead by the nose and robbed! 

It'a a digitla age folks! wake up.
One day you'll be able to take a pciture of any object and a mahcine build it for you..so how the hell cna oyu own "copyrights"? 

tell you a better method of artist's payment:

Here in UK, any venue that plays music has to by a license, this license money is paid to artists. Everyone profits.
Same with other art could be done.

You pay your subscription fee, that goes to the artists *Not* corporate ghouls. Bonus for every download so more poopular/good you are, more you earn.
This solves both models of support! 

So, for WOTC, you pay them your DDI or whatever subscription fee and should get PDFs of *every* WOTC item. Not too long until books are largely replaced by electronic books, this saves WOTC printing and distribution costs.

We cannot stop priacy, it's impossible, except by draocnian,evil actions that are the antithesis of modern, democratic, decent governance (which is exaclty what the RIAA and their ilk are trying to screw with! Way to go fining grannies for $25,000! Searches without warrants, etc).

non-commericla piracy IS good civil disobedience. Make them all heed our will and give us digital art at prices we agree with.
Digital = not using up finite physical resources.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 26, 2009)

A work of art != 'information'.

Information should be free, and all that, yo? Good. Great, even. But see above.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 26, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> An artwork != 'information'.
> 
> Information should be free, and all that, yo? Good. Great, even. But see above.




Actually the quote about Information wants to be free is misquoted so often.

Information wants to be free? — Eat Sleep Publish

It was never meant by that author to suggest that all work would be done gratis.  In fact, Stewart Brand stated that there would always be tensions between the two factors.


----------



## Krensky (Feb 26, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Now, why the hell should I have to pay for individual films at say $10 each, or as I@m sure the rat-pukes will try to do, 100 films on 1 disc for $500 or so...
> we should be getting 100 films, Of OUR CHOICE, burned to disc, or entire catalogue sof 1 star or studio for $10.




Only if the owners choose to sell it for a dime a film. Which in some cases they might. In may cases, especially for newer, popular works they won't because people will pay more for it.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> Why? cause they are old, cause the tech means we'll one day be able to have entire collections of all works on one storage unit so why the blazes should we pay for every item except for a few cents (you wanna pay $10,000 for a bloody single DVD?!)...and we, as cosnumers need to stop being lead by the nose and robbed!




Old != worthless or valueless. As for pricing, just like everything else you pay what the seller is willing to sell it for. Why should this change just because you thing it's worthless? If it's too much for you, don't buy it.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> It'a a digitla age folks! wake up.
> One day you'll be able to take a pciture of any object and a mahcine build it for you..so how the hell cna oyu own "copyrights"?




Uh huh. Copyright or patents and rights to the plans in question will still be worth money, even with nano-fabrication. There's been a number of works examining this. 



Silverblade The Ench said:


> Here in UK, any venue that plays music has to by a license, this license money is paid to artists. Everyone profits.
> Same with other art could be done.




That's the case in the US, and probably a lot of other countries. That's copyright at work too.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> You pay your subscription fee, that goes to the artists *Not* corporate ghouls. Bonus for every download so more poopular/good you are, more you earn.
> This solves both models of support!




You need to get over your hate of corporations. They, as a theoretical entity, are amoral, not immoral. They are certainly not evil. People running them can be immoral. Usually they're just stupid and short sighted though. Your subscription scheme, which already exists from a number of artists and publishers, doesn't cut corporations out of the picture. 



Silverblade The Ench said:


> So, for WOTC, you pay them your DDI or whatever subscription fee and should get PDFs of *every* WOTC item. Not too long until books are largely replaced by electronic books, this saves WOTC printing and distribution costs.




Printed books will, in all likely hood, never fully disappear. They may be relegated to art, but printed books aren't going away soon, or in the forseeable future. I happen to read most of my stuff on my netbook or Palm, but still find hardcopy books ejonyable.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> We cannot stop priacy, it's impossible, except by draocnian,evil actions that are the antithesis of modern, democratic, decent governance (which is exaclty what the RIAA and their ilk are trying to screw with! Way to go fining grannies for $25,000! Searches without warrants, etc).




True. Content companies need to focus on counterfiting counterfiting operations and adjusting their price structure and accept that a certain amount of piracy will happen. Baen books decided to go this way and seems to be doing quite well.



Silverblade The Ench said:


> non-commericla piracy IS good civil disobedience. Make them all heed our will and give us digital art at prices we agree with.
> Digital = not using up finite physical resources.




So, the materials used in manufacturing storage devices aren't limited? Energy isn't limited?


----------



## Aberzanzorax (Feb 26, 2009)

I know some people who go to a bookstore, sit down, and over the course of several days, read a book or magazine, never buying it. That is legal.

I know some people who go to a bookstore, sit down, thumb through a book briefly, decide if they want it, and they buy it or don't. That is legal.

I know some people who go to the library and take out books and read them fully. That is legal.

I know some people who download a pdf to determine if they want to buy the book (i.e. preview it), delete it, and then either buy the book or don't. That is illegal.

I know some people who download a pdf and keep it whether they buy the book or not, and they read the whole thing. That is illegal.


***
It's funny how the rules change when things go digital.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 26, 2009)

Aberzanzorax said:


> I know some people who go to a bookstore, sit down, and over the course of several days, read a book or magazine, never buying it. That is legal.
> 
> I know some people who go to a bookstore, sit down, thumb through a book briefly, decide if they want it, and they buy it or don't. That is legal.
> 
> ...




Technically, the last two are only illegal in _some_ jurisdictions. Downloading (as opposed to distributing) a PDF of dubious origin is not illegal in all countries.

Also, in the first three examples, someone (the bookstore, the library) has usually paid for that book. In the last two examples, it is usually the case that the person distributing the PDF has not paid for it.

So I'm not sure these are altogether fair comparisons, either in terms of legality, or in terms of lost income for the author/publisher.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 26, 2009)

Keep in mind too that people who do #1 in bookstores might end up getting kicked out, and there's an inconvenience factor in that.  Remember "hey, this ain't a library" at news stands can also apply in bookstores.  Some products end up being shrink-wrapped as well.


----------



## kitsune9 (Feb 26, 2009)

*No way*



Nightson said:


> So the discussion about book piracy in another made me want to post this thread.  Have you pirated 4th edition game books before?




Never pirated any material. I like holding printed material in my hands so that would involve shoplifting if want a five finger discount. Given that I don't want 1-5 with good behavior, I just buy my books.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm going to have to stop commenting now because it's obvious that the problem is not legality.  It's that some people believe in the idea of paying people for their work, and others are just itching to remake the world in a completely socialist manner where people are paid for their worth, not their work.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 26, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> What I personally thing should happen is that ISPs work with the government to punish infrignement by setting up something similar to speeding tickets.  There's a cap on punishment unless you are a blantant violated.  Say if they discover you illegally downloaded a book and were caught by the logs and CRC checks.  You get charged a $100 to a $500 fine.  It's added to your ISP bill--don't pay, get cut off.  You can argue against this like a traffic ticket.  But just like most traffic tickets, people would pay the tickets and avoid the behavior.  If we did this, I think it would stop most piracy since the younger set would get in trouble with their parents, and it wouldn't be see by the masses the same way as a 250,000 suit against an individual world.



How about those that downloaded 100, 1000 or 10000 books -which most of the infringers are more or less there- ? How are you gonna make distinctions and how are you going to fine them?


----------



## drothgery (Feb 26, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I don't think that the WORK is less valuable, just the resulting product.  The thing about hardware vs software is that if you pay a guy in a factory X dollars to build a piece of hardware, and Y dollars on the raw materials to build the item, then it costs Z(which is the total of X and Y) dollars to make a second item exactly the same.




The thing is that if the law favors physical goods over information (and your proposed legal framework does), then it encourages producers to substitue physical goods for information when possible. And I think that's a bad thing.


----------



## Evilhalfling (Feb 27, 2009)

well I have referenced pirated online PDFs -  when I needed to see a book for an online game/argument while at work.  I have also browsed them in stores, and back in 3rd era, checked out some books from the local library - (which had a great 3e collection, but has not kept 4e on the shelves) 

I purchased core 4e + 3 accessories and have PHBII on order.  If im going to use a source regularly I want a physical copy. 
I prolly wont get more as my group is converting back, but I look forward to using the free online SRD again.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> A work of art != 'information'.
> 
> Information should be free, and all that, yo? Good. Great, even. But see above.




That's the problem.  That's the view of today.  In times past, people used to create art in order to enlighten, entertain, educate, inspire and so on.  They didn't do it because it was a "product" that needed to be marketed.  That's a more modern concept.

But it IS just information.  It's a thought that occurred to someone and they decided to write down, compose, draw, paint, or whatever.  But it's just an idea.

And it is my view that those who are exposed to more culture are smarter, healthier, more adaptable, and better members of our society.  A large amount of the problems in the world happen due to lack of education, lack of access to information and culture.  The more these things are spread around, the better the world is for EVERYONE.

The major problem with society over the past two hundred years or so is that people have decided that information and culture should be restricted to only those who can afford them.

I just don't see any way for technology to evolve the way it has been without IP and Copyright Laws both being MAJORLY overhauled.  For our society to advance, we need to be able to share these things.  Right now, there are too many companies who own the exclusive rights to technology that, if combined, could likely make our lives way better.  But because each of them owns the rights to their own parts of the puzzle, they won't be combined for the next 50 or 100 years.  It sets our society back.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's the problem.  That's the view of today.  In times past, people used to create art in order to enlighten, entertain, educate, inspire and so on.  They didn't do it because it was a "product" that needed to be marketed.  That's a more modern concept.



That's glossing over facts.  They most certainly did it for some of those reasons, but they ALSO got paid.



> I just don't see any way for technology to evolve the way it has been without IP and Copyright Laws both being MAJORLY overhauled.  For our society to advance, we need to be able to share these things.  Right now, there are too many companies who own the exclusive rights to technology that, if combined, could likely make our lives way better.  But because each of them owns the rights to their own parts of the puzzle, they won't be combined for the next 50 or 100 years.  It sets our society back.



Sharing works both ways.  I share my work, you share your money.  Simple, direct.  Has worked since man started the barter systems back in the African continent.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Only if the owners choose to sell it for a dime a film. Which in some cases they might. In may cases, especially for newer, popular works they won't because people will pay more for it.



At the moment that is true.  I think there might be a time where it stops being true.  When people realize that the value something has had in the past doesn't need to be the value it has in the future.



Krensky said:


> Old != worthless or valueless. As for pricing, just like everything else you pay what the seller is willing to sell it for. Why should this change just because you thing it's worthless? If it's too much for you, don't buy it.



Often old DOES equal worthless or valueless in the case of information.  If someone tried to sell me a book telling me that the world was flat.  I would not pay for it.  I know the world is round.  Old information is not very useful.

Likewise, a book explaining that you can use a turbine to generate electricity is not very useful either.  There are too many people in the world who know that already and will tell you for free.  Once information is available for free or is widely known, you can't sell it.

The same thing often goes for media.  If everyone read the same book in high school, there is going to be very little market for it.  If nearly everyone has already watched that summer blockbuster movie 2 or 3 times, there's very little demand to see it again.  Sure, there's SOME demand.  But at what point does a piece of art just become part of our culture and not one person's property?



Krensky said:


> Uh huh. Copyright or patents and rights to the plans in question will still be worth money, even with nano-fabrication. There's been a number of works examining this.



This is part of what concerns me.  It might be possible using this technique to essentially make free food, free shelter, free clothes, free medicine for everyone in the world.  But due to Copyright and Patents, the rights to actually manufacture these things will be in the hands of some corporations whose primary goal is to make as much profit as possible.  This means that, although we have the technology to essentially never need to work except if we wanted to with no cost to anyone, while keeping the entire world alive and fed and with a decent lifestyle....we won't see that day because of Copyright and Patents.  To create food, we'll need to pay a licensing fee to the company who owns the "blueprints" for the food.  And a licensing fee to use the nano-robots and so on.



Krensky said:


> You need to get over your hate of corporations. They, as a theoretical entity, are amoral, not immoral. They are certainly not evil. People running them can be immoral. Usually they're just stupid and short sighted though.



That's not entirely true.  Publicly traded companies have a goal: Increase shareholder value.  And, for the most part, the only way to do this is to continually make more profit than the year before hand.

The problem is, that you eventually reach a practical limit on how much money you can make.  But shareholders don't like to hear that they won't be getting any more money, so they push you until you make changes that aren't good for for anyone except the shareholders.  They will increase profits, likely at the expense of employees, the public, the planet, or whatever.  But their goal is to worry about increasing profit, not any of those other things.

And that isn't very moral.  It doesn't matter who is running the corporations, they eventually have to reach that limit.  It might just take a LONG time to get there.



Krensky said:


> So, the materials used in manufacturing storage devices aren't limited? Energy isn't limited?



Materials are always going to be limited.  But once you have a device, any digital media you put on there is going to be free.  But there's a LOT of material.  It won't run out any time soon.  Especially if we develop the ability to manipulate materials into other materials.

As for energy.  It's pretty close to unlimited.  The sun provides us energy as long as it shines, water gives us hydro energy, wind gives us energy.  As long as we are capable of living on this planet we will have energy.  Whether it is enough energy for our needs...who knows.  We will find more efficient ways to harness these energies in the future.  When we can manipulate matter at a molecular level, we may be able to create new, more efficient fuels out of common materials.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> But it IS just information.  It's a thought that occurred to someone and they decided to write down, compose, draw, paint, or whatever.  But it's just an idea.



Well then, go market/sell/publish/display the next 'idea' you have, as a work of art. See how far you get, and how long you can survive on the money made.

It IS NOT 'just information'. It also IS NOT 'just an idea'. Shooting off the phrase, or indeed paraphrasing it every so often, don't make it so.

I have no idea whether _you_ use that kind of perspective to justify greed and selfishness, but it's certainly not that uncommon for folks to do so. And yeah, that's where I've most often encountered that view: 'justified' greed and selfishness, hiding behind dated techno-newspeak. But like I said, that could of course most definitely _not_ apply to you personally, and I'm completely willing to believe that, just to make that as clear as can be. It's just a _particularly_ unfortunate fallacy, thanks to its most common context.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> That's glossing over facts.  They most certainly did it for some of those reasons, but they ALSO got paid.



Not everyone got paid.  Some did.  But there was certainly no large scale effort to charge people each and every time they viewed the art.  Most art was paid for and then was owned by the person who paid for it.

I just think if you are making art and thinking of it as a product with a value that must be paid or else...you are missing the point of art.  Especially if you think that you own it somehow.  It's good to have an idea, but it's worth nothing if it isn't given to the world.  I'm, obviously, not an artist.  And I know many artists NEED to think of their work as their property to be sold and bartered for stuff because otherwise they'd starve.  Then again, I'm in favor of having useful skills that aren't just art.



Mercutio01 said:


> Sharing works both ways.  I share my work, you share your money.  Simple, direct.  Has worked since man started the barter systems back in the African continent.



I'm more than willing to share like for like.  I'll give you my art, you give me yours.  We'll call it free trade.  I don't think your art is worth money.  That gives me practical things like food, clothes, and dice.  The art is just something that keeps me from being bored.  There's lots of ways to keep me from being bored.  Like reading internet message boards.  It's a lot more free.

Heck, I've been giving you my opinions and views of the future for a while now.  In my estimation, that's worth at least a picture of clocks melting.  *grin*


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Well then, go market/sell/publish/display the next 'idea' you have, as a work of art. See how far you get, and how long you can survive on the money made.



Art is HIGHLY subjective.  I've seen people make all sorts of money off of crap that was certainly NOT art.  But someone in the world thought it was.  I'm fairly positive that anyone with enough time and effort could do exactly as you say.  Find one thing they actually know about and write a book, a blog, a movie, a podcast or whatever and make money off of it.  It isn't easy, but it has a lot less to do with the content than it does the marketing.  I know that my skills don't really lie in an artistic field.  I make money off of understanding and using technology.  Other people make money off of marketing their ideas.  No problem with that.



Aus_Snow said:


> It IS NOT 'just information'. It also IS NOT 'just an idea'. Shooting off the phrase, or indeed paraphrasing it every so often, don't make it so.



What's the difference?  What makes a particular drawing "art" and not a picture someone drew?  What makes a book something worth buying rather than a bunch of ideas thrown on a page?  What makes a movie worth putting worldwide in theaters for money rather than posting to the internet for free?  What makes a blog written by a celebrity worth advertising on and therefore worth money when this post on a message board is worth nothing?

It is all just information or an idea.  It is objectively so.  Just some things are valued more than other things.  And the people who own those ideas that are valued by people are being greedy and holding on to them or releasing them in small quantities for money.

You seriously don't see any problem with saying "I got this great idea, this will improve people's lives dramatically.  Now, if I can just find a way to charge people 100 dollars every time they use it, I'll be rich beyond my wildest dreams.  And if anyone attempts to use it without my permission, I'll get a team of lawyers to sue them for everything they own.  After all, how dare they improve their lives without my permission?  It was my idea.  From now on, no one else is allowed to have that idea but me.  Greedy, self-centered bastards!"?

And that is the current state of IP, Copyright, and Patent laws in the world.  And it's getting worse by the day.

And I should be clear here.  I have no problem with people coming up with an idea, getting a bunch of money for it and then giving it to the world.  I encourage it.  I want the laws to encourage it.  I just want the laws to encourage it the same way it encourages me to do well at my job.  I don't make any mistakes, I go a bit above and beyond and I might get a raise or a small bonus as long as I work here.  But then, tomorrow, I come up with new ideas, do new things and get paid for those.

I want people to write a book, put it in stores, have people run out and buy it, and then have the natural tendency to pirate to distribute it to everyone who didn't think it was worthwhile to pay for.  I know it can work.  I've heard of projects where it worked.  It's just that the profit margins are a LOT lower.  And that's what worries people.  When they write a book, they might only make 40,000 dollars and have to live off of that for a year while writing another book instead of making enough money to survive for 5 or 6 years off the initial profits from a book and 2 or 3 more off the residuals.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I'm fairly positive that anyone *with enough time and effort* could do exactly as you say.



Emphasis mine.




> I make money off of understanding and using technology.  Other people make money off of marketing their ideas.  No problem with that.



This at least is heartening. Thanks for making clear where you stand on this. Even though the terminology is, of course, incorrect.  Or, alternatively, only _partially_ correct, therefore potentially misleading.




> What makes a particular drawing "art" and not a picture someone drew?  What makes a book something worth buying rather than a bunch of ideas thrown on a page?  What makes a movie worth putting worldwide in theaters for money rather than posting to the internet for free?



The former, in each case, I might pay money for; the latter, I would not.




> It is all just information or an idea.  It is objectively so.



Wrong. Check out the first part of your post that I quoted above. It is (among other things) ideas _plus_ training _plus_ effort _plus_ time. Objectively so. Look up 'art' and related words, for instance. The very language you have been misusing disagrees with you.


----------



## SKyOdin (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's the problem.  That's the view of today.  In times past, people used to create art in order to enlighten, entertain, educate, inspire and so on.  They didn't do it because it was a "product" that needed to be marketed.  That's a more modern concept.




Michelangelo was paid by the Pope to paint the Sistine Chapel. Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa because a wealthy family commissioned a painting to decorate their home. Most of the great cathedrals and monasteries of Europe were paid for by monarchs who supported various religious groups in exchange for those religious groups supporting the monarch in turn.

In short, the entire history of art in the pre-modern world is the history of the wealthy and powerful patrons commissioning artists to create great works so that the patrons could flaunt their wealth and power to the rest of the world. The idea of "art for art's sake" is a modern one, and I still think that it rings empty even in the modern world.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2009)

SKyOdin said:


> Michelangelo was paid by the Pope to paint the Sistine Chapel.



Did the Pople demand money for people entering the Sistine Chapel and looking at Michelangelos artwork?


----------



## Sammael (Feb 27, 2009)

He didn't then, but he does now.

In fact, my colleague visited Vatican last year and she said that a lot of icons are coin-operated - to see the icon, you have to insert money. Talk about crass commercialization...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 27, 2009)

Sammael said:


> He didn't then, but he does now.
> 
> In fact, my colleague visited Vatican last year and she said that a lot of icons are coin-operated - to see the icon, you have to insert money. Talk about crass commercialization...




So, it seems making money with art is still a little more ... "modern"?

I have no idea how museums used to work and how they work now. (Did they exist 500 years ago?)


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

SKyOdin said:


> Michelangelo was paid by the Pope to paint the Sistine Chapel. Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa because a wealthy family commissioned a painting to decorate their home. Most of the great cathedrals and monasteries of Europe were paid for by monarchs who supported various religious groups in exchange for those religious groups supporting the monarch in turn.



Sure, but you didn't see Michelangelo coming to the Pope a year later saying, "Ok, 5000 people have been to the Sistine Chapel since I painted it.  At 5 coins a piece, that's 25,000 coins you owe me.  I'll be back next year to collect the royalties for the next year."

And there are free pictures of the Sistine Chapel all over the internet.  I don't have to pay to see it anymore unless I go in person.  And as someone else said, that's a cheap money grab to charge for that.

I can see copies of the Mona Lisa all over the internet for free as well.  It belongs to everyone now.  The actual painting is still worth lots of money, but I don't need to own it to share in its value.

Of course, that's what I've been suggesting all along.  Give the initial creator of the work a short period of time to profit off his work.  Maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years.  Only they are allowed to sell copies of their work.  Then, afterwords, release it to the public domain.  Make 1st Edition D&D something we can all copy, change and publish to the internet for free and do what we want with it instead of a property that sits in the WOTC "vault" waiting for an opportunity to be exploited.

I think the problem will take care of itself.  Right now, there is basically unlimited pirating of every product that comes out.  It's only limited slightly by its illegal status.  Make it legal, tell people that they can sell a product, but they should expect copies to be made as soon as it gets out in the market.  Give the consumers the choice of whether they feel a particular item has value or not.  If it has value, people will pay for it.  Especially if they want it right away and can't wait for copies to become available.  But make sure it is illegal for anyone to SELL copies of the item.  No one else should be making money off of it.  Plus, no one should be creating derivative works, using the trademarked terms and so on. 

Then, if people aren't tech savvy enough to download something, want a physical copy of something, or just feel its worth the money, they will pay.  After a couple of years, once everyone who has felt the item is worthwhile has paid, the copyright goes away and everyone can do what they want with it.  Anyone who wants to can sell the item in question for as much as they want to charge for it.

The "artist" gets paid, the ownership is transferred and it becomes part of human culture.  If the "artist" wants to continue making money, they need to make some new piece of art, come up with new ideas, or whatever.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Feb 27, 2009)

One point that is missed by you MO is the fact that in the past, the products were limited by location.  You had to be in England to see a play, you had to go to Rome or art gallery's to see the art.

The Copyright and Royalty concepts came shortly after the printing press.  The printing press allowed people to mass produce books.  After that came the concepts of copyright.  If you have a mass audience reading or consuming your work, you have an expectation to be paid more.  Just because the ability to copy gets cheaper or even easy doesn't mean the compensation factors will go down.

Print, Radio, TV, and the Internet have given more avenues to get your work distributed by the masses.  The rise of technology has given more controls on content, NOT less.  I see that as fair.  If your books are read by more people, you should get compensated more.

I fully expect that there will be ways to get compensated for on-line distribution, even if that means the Internet is less like the wild west and more controlled.

Technology is followed by laws regulating it--those are inevitable.  Those thinking that this will be a sudden revolution that will bankrupt the media industries.  It may be somewhat disruptive, but I also doubt it will be the utopian dream that a lot of fans are hoping for.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Feb 27, 2009)

Aus_Snow said:


> Emphasis mine.



I'm perfectly aware it takes time and effort to come up with "art".  It takes me time and effort to fix one of our Unix boxes that died.  Not everyone could do that.  It takes training, time, effort, and ideas to fix it.  But I don't receive a payment every time someone logs into that Unix box for the rest of time because I fixed it.  I just applied my knowledge and time in order to do something.  Which I got paid for...once.



Aus_Snow said:


> The former, in each case, I might pay money for; the latter, I would not.



And that's kind of my point.  Basically, you are saying that the difference between any idea anyone comes up with and art is that you might pay for it.  It just means they are GOOD ideas.  But basically the same.  I admit, I prefer good ideas over bad ideas.  Still, why does one idea net me nothing and another idea nets you $250,000 initially and $20,000 dollars a year for the rest of your life and all of your children's lives.  I think good ideas should be rewarded.  But how much and for how long?



Aus_Snow said:


> Wrong. Check out the first part of your post that I quoted above. It is (among other things) ideas _plus_ training _plus_ effort _plus_ time. Objectively so. Look up 'art' and related words, for instance. The very language you have been misusing disagrees with you.



Yeah, I agree that it is all of those things.  It is ideas applied using your training and effort to make a final item of some sort.  I do that every day, so does everyone who works in a non-creative job.  I don't see why creativity deserves to be rewarded in a completely different way that claims that everyone who uses your work ever needs to pay you.

That's my key sticking point in this discussion.  Everyone is pointing at piracy and saying "You are stealing all this work that is rightfully someone else's.  They deserve to be paid for each and every person who uses their work".  I'm asking "What makes their work so valuable that they need to be paid for each and every person who uses it?  Why does their work get paid differently than, say, the guy who mows the lawn at a baseball field.  Why doesn't he get paid for each person who walks on it or everyone who looks at it?  If not him, maybe the guy who planted the grass, or the guy who planned the stadium?"

I'm saying, there IS no difference.  There shouldn't be a difference in the way things are paid.  I think the concept that you can own an idea after you've told someone else it is rather absurd.  Once you let the idea out, it isn't yours anymore.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 27, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Did the Pople demand money for people entering the Sistine Chapel and looking at Michelangelos artwork?




It was not just about money. Politic power was a major consideration. These two things are connected somehow. Art is a means of impression and it was used as a political tool.


----------



## xechnao (Feb 27, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> So, it seems making money with art is still a little more ... "modern"?
> 
> I have no idea how museums used to work and how they work now. (Did they exist 500 years ago?)




Palace Uffizi, Florence. Made for Cosimo De Medici.


----------



## Echohawk (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Of course, that's what I've been suggesting all along.  Give the initial creator of the work a short period of time to profit off his work.  Maybe 5 years, maybe 10 years.  Only they are allowed to sell copies of their work.  Then, afterwords, release it to the public domain.



May I ask if you currently download copies of works that are more recent than 5 (or 10) years?


----------



## xechnao (Feb 27, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> One point that is missed by you MO is the fact that in the past, the products were limited by location.  You had to be in England to see a play, you had to go to Rome or art gallery's to see the art.
> 
> The Copyright and Royalty concepts came shortly after the printing press.  The printing press allowed people to mass produce books.  After that came the concepts of copyright.  If you have a mass audience reading or consuming your work, you have an expectation to be paid more.  Just because the ability to copy gets cheaper or even easy doesn't mean the compensation factors will go down.



  I am in favor that Africa can produce its own drugs to cure AIDS. Not only for themselves but for myself too. I would feel safer to know that there is one less potential threat in the world. Similar feelings for agriculture and poverty and generally control of production and finance: who can produce what. I feel safer if other people can produce their food and prosper without resorting to the will of their loaners. It is not just a matter of copyright the problem. It goes much deeper than this.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I just think if you are making art and thinking of it as a product with a value that must be paid or else...you are missing the point of art.  Especially if you think that you own it somehow.



The creator of the art most definitely does own that art.  



> And I know many artists NEED to think of their work as their property to be sold and bartered for stuff because otherwise they'd starve.  Then again, I'm in favor of having useful skills that aren't just art.



And now we get to the crux of or your position.  "Art is great, but *get a real job.*

Consider your ignorant self-important ridiculous diatribes--ignored.  You, personally as a human, are not *worth* the effort to engage in any kind of dialogue.  If you are of the opinion I think that I am better than you--good, because I do.  You're wasting pixels on my screen.


----------



## Filcher (Feb 27, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> That's my key sticking point in this discussion.  Everyone is pointing at piracy and saying "You are stealing all this work that is rightfully someone else's.  They deserve to be paid for each and every person who uses their work".  I'm asking "What makes their work so valuable that they need to be paid for each and every person who uses it?  Why does their work get paid differently than, say, the guy who mows the lawn at a baseball field.  Why doesn't he get paid for each person who walks on it or everyone who looks at it?  If not him, maybe the guy who planted the grass, or the guy who planned the stadium?"
> 
> I'm saying, there IS no difference.  There shouldn't be a difference in the way things are paid.  I think the concept that you can own an idea after you've told someone else it is rather absurd.  Once you let the idea out, it isn't yours anymore.




I create a painting. I enter into a partnership with someone (a publisher) to make money with it. 

If anyone else wants to use my idea to make money, they can, as long as we make an agreement first. 

If someone is going to profit from publishing my work, I deserve a cut.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 27, 2009)

We seem to be dipping into politics _and_ personal attacks. No more, please.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 6, 2009)

Mercutio01 said:


> The creator of the art most definitely does own that art.



By law, I agree.  Whether that SHOULD be the case, we all have our own opinion on.  I don't think so.



Mercutio01 said:


> And now we get to the crux of or your position.  "Art is great, but *get a real job.*
> 
> Consider your ignorant self-important ridiculous diatribes--ignored.  You, personally as a human, are not *worth* the effort to engage in any kind of dialogue.  If you are of the opinion I think that I am better than you--good, because I do.  You're wasting pixels on my screen.




I hate to bring this topic back up again, but I don't believe I'm better than you.  I don't think art isn't important.  I think it needs to be around to explore the human condition to grow as a society and as individuals.  I'm no good at it, otherwise I would love to do it.

I think this needs to be clear for anyone reading this thread.  Please, go out there, think creatively.  Do it because I can't.  But don't do it for self centered motive like turning a million dollar profit and living in a nice house.  Do it because you want to add to society.  Please don't get hung up on "ownership", "rights", and profit.

Don't be the guy suing the 80 year old grandma who doesn't own a computer for downloading a 20 dollar movie because the first 300 million wasn't enough profit for you while claiming anyone who copies your work is self-centered and greedy.



			
				Filcher said:
			
		

> I create a painting. I enter into a partnership with someone (a publisher) to make money with it.
> 
> If anyone else wants to use my idea to make money, they can, as long as we make an agreement first.
> 
> If someone is going to profit from publishing my work, I deserve a cut.



Maybe, maybe not.  This is where the complicated part comes in.  What counts as an idea that deserves payment and for how long?

Say copyright laws were in effect as far back as the stone age.  The guy who invented the wheel copyrights it and forces anyone who makes round things that roll pay him a fee.  It becomes so useful that nearly everyone wants it.  So, the licensing fees go up.

How many products would not have gotten made in today's society if that were the case?  How many companies couldn't have afforded to make some of the things we now hold as basic luxuries due to the licensing fees?

Now, imagine if this continues in the future.  Who knows what we are creating today that might become the most basic building block of all technology in the future.  And whatever company comes up with it will have a stranglehold on the entire world.  That's what I'm hoping doesn't happen.

I'm actually surprised to hear such a dissenting point of view on these boards.  Nearly everyone I know agrees with me(I'm not saying this to put anyone else's opinions down, I'm just saying that I figured the position was near universally held due to my experiences).

I was just listening to a podcast of TWiT(This Week in Tech) the other day and the entire panel of tech guys there agreed that something needed to be done about the copyright laws in the entire world because they weren't working.  Most of them suggested a solution that would favor copyright holders making money in a way other than selling their goods, and actually capitalizing on the fact that everyone can get their products for free instead of criminalizing it.



			
				Echohawk said:
			
		

> May I ask if you currently download copies of works that are more recent than 5 (or 10) years?



Yeah, I currently do.  I currently download nearly everything I can find.

However, at the same time: 
-I watch every movie I find interesting within the week it comes out in the theaters.  If it's really good then 2 or 3 times.
-I've bought a copy of EVERY 3e and 3.5e product WOTC has made AND bought a copy of every 4e book they've made.
-My favorite band is Barenaked Ladies.  I've bought every album they've ever produced.  Some in both mp3 and physical forms(Mostly because they sold their MP3s on a USB stick and I felt the stick still had value.  The rest was a donation to the band)

But I've also downloaded mp3 of all their albums to put on my iPhone.  I've downloaded a copy of all the WOTC books in PDF format(which is what I answered in the poll), and I download my favorite movies when I feel like watching them.

I hope I haven't crossed the line again on this subject.  It really is an interesting subject and I feel there should be a way to discuss it without getting political.  If this is still crossing the line, let me know and I'll just stop talking.  I'm just really enjoying this conversation.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 6, 2009)

Note: I'm an artist. I know the current piracy stuff is lunacy.
I fortunately don't have ot use my skill t feed my family, so that is an honest caveat (then again I'm disabled).
But, I put my work up on galleries, knowing scuzzbags can copy it, claim they made it or sell it.
Tough.
If I went around worried about thieves etc all the time life wouldn't be worth living!

You cannot stop digital piracy nor should you try! It's self defeating.
Instead, beat them at thier own game: offer folk goods they want at prices they like, and realize excessive control = self destructive.

Yeah the AIDS drugs scenario is a valid one in all this 

Another point ot piracy is one folk vastly overlook: it's a vitally important social archive.

Can you imagine how much server space it would take to hold all the clips, gags, pics etc etc there are out there?

Another is: do youw ant ANYONE to _control _the internet? I sure as hell don't.
History proves they'll abuse it.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> Say copyright laws were in effect as far back as the stone age.  The guy who invented the wheel copyrights it and forces anyone who makes round things that roll pay him a fee.  It becomes so useful that nearly everyone wants it.  So, the licensing fees go up.




You're confusing patent and copyrights here. And the important thing on that point is that although copyright terms keep getting extended, patent terms have not. So good ideas hit the public domain in a decade or two.

My looney idea is that copyrights should last 20 years, registered for a nominal fee (you must register within five years of initial publication if you want to register at all); registered copyrights can be renewed for about $5000 for another 20 years -- the idea being that anything you're not willing to spend $5K to keep out of the public domain isn't worth it; it's not a huge amount of money, but it's more than most people will spend on something that's not making them more than that -- and fees exponentially increase with each renewal (i.e. $10,000 for the 2nd, $20,000 for the 3rd, $40,000 for the 4th, etc.). So Disney can keep its stuff out of the public domain indefinitely as long as they're willing to pay for it, without keeping most works out of the public domain for 150 years.


----------



## drothgery (Mar 6, 2009)

Silverblade The Ench said:


> Yeah the AIDS drugs scenario is a valid one in all this




Do you have any idea how much pharma R&D costs? It's really, really expensive, and takes a long time. And for every drug that's useful, dozens fail at some point or another in the process.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 6, 2009)

drothgery said:


> Do you have any idea how much pharma R&D costs? It's really, really expensive, and takes a long time. And for every drug that's useful, dozens fail at some point or another in the process.




Yeah, so? We could have cured cancer already for what I know, yet we have failed to make the investment - cause it seems the current culture favors to invest... elsewhere. This is how I see the current micro-macro model you seem to be defending here.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think this needs to be clear for anyone reading this thread.  Please, go out there, think creatively.  Do it because I can't.  But don't do it for self centered motive like turning a million dollar profit and living in a nice house.  Do it because you want to add to society.  Please don't get hung up on "ownership", "rights", and profit.




As soon as you come up with a way to make a living as an artist/writer/whatever _without_ worrying about profit, you let me know.

Until then, I'll continue to have the audacity to want to get paid for my labor.


----------



## DaveMage (Mar 6, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I think this needs to be clear for anyone reading this thread.  Please, go out there, think creatively.  Do it because I can't.  But don't do it for self centered motive like turning a million dollar profit and living in a nice house.  Do it because you want to add to society.  Please don't get hung up on "ownership", "rights", and profit.




I think that's way too high a standard to demand.

If there's no financial incentive to create, then a LOT less will get created.  

That's life in modern times.  It's gotta be about the money at least somewhat, and in most cases, more than "somewhat".


----------



## drothgery (Mar 7, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Yeah, so? We could have cured cancer already for what I know, yet we have failed to make the investment - cause it seems the current culture favors to invest... elsewhere. This is how I see the current micro-macro model you seem to be defending here.




I really shouldn't have replied. AIDS drugs are really way off-topic for this thread, as it's about patents, not copyrights, and veers very deeply into real-world politics.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 7, 2009)

DaveMage said:


> It's gotta be about the money at least somewhat, and in most cases, more than "somewhat".



Actually, it doesn't _necessarily_ have to be, even in these times. But it sure as heck usually is, true enough.

And yeah. . .


			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> As soon as you come up with a way to make a living as an artist/writer/whatever without worrying about profit, you let me know.
> 
> Until then, I'll continue to have the audacity to want to get paid for my labor.



Hear, hear.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

drothgery said:


> You're confusing patent and copyrights here. And the important thing on that point is that although copyright terms keep getting extended, patent terms have not. So good ideas hit the public domain in a decade or two.



I agree.  However, they are still 2 sides to the same coin.  It's all about "Intellectual Property".  Or, ideas that someone owns.  It's good that Patent lengths haven't been extending.  I hadn't heard this and I'm glad that is the case.  Still, if it's good for ideas, why doesn't the same apply to Copyright?  I don't see one being completely different than the other.



drothgery said:


> My looney idea is that copyrights should last 20 years, registered for a nominal fee (you must register within five years of initial publication if you want to register at all); registered copyrights can be renewed for about $5000 for another 20 years



Yeah, and this sort of idea I could get behind.  But, I think the terms should be shorter.  I think these sort of long term copyrights made sense in the past, but as technology and the spread of information increases, the amount of time one person should own an idea should decrease.

In today's world, an episode of Seinfeld is worth almost nothing.  I'd say that 90+ percent of everyone who wants to see them already has.  Sure, people like the show and there might be sales of the DVDs going on, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that it is less than 10% of what it was when the show was on.

Anyone who wants to can download the episode off of somewhere on the internet.  And it is, frankly, just old news at this point(even though I really liked the show).

I'm certain they could make a trickle of an income from the sales still going on.  But, why should they be able to?  I'm certain that the income that most TV/Movie studios are making off of residuals is half the reason they don't have a need to actually come up with new shows that are any good.  Even if they make moderate to no real profit off of a show, they don't care because they rest on the funds made from all their previous work.

I guess I'm just coming from the point of view as a normal person who isn't involved in the industry.  If I got fired tomorrow, I'd probably be unable to feed myself after a couple of months of living off my savings.  I'd need a new job right away.  On the other hand, an author whose ever written anything that got really popular can live comfortably for years, if not the rest of their life off of their work.  I wouldn't be able to.  Nothing I've done in my life gives me money forever.  I'd still like to think the work I did was valuable.  The law is telling me that my work was less valuable than an author/artist/writer/musician simply because I did a service instead of thinking creatively.

And it is this income that makes these companies/authors want to sue people and to lobby for tougher and tougher copyright laws.  The rest of us get treated like criminals.  I don't think its right.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> As soon as you come up with a way to make a living as an artist/writer/whatever _without_ worrying about profit, you let me know.
> 
> Until then, I'll continue to have the audacity to want to get paid for my labor.




And I still think there is a way to get paid without Copyright laws.  I don't have all the answers, I admit.  I still think it is possible without all the laws that exist now for you to write a book freelance, have WOTC pay you for it, and sell 50,000 copies of the book(or whatever it sells).

I just don't think the laws should reinforce the fact that WOTC owns that book(along with you) for an indefinite period of time and that each and every person who ever reads the book owes you money, even in 50 or 100 years.

I think that making money should be tied more on your ability to deliver the information to me rather than the information itself.  I'll pay WOTC to allow me to download a copy of the book if I can't find it elsewhere.  I'll pay WOTC for a physical copy of a book for the convenience factor of not having to pay for the paper, ink, and the time to print it out myself.  I'll even pay a small fee above what it costs for the physical material in order to reward you for your hard work.

However, I don't think you are owed that by each and every person in the world who happens to come in contact with your work.  Some people will find no value in it or so little value that they don't feel it is worth money.  And I think, with art being subjective that they should be able to hold that opinion.

I respect you, Ari.  I think your work is great.  I'd pay for it for sure.  There are other people out there whose work I'd love to read, but I don't think I'd ever get any use out of it.  If I don't get any use out of it, then it is simply words on a page.  It's worth picking up used for the value of the paper it cost to print it on or downloading it for free off the internet.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 7, 2009)

Zaruthustran said:


> WotC has provided digital versions of their content, in a format that's even easier to use than mere PDFs. With all classes, feats, powers, monsters, and items readily accessible in DDI's Compendium and Character Builder tools, there's no excuse for piracy.




The problem is that someone who has bought the books has all the above information contained in the DDI.....except the DDI isn't free.  So is the subscription cost a payment for the formatting to the compendium?  What if I don't like the packaging it comes in?  What if I don't have internet access when I game with my laptop?  What if the DDI doesn't deliver what it was advertised to do rendering it a substandard product?

Not providing PDFs was foolish on WotC part.

That being said I will give you a perfect example of pirating.  I got on the Napster wave a few weeks prior to the program getting shut down.  Mostly because I was an old fart and had to see what all the hubbub was about.  I downloaded the Gorillaz's Clint Eastwood and the rest of the album it came on.  Now I own three "legally" purchased albums.  I am sure Damon Albarn is outraged at my uncivilized behavior.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 7, 2009)

broghammerj said:


> Not providing PDFs was foolish on WotC part.



Gotta say. . . uh huh. 'For the price of a cup of coffee, when you purchase the physical book' - another broken or discarded promise/commitment that mightn't have gone down too well. Not sure really, for example how much it's affected potential sales or subscriptions, but yeah, once again: not a good move.

/tj


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Mar 7, 2009)

If I cant find a book to buy it, cause its out of print i'll pirate it. Not ashamed of it either. If the companies want my money they need to keep things in print. Or if I cant find it for a decent price. For instance im trying to find a copy of Armageddon for at least Cover price used or new, I cant. If I find a PDF version well, guess what, im dowloading it. 

Either way I dont buy data only. Sorry, its just bits of nothing. Nothing tangible to hold on to. If however, I was sent a disc with the PDF on it, I might buy it. 
But for the most part I see it as a last ditch effort kind of thing, and nothing that I could easily purchase for no more than the original cover price.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> And I still think there is a way to get paid without Copyright laws.  I don't have all the answers, I admit.  I still think it is possible without all the laws that exist now for you to write a book freelance, have WOTC pay you for it, and sell 50,000 copies of the book(or whatever it sells).
> 
> I just don't think the laws should reinforce the fact that WOTC owns that book(along with you) for an indefinite period of time and that each and every person who ever reads the book owes you money, even in 50 or 100 years.




Nobody who buys the book owes me money. I don't get royalties from WotC (or other RPG companies). We get paid up-front for work-for-hire. And not that much, either; anybody who gets into this to get rich is fooling themselves. We do it because--hey, wild idea--we love what we do. And the number of people who can honestly earn a living just freelancing is a fraction of a percentage of those who try.

But as far as novels? Nobody's paying us much up-front for those. Royalties on novels and the like aren't _bonus_ pay. They're _essential_ for writers to make a living.

You keep talking about writers getting rich, or being able to afford not to work because of royalties, but you're talking about the tiniest fraction of the most successful ones out there. Most writers can barely make a living writing _even with royalties_. It's like waiters and tips; tips aren't a bonus, they're an integral part of making a living.

You don't like the current copyright system? Fine. But that system isn't the problem; it's a symptom of the problem. And that problem is that there simply isn't anyone who's going to pay writers (or artists, or whatever) enough up-front that they can afford to do what they do _without_ royalties.

How long do you think it takes to write a novel? How long to edit it? How long to find a publisher? We're talking about a process of _years_, all-told, unless you're Stephen King or GRR Martin or someone. Sometimes royalties on prior books are _all_ that allows a writer to survive while working on his next book.

Not taking a vacation. Not lazing about. _Working on his next novel_.

For that system to work without royalties, publishers would have to increase their up-front costs by an order of magnitude, at least.

And again, we're talking about _making a living_, not getting rich.

You keep saying that the current copyright system needs to change. But even _if_ that's true, changing how copyrights work is the _last_ step in the process, not the first, unless you're looking to put every writer and artist in America out of work.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 7, 2009)

Ari and Mercutio01 or any other creative artists here,

I ask the two of you as our representative artists, given the above scenario of someone purchasing your book and downloading an illegal pdf copy, would you feel appropriately compensated?  I totally agree the act of distribution is illegal and immoral as it allows access others access to your work without compensation.  But if someone paid for your work in physical form (ie book) would you be ok with the download?  In essence, copyright law be damned, what do artists think about this in a more personal regard to compensation for the value of your work.

Note this is not some secret trap I am trying to spring on you for the sake of debate.  I am not here to troll or flame.  Rather than ignore my post if you don't wish to answer please respond with something like, "decline to comment or prefer not to discuss"  I also don't want to set you up for other posters to take pot shots at you.

The reason I ask is that I have no artistic talent and am a physician who excels at more math and science related endeavors.  That being said I have a great respect for artists and creative types because it's something I can't learn or develop.

The only area where copyright becomes bizarre for me is the length of the terms.  I can develop a drug or device that cures cancer (ie a patent) that will go off patent rather quickly and cannot be renewed.  As opposed to Steamboat Willie which seems to be continued indefinitely (copyright).  The benefits to society are great for both but obviously different.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> You keep saying that the current copyright system needs to change. But even _if_ that's true, changing how copyrights work is the _last_ step in the process, not the first, unless you're looking to put every writer and artist in America out of work.



I completely agree that everything around the industry needs to change for this to take place.  But it's a self defeating cycle.  No one in the industry wants to increase the amount of upfront money they are paying out to authors because "that's not the way it is done".  And there's no incentive to change.

Either way, I don't know what the new deals authors would receive would be.  If the publisher and author only had the rights to sell the book for 5 or 10 or 20 years, maybe nothing would change and authors would simply get paid for 5 or 10 or 20 years then stop receiving residuals.  But I think the laws need to change to say something like "The author is the only one able to sell the work in question".  Other people are allowed to give it away for free, share it with their friends, do whatever they want with it as long as they make no money off of it.

Because that's the way the world currently works.  People already distribute these things for free all over the place.  Another podcast I was listening to recently said that Microsoft announced that the second most popular OS installed on computers wasn't the Mac OS OR Linux.  It was instead pirated copies of Windows which had more installed copies than the Mac OS and Linux combined.  I believe Steve Balmer made a joke about it, saying that "It's hard to compete with them, they have just as many features as we do, but they don't charge anything for it."

But it just proves my point.  Pirating is here to stay.  There are a HUGE number of people doing it.  The fact that it is against the law doesn't deter anyone(or very few people).    There needs to be a solution that doesn't involve locking up or suing everyone who does it.  Because our society wouldn't function missing 70% of its population.

It's been this way for a while, and people continue to make money.  I think nearly nothing would change if it was suddenly made legal to distribute this stuff.  But, for that to happen, a change of attitude needs to come first.  Content creators have to be willing to accept that they don't own every copy of their book that exists anywhere.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> It's been this way for a while, and people continue to make money.  I think nearly nothing would change if it was suddenly made legal to distribute this stuff.  But, for that to happen, a change of attitude needs to come first.  Content creators have to be willing to accept that they don't own every copy of their book that exists anywhere.




Absolute, utter, and ludicrous nonsense.

Lots of people pirate, but a lot more people don't--either because they don't know how, or because (gasp!) they're law-abiding citizens.

If it were _legal and acceptable_ for anyone who wanted to distribute any book/movie/artwork/whatever to everyone, as long as they didn't charge for it, do you know how many people would actually _pay_ for said goods?

Pretty close to zero. Nobody pays for something they can _legally_ get for free. That's just common sense and human nature. And even if people would still pay for a little while, because it's what they were used to, new generations who grew up with such things being legally free certainly would not. To ask artists and writers to rely on the kindness of the entire populace--to ask us to count on people paying for stuff if they legally do not have to--is not only blind to the realities of a capitalist society, it's insulting. Just as well as stores to give away groceries for free because "hey, someone might take pity and pay for them."

The fact that technology makes it easier to break a given law does not, in and of itself, mean that the law is no longer applicable in modern society. Guns sure as hell make murder easier than it was when people had to rely on stone clubs.

See, the thing is, for authors/artists/whatever, it doesn't _matter_ if our creations are "easily distributable." It doesn't matter if people feel they're worthless because they're "just data," as opposed to actually being a physical good (like, say, a DVD player). None of that changes the fact that

A) We work just as hard to produce what we produce, and

B) If we don't get paid for that work, we cannot afford to keep doing that work.

_Nothing_ shy of a complete failure of capitalism will ever change that.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> I completely agree that everything around the industry needs to change for this to take place.  But it's a self defeating cycle.  No one in the industry wants to increase the amount of upfront money they are paying out to authors because "that's not the way it is done".  And there's no incentive to change.




And as for this, I'm frankly not convinced that such a change is _possible_. To ask publishers to pay an order of magnitude more up-front than they do is an unreasonable demand.

1) A lot of publishers can't _afford_ to do such things.

2) Doing that pretty much guarantees that the art of novel-writing will die off within a few generations. Because publishers aren't going to be willing to risk that sort of outlay on an unproven author. _Only_ authors who are already big names--or the _very rare_ author who is both good enough to be published and willing/able to write while also holding down a separate full-time job--will be able to publish, the industry will shrink to include only those authors, and collapse in on itself once said authors cease writing.

There _has_ to be a way to pay artists according to popularity, or else nobody's going to be willing to take a chance on newcomers.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Lots of people pirate, but a lot more people don't--either because they don't know how, or because (gasp!) they're law-abiding citizens.



I think that the people who are opposed to pirating often underestimate the number of pirates out there.  Partially because pirates are unwilling to admit to doing so.  Partially because everyone assumes that the default position is their own and that dissenting opinion is a small, fringe group.

But, I'm fairly certain that if I took the 200 people in my Facebook friend list and checked if they pirated or not, there'd be maybe...3 or 4 who would say they've never pirated.  I know this because most of them have discussed it with me in the past.  The ones who don't actually stick out dramatically.  Pretty much all of them haven't done so for moral reasons.

I have a lot of tech friends, so I know a higher than normal amount of pirates.  However, as the new generation becomes more and more tech savvy, the number of people outside of the tech community who do it is only going to go up.  Even my non-tech friends, however, have asked me to find copies of things for them.

However, my estimate is that it's still close to 70% of the population(as the poll indicates) who pirates.  My best guess is that 10-20% of the people who don't only don't due to not knowing how.  That's not just "lots of people".  That's pretty much all of them.



Mouseferatu said:


> If it were _legal and acceptable_ for anyone who wanted to distribute any book/movie/artwork/whatever to everyone, as long as they didn't charge for it, do you know how many people would actually _pay_ for said goods?



It's already acceptable.  This thread caused me to discuss the topic with the people I work with.  None of them had any problem with pirating or me for pirating.  All but my boss pirate themselves.  And my boss admits to not having the tech knowledge to do so.  He's asked me to get him some free software before...although he's wary of it.

It's just not legal.  And it's about as illegal as anything that goes unpunished 99.9% of the time can be.  The trial of The Pirate Bay(one of the biggest pirate sites on the internet for those who don't know) just ended a couple of days ago.  On the first day of the trial over half of the charges were thrown out due to none of the lawyers or representatives from the prosecution knowing how bittorrent works at all.  From following the trial, it appears like the prosecution failed to prove that any of the people who run The Pirate Bay did anything illegal themselves.  There is a month before the verdict, however, I feel there's no way based on the evidence presented that they should be found guilty.  However, because this is such a politically charged issue, they might be.

We have a month to go before we see what happens.  But I anticipate that the results of this trial will have major repercussions.  If a site that calls itself The Pirate Bay gets away with it, trust in copyright in general may start failing.  Or it may drive even stronger copyright laws.  If they are convicted, it likely spells doom for freedom of speech across the internet as the movie and recording industry now realizes that they can take down anything on the internet.



Mouseferatu said:


> Pretty close to zero. Nobody pays for something they can _legally_ get for free. That's just common sense and human nature. And even if people would still pay for a little while, because it's what they were used to, new generations who grew up with such things being legally free certainly would not. To ask artists and writers to rely on the kindness of the entire populace--to ask us to count on people paying for stuff if they legally do not have to--is not only blind to the realities of a capitalist society, it's insulting. Just as well as stores to give away groceries for free because "hey, someone might take pity and pay for them."



And I disagree.  I don't buy things because I'm used to paying.  No one I know does.  Nearly everyone I know who plays D&D has copies of all the books on PDF.  They've been traded at the gaming store we all play at for a while.  Most of us still own a physical copy as well(I have 2 of each of the MM, DMG, and PHB.  One I got for free and 1 I paid for because I didn't want to damage my signed copies).

I pay for the books because it's easier to have a book at the table than a PDF.  I pay to go to the theater to see a movie because I can see it in full quality with good sound the day it comes out instead of a poor copy a couple of days later.

I certainly don't think it's unreasonable to have an economy still based on selling physical things and asking for donations for everything else.

That's the difference between writing something down and hoping enough people like it to make money or specifically doing a job that someone says they need done.  You know someone is going to pay you for the second, you can't be guaranteed about the first.  The first is scary.  But that's pretty much already the way it's done.  That's part of the reason I don't want to be an author or artist.  Too scary not knowing if you'll make money at all.



Mouseferatu said:


> The fact that technology makes it easier to break a given law does not, in and of itself, mean that the law is no longer applicable in modern society. Guns sure as hell make murder easier than it was when people had to rely on stone clubs.



Not just EASIER, but so simple and nearly untraceable that you have nearly no chance of being caught.  Most people who commit murders, even with guns get caught.  Millions of people pirate every day.  Only a couple get charged every year.  You have a better chance to be struck by lightning TWICE than being charged for pirating.

If we developed a technology that allowed us to kill people from the safety of our own home by pressing a button, with a 99.9999 percent chance of getting away with it, there would be no point in having a law against it.  We'd simply have to appeal to people's better nature and ask them really nicely NOT to do it.



Mouseferatu said:


> A) We work just as hard to produce what we produce, and
> 
> B) If we don't get paid for that work, we cannot afford to keep doing that work.



Once again, I still agree with this.  I think there certainly needs to be a method to get paid.  Maybe all books need to contain ads in the future. If you can rely on the fact that a million people are going to download your books without paying for them, then convince advertisers that they can reach a million people by placing an ad in your book.

Of course you work hard and of course you need to be paid for doing your work.  But, I think now is the time that content producers should be looking to adapt to the new world order in order to make MORE money rather than lamenting that they are losing money to pirating.

The key is that if you are making a good product, people are seeing it and they are enjoying it.  Now is a good time to come up with business models that revolve around the number of people viewing a product rather than relying on income from the product itself.

For instance, I don't have the name of the author right now.  However, there is an author who was having a hard time getting his book sold in Russia.  He had sold almost no copies at all.  So he gave it away for free.  Put it on the internet and announced that fact all over Russia.  His book has now sold over a million copies in Russia.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru- there's a difference between "has pirated something" and "pirates everything."

If there were no legal barrier to me downloading media without paying for it, I would never pay for media.  Ever.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Majoru- there's a difference between "has pirated something" and "pirates everything."
> 
> If there were no legal barrier to me downloading media without paying for it, I would never pay for media.  Ever.




Fair enough.  I'm sure some people wouldn't.  Still, most of my friends do pirate huge amounts of stuff.  They just pay for stuff when they like something enough or it is more convenient to buy it than pirating it.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

Majoru Oakheart said:


> However, my estimate is that it's still close to 70% of the population(as the poll indicates) who pirates.  My best guess is that 10-20% of the people who don't only don't due to not knowing how.  That's not just "lots of people".  That's pretty much all of them.




You're conflating personal anecdotal experience and overall trends. Checking into the statistics easily available online, I find that right about 70% of the US population _has regular internet access_. You're claiming that pretty much _every single one of them_ pirates stuff, and my own anecdotal evidence disproves that as well as yours proves it.

And as others have said, there's a _huge_ difference between people who pirate some stuff and people who pirate everything. If the next generation (or the one after that) grow up in a world in which it is both acceptable _and legal_ to trade any/all media for free, they _will not_ pay for said media. Pure and simple.

I'm not saying that the situation as it stands now can necessarily survive indefinitely. But the answer is far more complex, and far less one-sided, than simply saying "Copyright laws don't work." The _entire system_ would have to change, fundamentally, from the ground up--possibly up to and including a swerve away from market-based capitalism itself--before a truly viable alternative to _some_ form of medium- to long-term copyright becomes possible.

And until _all_ of that system can be changed, changing just the copyright-based portions of it will hurt the authors and artists, and the proliferation of art through society, _far_ more than it'll hurt the corporations or make anything better.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

And of course, _all_ of this discussion is predicated on the notion that it's somehow immoral for artists to expect to retain intellectual control over their creations. I'm not arguing that, or saying which side of it I fall on, because once you get to arguing morality, you might as well be arguing religion, and that doesn't do anyone any good.

I just want to make it clear that the assessment that there's anything wrong with long-term copyrights isn't _necessarily_ held by everyone involved in the discussion.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> You're conflating personal anecdotal experience and overall trends. Checking into the statistics easily available online, I find that right about 70% of the US population _has regular internet access_. You're claiming that pretty much _every single one of them_ pirates stuff, and my own anecdotal evidence disproves that as well as yours proves it.



Yeah, I can pretty much assume that the 70% number is instead 70% of the people who have internet access.  I live in Canada where the number of people with internet access is above that of the US.

Still, by doing a rough search on the net, I found one site that claims that in the week of February 09-15 1,595,000 downloaded the TV show Heroes.  Its TV ratings were 6.92 million during the same period.  We don't know how many of the people who downloaded also watched it on TV, but there were a significant number of downloads.

One site has a survey that says 60% of all users of Photoshop have pirated it.

Another site did a survey of Broadband users that found that 30% of all users pirated movies.  Only 4 percent said they did it regularly.  But there were no questions about music, software, or books, so we only know the figures for movies.  But 2/3rds of people said that pirating was not a moral issue, however.

Another poll I looked at says that 70% of the teenagers in Finland said they pirated.

A poll reported by Fox News said that a 61 percent majority of Americans aged 18-34 approves of people downloading music off the Internet.  The percentage is a lot lower in anyone older than that.  But the poll is a few years old.

Even if it is as low as 30%, that's still 1 in 3 people.  Which is pretty significant.

I know my experiences bias me, but my experiences say that it's around 98%.  I figured estimating down to 70 was already compensating.



Mouseferatu said:


> And as others have said, there's a _huge_ difference between people who pirate some stuff and people who pirate everything. If the next generation (or the one after that) grow up in a world in which it is both acceptable _and legal_ to trade any/all media for free, they _will not_ pay for said media. Pure and simple.



There is a huge difference.  Right now, no one I know pirates everything, even though they grew up in a society and generation that considers it acceptable and they are capable of getting it for free.

Perhaps the fact that it is legal will change things dramatically.  I can't say, since I don't care much if its legal or not.  It hasn't affected my downloading habits.  I suppose it might for other people.  I don't know that anyone can predict the exact effects it'll have.  However, I can tell you that the next generation already has a higher percentage of pirates and people who don't respect copyright, even without it being legal.  I expect that trend to continue.



Mouseferatu said:


> I'm not saying that the situation as it stands now can necessarily survive indefinitely. But the answer is far more complex, and far less one-sided, than simply saying "Copyright laws don't work." The _entire system_ would have to change, fundamentally, from the ground up--possibly up to and including a swerve away from market-based capitalism itself--before a truly viable alternative to _some_ form of medium- to long-term copyright becomes possible.



I agree.  It's not Copyright laws in general, but the way they work currently.  I don't anticipate that a solution will be found in the next 5 or even 10 years.  But I think sometime soon, sooner than most people think, this issue will become unavoidable.  And whether we want it to change from the ground up or not, it WILL change.  I just think people should be ready for it.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Pretty close to zero. Nobody pays for something they can _legally_ get for free. That's just common sense and human nature.




It's not illegal in my country to download pirated movies and music, as long as it's not distributed (so, using torrents is illegal, straight downloading is not.)

I still pay and buy my PDFs, movies, etc., and my models for rendering programs. I like rewarding the artists for their work. What I hate is the way I need to jump through hoops just to get a pdf. I bought a book twice last time just so I could get it in a format I can actually use.

And the longer the industry keeps their country codes for DVDs stupidity going, the less I feel like I should reward them.


----------



## Echohawk (Mar 7, 2009)

Fenes said:


> And the longer the industry keeps their country codes for DVDs stupidity going, the less I feel like I should reward them.



That, and those stupid anti-piracy clips that some DVDs force you to watch before you can get to the real content. Why force people who have actually bought the DVDs to watch those? That makes zero sense. If someone is watching the DVD then obviously they haven't pirated it.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> See, the thing is, for authors/artists/whatever, it doesn't _matter_ if our creations are "easily distributable." It doesn't matter if people feel they're worthless because they're "just data," as opposed to actually being a physical good (like, say, a DVD player).





Actually it does matter, becuase in the past, all the profits made by an artist were based on charging for the conversion of the "artitic labor(writing,movies,music etc.)" into a product and then copying and distributing (basically selling) that product. But with technology, like the personal computer, the conversion from a product into digital information is very easy, and doing so makes copying and distributing this information almost effortless. 

So basically, technology has removed the need for a physical object as a medium for copying and distributing, as a result an artists labor no longer comes to the consumer in a "purchased" product, but instead as "free" information. This means any industry which profits on using physical products to copy/distribute "art" are destined to become less profitable or even completly obsolete.





Mouseferatu said:


> None of that changes the fact that
> 
> A) We work just as hard to produce what we produce, and
> 
> ...





This is not the failure of capitalism, its the success of innovation.





Mouseferatu said:


> Lots of people pirate, but a lot more people don't--either because they don't know how, or because (gasp!) they're law-abiding citizens.
> 
> If it were _legal and acceptable_ for anyone who wanted to distribute any book/movie/artwork/whatever to everyone, as long as they didn't charge for it, do you know how many people would actually _pay_ for said goods?




You can complain about the "immorality" or "illegality" of file sharing, but the fact is, its technological innovation which has made the artist/producer's relationship with consumers unprofitable, not legality or morallity.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> If it were _legal and acceptable_ for anyone who wanted to distribute any book/movie/artwork/whatever to everyone, as long as they didn't charge for it, do you know how many people would actually _pay_ for said goods?
> 
> Pretty close to zero. Nobody pays for something they can _legally_ get for free. That's just common sense and human nature.




Does that make me an inhuman fool? I got my HARP PDFs, legally and for free, and purchased the books at retail price when I could have purchased them at wholesale. Even paid the extra $5 per book for the PDF copies.

I have so little chance of being caught that my piracy may as well be legal, and among my friends and acquaintances, I am well known as a pirate and bear the moral disapproval from those who object to it. And yet I still buy, new and at retail price-- because used books don't support creators-- every in-print book that I use in my games. I have bought, and continue to buy, ebooks that I have already downloaded.

I don't take "pity" on artists and writers, because I am a writer myself trying to make money in this field. I buy the books I like and use for the same reason that I keep sharing them after I've finished uploading them; because I want more people to see and enjoy them, and because it is the right thing to do.

The numbers on the poll suggest that this is not as uncommon as you seem to think. Once you've already gotten a free copy, there is no legal reason to purchase a legal copy-- it doesn't validate the pirated copies-- and no reason not to buy a cheaper used copy than to pay full retail. And yet, a significant portion of the poll's respondents have done exactly what you claim noone would do-- they have purchased legitimate, new copies of books that they've already downloaded and in many cases printed out.

You're absolutely right, that this is not a sustainable model and not something that we, as creators, can afford to rely upon. But, in the face of the technology that makes this wide distribution possible, we must also assess the facts and realize that copyright is also no longer a sustainable model and that we will not be able to continue relying upon it for long. Very soon, the patronage of our fans might be the *only* thing that we can rely upon, which would make moral condemnation of the very methods by which they are exposed to our work unwise.


----------



## jgerman (Mar 7, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Actually it does matter, becuase in the past, all the profits made by an artist were based on charging for the conversion of the "artitic labor(writing,movies,music etc.)" into a product and then copying and distributing (basically selling) that product. But with technology, like the personal computer, the conversion from a product into digital information is very easy, and doing so makes copying and distributing this information almost effortless.
> 
> So basically, technology has removed the need for a physical object as a medium for copying and distributing, as a result an artists labor no longer comes to the consumer in a "purchased" product, but instead as "free" information. This means any industry which profits on using physical products to copy/distribute "art" are destined to become less profitable or even completly obsolete.
> 
> ...





Well put. 

Technology changes business models (this includes IP which really amounts to a social contract). Some become obsolete, some are changed drastically. It's the nature of the beast. Sometimes you can adapt, sometimes you go away. You only need to look as far as the music industry to see a little of both.


----------



## Asmor (Mar 7, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Nobody pays for something they can _legally_ get for free.




That's demonstrably false. Due to my own economic woes, I recently had to ask for donations to help pay my hosting fees for my website and blog. Also, public radio and television would not exist if people were not willing to pay for something which they legally receive for free.

I'm not saying that it's a viable business model, of course. I'm just saying that people do indeed pay for what can legally get for free.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2009)

Gotta love all the people arguing that ending copyright won't meaningfully alter consumer behavior.

What's the point then?


----------



## Kichwas (Mar 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Gotta love all the people arguing that ending copyright won't meaningfully alter consumer behavior.
> 
> What's the point then?




This argument kind of stems out of the old debate against the music industry. It was very easy to form an ethic that it was ok or even proper to steal music - you were cutting out the middle man. A lot of people back during the days of that debate often said they would turn around and buy if they were buying it from the musician directly.

(I'm not advocating that ethic, I'm just saying that it was very easy for many people to reach it - they feel like mini-Robin Hoods.)

And some musicians are today selling their own music directly on iTunes or their own websites. I believe even some major artists have gone this way. That indicates that in some cases, the artists agree.

In the music industry time and technology have evolved to the point where the label, the middle man, is now obsolete. Its only a mater of time until the record label is a dead concept.


But that doesn't apply here. The same ethic can't be stretched into this small book press industry. You -might- be able to stretch it into buying your latest novel at Borders or Barnes and Nobles... but RPGs are often sold by artist-owned labels (WotC being the exception). You steal that book, you aren't robbing an obsolete middle man, you're robbing the artist who made it.

Maybe the time for copyright is over - and everything should move to some variation of open source. But within that concept, you still -need- a model by which to compensate an artist for her work.

What is that model? I don't know. But you can't craft an ethical justification for taking the work without it.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2009)

arcady said:


> What is that model? I don't know. But you can't craft an ethical justification for taking the work without it.



Sure you can, you just have to lie to yourself.

Pretend that people will buy the creative work even though they don't actually have to and no law says they should.  Proclaim that an ethic will arise in which people compensate artists out of the goodness of their heart and a desire to see that artist succeed.  Suggest that downloading someone's work without paying is an ethical means to sample that work to decide whether you like it enough to pay for it.

Then fill up your hard drive with a couple of gigabytes of art that you kinda like, but not really enough to pay for, and maybe someday you'll delete it or pay for it or something.  Send one artist out of the thousands who's work you've downloaded a paypal payment for a physical copy of something you wanted in hardcopy anyways, and claim that you've done your part.


----------



## Kichwas (Mar 7, 2009)

And there's the rub. The 'ethic' you've just presented, as you note: fails to compensate the artist for her work. Lets put my proper quote in here:


> But within that concept, you still [need] a model by which to compensate an artist for her work.
> 
> What is that model? I don't know. But you can't craft an ethical justification for taking the work without it.




EDIT: Looks like I left out a vital word in my original post, the word need that I've now inserted in brackets.  Really changes the context when its missing, going to go edit the original now.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Sure you can, you just have to lie to yourself.
> 
> Pretend that people will buy the creative work even though they don't actually have to and no law says they should.  Proclaim that an ethic will arise in which people compensate artists out of the goodness of their heart and a desire to see that artist succeed.  Suggest that downloading someone's work without paying is an ethical means to sample that work to decide whether you like it enough to pay for it.
> 
> Then fill up your hard drive with a couple of gigabytes of art that you kinda like, but not really enough to pay for, and maybe someday you'll delete it or pay for it or something.  Send one artist out of the thousands who's work you've downloaded a paypal payment for a physical copy of something you wanted in hardcopy anyways, and claim that you've done your part.




It's also a matter of convenience. I don't like to jump through hoops if I want to read a book. If I can buy an e-book I'll do so. If I can't, I might buy the book on amazon, and then download a pirated copy so I can read the book _now_.

Also, it's legal here to download movies, music, etc., as long as you don't distribute it. Still we buy a lot of music on itunes, and a lot of ebooks - even more if the industry would start offering conveneint ways to buy such content.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 7, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Sure you can, you just have to lie to yourself.
> 
> Pretend that people will buy the creative work even though they don't actually have to and no law says they should.  Proclaim that an ethic will arise in which people compensate artists out of the goodness of their heart and a desire to see that artist succeed.  Suggest that downloading someone's work without paying is an ethical means to sample that work to decide whether you like it enough to pay for it.
> 
> Then fill up your hard drive with a couple of gigabytes of art that you kinda like, but not really enough to pay for, and maybe someday you'll delete it or pay for it or something.  Send one artist out of the thousands who's work you've downloaded a paypal payment for a physical copy of something you wanted in hardcopy anyways, and claim that you've done your part.




 And if there was no downloading possibility you would have been paying the thousands of artists so to access their work, right??? I think not. 
 

It seems people here seem afraid of a public/state model. Tell you waht: if you happen to be a talent that does not manage to work it through the standard channels, modern technology guarantees that you can still be accessed by people and if you are worth it, people will reward you.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 7, 2009)

Fenes said:


> It's also a matter of convenience. I don't like to jump through hoops if I want to read a book. If I can buy an e-book I'll do so. If I can't, I might buy the book on amazon, and then download a pirated copy so I can read the book _now_.
> 
> Also, it's legal here to download movies, music, etc., as long as you don't distribute it. Still we buy a lot of music on itunes, and a lot of ebooks - even more if the industry would start offering conveneint ways to buy such content.



How would your media purchasing behavior change if there were some service, say, something as user friendly and convenient as iTunes, that offered free and legal e-books, movies, and music?

Just as user friendly and convenient as iTunes, but totally free and legal.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

Asmor said:


> That's demonstrably false. Due to my own economic woes, I recently had to ask for donations to help pay my hosting fees for my website and blog. Also, public radio and television would not exist if people were not willing to pay for something which they legally receive for free.
> 
> I'm not saying that it's a viable business model, of course. I'm just saying that people do indeed pay for what can legally get for free.




Okay, instead of "pretty much zero," how about "close enough to zero that it's not a sustainable business model for anything approaching the long run"?


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 7, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Actually it does matter, becuase in the past, all the profits made by an artist were based on charging for the conversion of the "artitic labor(writing,movies,music etc.)" into a product and then copying and distributing (basically selling) that product. But with technology, like the personal computer, the conversion from a product into digital information is very easy, and doing so makes copying and distributing this information almost effortless.
> 
> So basically, technology has removed the need for a physical object as a medium for copying and distributing, as a result an artists labor no longer comes to the consumer in a "purchased" product, but instead as "free" information. This means any industry which profits on using physical products to copy/distribute "art" are destined to become less profitable or even completly obsolete.




What do you suggest the alternative to be? It still requires the same amount of work and time on the _artist's_ part, no matter what technology has done to the end product.

So either artists get paid for their work--_regardless_ of whether it takes "physical form" or "just data"--or every art-based industry, from writing to music to art, eventually fades from society as anything more than a rare curiosity. In the long-term, there's not really a middle ground.


----------



## Angellis_ater (Mar 7, 2009)

Regarding the statement "it's impossible to compete with free" I give you ... "bottled water". Water, free for everyone made into anything from a fashion-statement or a way of life.

For more on "free" might I suggest reading Chris Anderson or Kevin Kelly? The Technium: Better Than Free <- this is worthwhile reading for those of us preparing for the future.


----------



## Felon (Mar 7, 2009)

I haven't read the whole thread, but does anyone remember a mere year ago when WotC reps said that there would some way for people who bought the core books to automatically get access to online digital versions? Man, I know that ain't a false memory.


----------



## grickherder (Mar 7, 2009)

I'm one of the pirate everything people.  If there's something I'm interested in (D&D, a TV series, a certain band) I download everything associated with it.

Why?  To see what I want to buy.  And I do.  Torrent sites are as easy to use or easier than any pay-for site.  I can get the latest PDF of a D&D book way more painlessly through a torrent site than say RPGnow.com.

Then I assess what I've downloaded.  It goes into one of the following categories:

1) It sucks, delete it.
2) It's good, but not awesome, buy the PDF/mp3/mp4.
3) It's good, get a hard copy/DVD/CD at the local store.

So what would change for me if everything was available for free from an easy to use distribution system?

Nothing, I'm already there.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> How would your media purchasing behavior change if there were some service, say, something as user friendly and convenient as iTunes, that offered free and legal e-books, movies, and music?
> 
> Just as user friendly and convenient as iTunes, but totally free and legal.




I'd buy more of those ebooks, and less of paper books. I do not consider the itunes really userfriendly though. What I want is a service where I do not have to install anything, and get PDFs. Not some secure reader stuff.


----------



## Felon (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> How would your media purchasing behavior change if there were some service, say, something as user friendly and convenient as iTunes, that offered free and legal e-books, movies, and music?
> 
> Just as user friendly and convenient as iTunes, but totally free and legal.



Well, I frequent Hulu often enough, so I'm game, but I don't mind ads to the degree other folks do. Those Philly Cream Cheese commercials sure did the trick.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Mar 8, 2009)

Piracy is a non-issue.  I'm not the only one who thinks so.

Baen Free Library


----------



## Krensky (Mar 8, 2009)

xechnao said:


> It seems people here seem afraid of a public/state model.




Mainly because every time it's occurred in the past few hundred years it's been a bad thing.

Socialist realism, Nazi propaganda films, the Stationer's Company.

Heck, let's actually look at the Stationer's Company, as that was what lead to the creation of copyright in the first place. It used to be in England that if your wrote a book you had two choices. You could make manuscripts (this was before the printing press) on your own and give them away, or you could sell the book to the Stationers Company and go write something else while they copied it and sold the copies and kept all the money. When the printing press came along, nothing changed, except that the Company made more money because printing was cheaper the copying, and printing was far faster.

This, combined with a few short stints as the Crown's censor, led to the Statute of Anne which granted the sole right to copy a work to the author for a period of 14 years. Copyright came into existence to allow authors to get paid for their work, rather then having to sell it to a government monopoly for a one time fee and then starve while they became rich off it.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> What do you suggest the alternative to be? It still requires the same amount of work and time on the _artist's_ part, no matter what technology has done to the end product.




Well, I suspect the alternative is to stop working becuase nobody is going to pay you for it.





Mouseferatu said:


> So either artists get paid for their work--_regardless_ of whether it takes "physical form" or "just data"--or every art-based industry, from writing to music to art, eventually fades from society as anything more than a rare curiosity. In the long-term, there's not really a middle ground.





Im pretty sure the art-based industries will soon be obsolete. Though, Im hopeful that talented people who create, and share art for personal pleasure will continue to do so. Ofcourse with out the incentive of a pay check many people will pursue other careers, and this would reduce the amount of art created, but would likely improve the overall quality of what remains.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Mar 8, 2009)

Felon said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but does anyone remember a mere year ago when WotC reps said that there would some way for people who bought the core books to automatically get access to online digital versions? Man, I know that ain't a false memory.



Yes, 'for the price of a cup of coffee'.

It never ends, so it seems.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> but would likely improve the overall quality of what remains.




Not even remotely. Despite what lots of people like to think, people who create art "purely for love" aren't inherently better at it than anyone else. In fact, the opposite is arguably true at least in the long run, since they don't have the same financial incentive to improve.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Not even remotely. Despite what lots of people like to think, people who create art "purely for love" aren't inherently better at it than anyone else. In fact, the opposite is arguably true at least in the long run, since they don't have the same financial incentive to improve.





I think its the artistic talent inherent to that indavidual, which makes their art valuable, and that is not related to their level of desire, be it for love, or money.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> I think its the artistic talent inherent to that indavidual, which makes their art valuable, and that is not related to their level of desire, be it for love, or money.




True, but nobody is so good that they cannot improve (especially when they're first getting started). And it is the feedback from others--not just friends, but outsiders like editors, other writers, and even an audience--that leads, in part, to that improvement.

And much of that feedback comes because of, and is given weight by, financial incentives. Not all of it, of course, but a fair amount. There's little incentive for an author or artist to pay attention to criticism from strangers without them. (This is true of nearly all areas, not just art, but it's art we're talking about here.)

Innate talent is good, but it's not enough. And as I said before, innate talent isn't necessarily tied to the willingness to work for free. If artists don't get paid for their work, even those who would be _willing_ to work for free may not be _able_ to. If artists don't get paid for their work, eventually art will all but disappear from the culture. It won't happen immediately or quickly, but the number of people who are both able and willing to work without compensation simply aren't sufficient to sustain a vibrant artistic or literary culture. And frankly, they shouldn't be expected to.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

I'm pretty sure that doing my job full time has helped me get better at it.

No doubt writing books is completely different.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> If artists don't get paid for their work, eventually art will all but disappear from the culture.





Well, I guess now you can see the benifit of creating art for love instead of money.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Well, I guess now you can see the benifit of creating art for love instead of money.




Oh, I see. It's _our_ responsibility to work our asses off for society's sake, even if the people of that society aren't willing to pay for work that they're enjoying? 

I assume you also believe that doctors should treat people for free, and that actors should entertain for free, and that lawyers should defend people for free? That cops should serve for free, and firemen put out fires for free? There's a word for where that's leading; that word is "socialism." Nothing at all wrong with you being a socialist, if that happens to be your view of society, IMO, but come out and say so, so I understand your starting point, instead of arguing it piece by piece.


----------



## Sammael (Mar 8, 2009)

This is getting dangerously political for ENW...


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Mainly because every time it's occurred in the past few hundred years it's been a bad thing.
> 
> Socialist realism, Nazi propaganda films, the Stationer's Company.
> 
> ...




When I was talking about a public model this is not what I have in mind. There have been errors throughout history regarding every economic endeavor. And this, certainly does not mean that the current model is a better one. Each time it depends on conditions so the most important factor in the long run is being able to adapt with minimum consequences. It is obvious that the USSR did not focus on its economy but rather -after the tremendous initial boom- on the (cold) war. And USSR is not the only one to blame for this.  
The stationer's company is absurd by our standards -by the conditions of our days. This is definitely not what I had in mind. I tried to expand a bit in some post back here. The main idea is to hire artists like you hire teachers or professors. And definitely give them an institutional function.
This is already happening today on a very small and limited way. Expand on this.
The only "problem" I see with this is that policy makers might be afraid of the political change involved in this. Even if you dare change just a part of the economy this way, if it succeeds, then it may start to seem obvious to people that other things in the economy must change too. But who really knows with the current turn on things, eh? Banks for example are nationalized all over the world. Countability control practices may change in a way that push for further change in politics -a push towards a system that is more open for the public and less close to the tricks of tycoons. I am not saying I am optimism but I do not lose hope -the important thing is what you choose to put your hope in.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> So either artists get paid for their work--_regardless_ of whether it takes "physical form" or "just data"--or every art-based industry, from writing to music to art, eventually fades from society as anything more than a rare curiosity. In the long-term, there's not really a middle ground.




I think it is obvious that art needs a means of investment -and in our standards investment means finance -this is nothing strange. Artists do need to get paid for their work and each artist that has produced art so far has been paid in some way -and art is not an individual process only-it is rather a historic one: we expand (by evolving or revolving) the legacy we inherit from the previous generations. 
Even folk musics must have had a means of investment for their creation to take place-perhaps not one in the way you are thinking about it but nothing really gets produced without some sort of investment.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Oh, I see. It's _our_ responsibility to work our asses off for society's sake, even if the people of that society aren't willing to pay for work that they're enjoying?
> 
> I assume you also believe that doctors should treat people for free, and that actors should entertain for free, and that lawyers should defend people for free? That cops should serve for free, and firemen put out fires for free? There's a word for where that's leading; that word is "socialism." Nothing at all wrong with you being a socialist, if that happens to be your view of society, IMO, but come out and say so, so I understand your starting point, instead of arguing it piece by piece.




But in a functional socialist economy people do try to get their payment -they do try to get their point across. It is not like they work for nothing.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 8, 2009)

> I assume you also believe that doctors should treat people for free, and that actors should entertain for free, and that lawyers should defend people for free? That cops should serve for free, and firemen put out fires for free? There's a word for where that's leading; that word is "socialism." Nothing at all wrong with you being a socialist, if that happens to be your view of society, IMO, but come out and say so, so I understand your starting point, instead of arguing it piece by piece.




This is a huge crux of the argument.  People argue about artists shouldn't get paid, but they wouldn't suggest it for other elements of society.  There may be some benefits to certain elements of society being socialized but there are drawbacks.  If the business model changes for artistic works, there will be drawbacks and repercussions.  

Regarding the whole concept of royalties, I've explained it before by posting Grant's essay.  Before you condemn the whole concept of "royalties", paying for ideas, etc, think about these few concepts.

Success in arts and entertainment is different than other jobs.  You can't expect to pay a novelist or a singer a flat rate for the work, because it's a crapshoot.  The more people who read/listen to it, the more they should get paid.  It's a merit system.  If you paid a person a flat one time fee, either the company funding it couldn't afford to pay a decent rate (because there are too many failures and not enough successes.), or the creator would feel ripped off as the publishing companies would make all the money and not give some back.

You have to also understand how entertainment media works.  For every 1 success there are 100 failures.  I think people focus on the really big guys, the corporations, the millionare artists, and don't realize that there are a lot of little guys.  

As far as the "art for art's sake" argument, that's a great way to get ripped off.  Smart artists, like smart contract workers, try to get guaranteed payments.  J. Michael Strazynski had worked on a book called Rising Stars for Top Cow, then got into a dispute and the book was in limbo for over a year.  When a fan said "shouldn't finishing the story be the top priority", and I believe JMS said something akin to "that's a great way to get ripped off".  Mark Evanier has a great three-part column about these occurrences: In short, people exploit that idea.

Regarding the argument "you can't stop piracy, you shouldn't even try", that's woefully inaccurate.  It's like saying 
why bother with protecting money, you can't stop counterfeiting".  If the governments of the world had that attitude you couldn't have a money system.

The Internet may seem like a wild west, but then again, you used to be able to drive a car without a license.  Traffic Laws came for safety's sake.  It's really strange that people who love technology think that they'll always have 100% privacy on the Internet, that you can't stop piracy.  However, the same technologies can also be used to detect things like viruses, spyware, and businesses can track your Internet activities at work, and YouTube has filters now to prevent unauthorized copyright works to be uploaded.  I suspect things people come to expect will change, such as sales tax being applied to all e-commerce retailers in the US, for instead.  If they don't add more security to prevent piracy, they might to prevent cracking and so-called "real" theft--the theft of money, which is becoming a big problem.  

Do I think in some cases, technological innovations cause disruptions, yes.  I don't think that can be stopped.  I also think in some cases companies made short-sighted decisions that hurt them and will cause changes--newspapers shouldn't have given away their news for free, smart guys like the Wall Street Journal were able to charge and stay profitable.  

But I think people need to educate themselves.  Don't just listen to the technology proponents--a lot of them have their own agendas.  (A company like Google benefits financially by turning content into a commodity, and I see some of it as akin to trying to roll back many elements of workers rights.)  Study basic economics, study history and historical models.  Don't just listen to pundits that have the point of view you like, read what the other side has to say.  You'll gain insights.  I always read all the political opinion columns in the newspaper, not just the ones that agree with my politics.  So, listen to the contrarians and read their point of views.  Instead of just reading Lessig and Anderson, read Andrew Keen and Christian L. Castle.  They make a lot of good points.


Another problem is something I think is a cultural problem.  People are way damn too spoiled nowadays.  I read this forum and see people arguing about "getting the PHB first", etc--it's like a wait of a few days or a week is intolerable.  People need to learn patience, and not have "instant gratification".  The excuse that you should be able to download a copy of software or a book because you already paid for it and have to wait 2 days for shipping is just that, or that you have the entitlement to preview the entire thing first before paying.  "Doing without" can help build character.  Unless we are very rich, we all have to make some sacrifices.  I see the people who download software/media without paying as the same as those illegally tapping cable or satellite.  It's not a valid view in my mind.  Pay for the product, or go without the product.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Success in arts and entertainment is different than other jobs. You can't expect to pay a novelist or a singer a flat rate for the work, because it's a crapshoot. The more people who read/listen to it, the more they should get paid. It's a merit system. If you paid a person a flat one time fee, either the company funding it couldn't afford to pay a decent rate (because there are too many failures and not enough successes.), or the creator would feel ripped off as the publishing companies would make all the money and not give some back.
> 
> You have to also understand how entertainment media works. For every 1 success there are 100 failures. I think people focus on the really big guys, the corporations, the millionare artists, and don't realize that there are a lot of little guys.




It is much more complicated than this. Think about marketing, investment, training and what not. Even in scientific research & development you face similar problems. Individual merit is a difficult thing to value with standards in a society and economy with the time function dynamics as complicated as the ones of our times. One thing is clear though: the current system fails. As even yourself puts it out here, there is a bunch of millionaires and myriads of tiny guys. It seems something is not working properly IMO.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 8, 2009)

xechnao said:


> It is much more complicated than this. Think about marketing, investment, training and what not. Even in scientific research & development you face similar problems. Individual merit is a difficult thing to value with standards in a society and economy with the time function dynamics as complicated as the ones of our times. One thing is clear though: the current system fails. As even yourself puts it out here, there is a bunch of millionaires and myriads of tiny guys. It seems something is not working properly IMO.




The problem though xechnao is that you seem to be arguing for something other than capitalism, which I believe it outside of the scope of the argument we're having.  (I suspect you're from another country).  I think arguing for a different economic system is off topic, since that's a lot harder to change, and gets into politics.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> I think arguing for a different economic system is off topic, since that's a lot harder to change,




I see your point. But what about the current crisis? What about globalization? What about the rise of China's economy and its financing of the debt of US? What about the nationalizations that have to happen right now? Things are changing or can change right now. Accountability standards and laws are about politics. Not about economy but rather about politics. Now they want to change the old model for a "new" one and most probably the ways of the stock exchange markets. Of course global politics have their say in this. But as we go on right now it seems to me that modernization of the economic system is the most relevant topic to think about.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Oh, I see. It's _our_ responsibility to work our asses off for society's sake, even if the people of that society aren't willing to pay for work that they're enjoying?
> 
> I assume you also believe that doctors should treat people for free, and that actors should entertain for free, and that lawyers should defend people for free? That cops should serve for free, and firemen put out fires for free? There's a word for where that's leading; that word is "socialism." Nothing at all wrong with you being a socialist, if that happens to be your view of society, IMO, but come out and say so, so I understand your starting point, instead of arguing it piece by piece.






Im not advocating a political position, Im just pointing out the reality that technology has made purchasing a "product" to enjoy art, unnesecary.

As for doctors, lawyers, fireman, etc, working for free; if technology makes their jobs obsolete than they can probably expect the same eventual demise now being experianced by the "paid artist".


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Im not advocating a political position, Im just pointing out the reality that technology has made purchasing a "product" to enjoy art, unnesecary.
> 
> As for doctors, lawyers, fireman, etc, working for free; if technology makes their jobs obsolete than they can probably expect the same eventual demise now being experianced by the "paid artist".




Technology can still be regulated.  Just because the technology exists doesn't mean it will be adopted or can't be restricted.  Don't delude yourself and think that.  Here are some examples.

We have nuclear weapons.  Outside of testing they haven't been used in war since Nagasaki.  We have the technology, why haven't we used it?  (Rhetorical question, in case anybody tries to answer).

We have the technology to counterfeit money.  Does that mean we throw the money system out, and give up?  No, we improve the protections, and heck, the government even got Adobe to create algorithms in the software to prevent counterfeiting of monetary patterns.

We have Cable TV.  You can tap the cable TVs from the line.  You can also hack into scrambled sats.  Does that mean they can't enforce the laws and prevent this?  

And speaking of TV, Radio and TV should have done what you suggested, make it possible to not have to purchase a product to enjoy art.  But we still do, and TV and Radio setup rules to compensate the artist, and commercials is what pays for most TV.

You see what I am getting at?  Technologies are regulated and controlled.  Laws are setup to regulate technology.  

Don't delude yourself and think that the Internet is going to always be the wild west of piracy.  I dislike forms of DRM, but I also think they might be necessary, and as long as they are regulated and controlled so we don't suffer from lost purchases, and as long as they are as good as Valve's Steam and Apple's iTunes, I think we'll see more of this, not less.  Some people object to DRM "on principle", but if people keep justifying piracy and profits go down, I doubt that you'll see this go away.  It's hard to be anonymous when there are only so many ISPs and even fewer backbone networks.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Technology can still be regulated. Just because the technology exists doesn't mean it will be adopted or can't be restricted.





Well, the technology for P2P file sharing has existed for at least a decade, in that time its been adopted by more people, and still remains completly unregulated.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> Technology can still be regulated.  Just because the technology exists doesn't mean it will be adopted or can't be restricted.  Don't delude yourself and think that.




Unless the state builds their own clients (from browsers to what have you) and runs the internet themselves what you are advocating for is never going happen. And this is nothing strange to me. We do understand that the automobile traffic policing you are talking about is done by a police which is a public institution in every state in the world, right?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Well, the technology for P2P file sharing has existed for at least a decade, in that time its been adopted by more people, and still remains completly unregulated.



Lawsuits are a form of regulation.


----------



## Nifft (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Lawsuits are a form of regulation.



 Yep. More specifically, laws which allow certain parties to sue for damages are quite obviously government regulations.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> Lawsuits are a form of regulation.





When file sharing decreases because of a rash of lawsuits, let me know.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> When file sharing decreases because of a rash of lawsuits, let me know.



I actually believe this has already happened.

Its like speeding tickets.  Most people don't get tickets when they speed.  Some people do.  Everyone still speeds, but not as much and they're more discrete about it.

There's... a bit of a mismatch between the penalty amounts and the crime, unfortunately.  We'd probably have a more efficient regulatory system if, instead of mercilessly beating up one in every million illegal file sharers, we dinged one in every ten thousand every few days.  But that would require government action.  The private system isn't set up to allow one entity to sue thousands of smaller entities.  It does alright with thousands of small entities suing one large one, but not the reverse.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> When file sharing decreases because of a rash of lawsuits, let me know.




It seems that this is the only thing that the current status quo can resort to so it can go on milking the cows. For them it is better create some victims of everyday people by their possibility of lobbying on the goverment and the goverment seems to accept this so far rather than try to change the system and fix things for most people-including the interests of artists.


----------



## Kichwas (Mar 8, 2009)

Angellis_ater said:


> Regarding the statement "it's impossible to compete with free" I give you ... "bottled water". Water, free for everyone made into anything from a fashion-statement or a way of life.




What's funny about this is it has zero to do with quality.

San Francisco in the 1800s committed environmental heresy by flooding one of the most beautiful valleys in North America and turning it into a reservoir. The resulting Hetch-Hetchy reservoir provides some of the cleanest water in the world - on tap. An unadvertised, public secret.

And yet our city is full of fools running around with bottled water from all sorts of dirty sources, when they could just as well turn on any tap in city limits and get much better quality.

(Side note: Its also an interesting debate as to the reservoir - environmentalists today are on both sides of the debate over removing it, as its very likely doing so would do more harm to California's ecosystem than keeping it. Both in the actual harm of removal, and the greater harm that would come from using other sources.)

People will pay for something that is free, even if the free version is vastly better, if the branding on the for pay version is well done.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> It does alright with thousands of small entities suing one large one, but not the reverse.




This is not the problem. The problem is that only a sovereign goverment can acceptably control certain public things such as ...lawmaking. And lawmaking must control the limits of expression (which includes file sharing)-not a private company. It is the goverment which gives a possibility to sue: but they do not give them a possibility to monitor and control your internet behaviour by themselves beyond the ways everyone has to monitor and control things. So the goverment is the only one that could really control what happens in the internet. But if they go on to do this companies like Microsoft, Yahoo or ISPs would take a huge hit -not to talk about current publishers that want to retain the status of the only viable means of marketing your products as an artist -since it seems only super marketing can beat piracy and can make your work profitable as a the powerless artists that most of them seem to be.


----------



## Kichwas (Mar 8, 2009)

Krensky said:


> Mainly because every time it's occurred in the past few hundred years it's been a bad thing.
> 
> Socialist realism, Nazi propaganda films, the Stationer's Company.




State or public controlled media?

Don't forget PBS and the BBC, or if you live in Korea, KBS.

...

Oh wait...

Those ones actually work and produce quality material.

There's also AAFES for US military personnel, but they're mostly a distributor, and well, you could argue they're not as good as they could be. But that's mostly because they never seem to have the newer stuff...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> Im not advocating a political position, Im just pointing out the reality that technology has made purchasing a "product" to enjoy art, unnesecary.




Which does not, in any way, shape, or form, alter the amount of labor, time, or talent that goes into creating that art.



> As for doctors, lawyers, fireman, etc, working for free; if technology makes their jobs obsolete than they can probably expect the same eventual demise now being experianced by the "paid artist".




Except that technology hasn't made the "paid artist" obsolete. Being obsolete isn't what we're talking about here. As I just said, someone still has to _create _the art in question. If technology could _create_ the works of art/literature/music/whatever--just as well, and just as creatively, as a human being--_then_ technology might make artists obsolete. So no, your comparison doesn't even remotely hold up.


----------



## ProfessorPain (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Except that technology hasn't made the "paid artist" obsolete. Being obsolete isn't what we're talking about here. As I just said, someone still has to _create _the art in question. If technology could _create_ the works of art/literature/music/whatever--just as well, and just as creatively, as a human being--_then_ technology might make artists obsolete. So no, your comparison doesn't even remotely hold up.




This is a good point. As long as it takes talent to make a picture, people with talent will expect to get paid. Same goes for literature, music, etc. The few who do it for free, are trampling on their own livelihood. There may be some who are willing to do so. But most of us want to make a living AND do what we love. 

By the way, awsome handle Mouseferatu.


----------



## mudbunny (Mar 8, 2009)

Felon said:


> I haven't read the whole thread, but does anyone remember a mere year ago when WotC reps said that there would some way for people who bought the core books to automatically get access to online digital versions? Man, I know that ain't a false memory.




They said that they would do that. But then when they actually looked into the processes required to ensure that only the people that actually bought the books would be getting the .pdfs, they discovered that it would have been a very large hassle to do and decided to drop the plan, Instead, they changed it so that anyone who is a DDI subscriber gets access, via the compendium, to *every* 4E book that WotC has released. Not the fluff, but almost all of the rules components/mechanics. Monsters, items, spells, etc.


----------



## Chaos Disciple (Mar 8, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> Which does not, in any way, shape, or form, alter the amount of labor, time, or talent that goes into creating that art.
> 
> 
> Except that technology hasn't made the "paid artist" obsolete. Being obsolete isn't what we're talking about here. As I just said, someone still has to _create _the art in question. If technology could _create_ the works of art/literature/music/whatever--just as well, and just as creatively, as a human being--_then_ technology might make artists obsolete. So no, your comparison doesn't even remotely hold up.




Your right, technology doesnt alter the labor of the artist. What technology has done, is eliminate the way you profit from that labor.


----------



## rgard (Mar 8, 2009)

Hi All, I posted awhile back in this thread.  

Just curious, but could the folks who don't have a problem with piracy (in the context here where rpg games and supplements are downloaded via P2P or copied and shared) let us know what they do for a living?

To be honest, I truly don't understand why folks think it's ok, but maybe if we know what your line of work is, maybe I can get my head around this.

Thanks,
Rich

P.S. I'm not one of those who think it's ok to download stuff with out permission of the owner, but I should mention my line of work.  I'm a former game store owner and currently work for a local utility.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

Chaos Disciple said:


> What technnology has done, is eliminate the way you profit from that labor.




There can be taken steps to change things and fix this. It is a matter of political will on how to approach things and I would say this means that it is eventually a matter of time - the question or problematic being _how much _time.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

rgard said:


> Hi All, I posted awhile back in this thread.
> 
> Just curious, but could the folks who don't have a problem with piracy (in the context here where rpg games and supplements are downloaded via P2P or copied and shared) let us know what they do for a living?
> 
> ...




Do you believe that piracy hurt your gaming store business? I believe there was a practice to pirate audio tapes, yet audio tape selling music stores did not generally go out of business back in the day because of it. If I am right here, this tells me, that the problem with gaming stores has been the possibilities of online trade: legal and illegal. I am in favor of gaming stores because I believe gaming stores are very important in promoting games but unless there is some kind of investment towards this -beyond the one of the store owner opening shop and running it- I find it really hard to viably compete with the internet. 

I believe that if there was a possibility for gaming stores to let all the people interested to check the products at will and see by themselves what they like to have or not, people would still buy the same number of books -if not even less- that they would have bought if piracy did not exist. The thing with money is that you have to spend it -for them to have any value you have to show people that you spend it and how. Money resting have zero value. It is not that piracy allows people to spend less money. One could argue that it allows them to spend it differently such as booze and what not, but if the people we are talking about are gamers they will want to spend it on games. And this is why gaming stores are important.


----------



## JohnRTroy (Mar 8, 2009)

> Your right, technology doesnt alter the labor of the artist. What technology has done, is eliminate the way you profit from that labor.




Until the law and the governments catches up.

You seem to think P2P file sharing will go on without interference, but there's a lot you look over.

1)  The same technology that allows encryption, anonymization, etc., can be countered.  For hackers we have anti-spyware, anti-virus, etc.  For those who say "you can't stop piracy", would you take the same attitude and say you can't stop viruses and hacking, so why bother with a firewall or a protection suite of software?

YouTube was able to setup filters to keep out porn and to disable copyright violations.  That type of tech will only get better.  All that has to happen is for the detection and prevention algorithms to get good enough so it becomes very hard for the average person to pirate.  Then this becomes like locks--locks can be broken, but they are there to keep the honest people honest.

2)  The Internet still has limits.  China has a huge firewall, for instance.  You are dependent on both the limited number of ISPs, as well as the major backbones.  Laws that require the ISPs to monitor and filter can be put in place.  And the ISPs know who you are.  

3)  They are regulated by the governments.  There's a lot of fights to keep the Internet unregulated, but I think we'll see more restrictions.  They'll probably remove the state tax-exceptions on e-commerce for major retailers.  Even if they don't react to piracy, they will react to so-called "real theft", that is, embezzlement and hacking into credit and bank agencies.  I'm just waiting for a "9/11" style event, on the Internet--either some prank that takes down half the Internet traffic, or some big theft or massive viral infection, with the results bringing more restrictions.  

10 years from now I could see a more restrictive sub-net of the Internet, where you'd have to be registered and protocols enabled so they can have "very secure" transactions, and if you don't agree you can't use those features.  

That;s a possibility, and I think even a probable scenario.  I think the people who engage in piracy might help bring that about faster.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 8, 2009)

I'm not so sure about major shifts or doomsday scenarios, but this scenario is easy and in my opinion likely: technological change and altered international relations and treaties (no more getting all of your pirated stuff off chinese servers once china modernizes enough to want to get along with the international IP system instead of loot it) makes it harder for casual internet users to engage in meaningful amounts of piracy.  For them, piracy becomes something more like speeding, something everyone does, but not too much and everyone kind of understands the unwritten limits on what you can get away with before getting dinged with a ticket.  For the pros and the big pirates, the drop out of the amateurs shrinks their population and makes it easier to target them with individualized legal action.

Piracy isn't going away, nor are we heading for some DRM dystopia.  But there's plenty of room for things to shift in either direction.


----------



## xechnao (Mar 8, 2009)

JohnRTroy said:


> YouTube was able to setup filters to keep out porn and to disable copyright violations.




Regarding youtube. Is it because of video filters or people reporting violations? 

This is not to counter your points here, I mostly agree but I am curious about the specific example.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 8, 2009)

arcady said:


> State or public controlled media?
> 
> Don't forget PBS and the BBC, or if you live in Korea, KBS.
> 
> ...




Off topic for clarification purposes.

I believe you mean AFRTS (Armed Forces Radio and Television Service, usually pronounced as A-Farts) and their AFN affiliates (Armed Forces Networks - such as AFN Europe or AFN Korea).

AAFES is Army and Air Force Exchange Service, the brother of NEX or Naval Exchange Service, which is basically a tax free department store service for military personel.

Personally, after 11 straight years overseas (6 in England and then 5 in Korea) I thought AFN did a pretty good job of getting new shows to us. Granted, with the plethora of channels and programming available today, there's no way you can show it all on 1 to 4 AFN channels (depending on your region) but I thought they did pretty good anyways. I never missed a Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, NASCAR Race, or any episodes of Star Trek, Buffy, and Zena, so I don't think they were all bad. (Not to mention almost continuous access to CNN.)


----------



## grickherder (Mar 9, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Do you believe that piracy hurt your gaming store business?




I know piracy has certainly helped my local gaming store.  Seeing those PDFs of the core books on the net got me running D&D again.  I also got my old gaming group to reactivate and we all bought the core books, many D&D miniatures boosters, dungeon tiles sets, dice sets, etc.,.  Me getting back into D&D has added 6 pre-orders for PHB2 as well.


----------



## rgard (Mar 9, 2009)

xechnao said:


> Do you believe that piracy hurt your gaming store business?




No, I don't believe it did.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Nightson (Apr 10, 2009)

I'm going to bump this for relevance.


----------



## baphomet68 (Dec 14, 2009)

I took advantage of the leaked core books, and was pleasantly surprised-thought I wouldnt like it. I changed over to 4e, and brought my group with me. While I admit that the prerelease-download of an not-owned book is infringement on copyright, I do not care. Every pirated PDF I DL'd led to a purchase, or was deleted as junk.  I think my behavior benefited the producer of the product, though my motivation was to fully evaluate the game before paying for it. Our group uses 10 of these 4e D&D books, and each of my players owns most of the selection we use(they skipped the FRCS and DMG 1&2). 
     If I preview a book, then purchase it, I keep the PDf I previewed, and consider that fair use - as I could have made the PDF myself for my own use. My willingness to explore a PDF torrent is not substantially different from browsing a bookstore, and is damaging only to a flawed or poor product. I see this opportunity to preview a potential purchase through a pirated PDF as a way to offset a system that usually holds consumers by the short hairs. Of course the companies dont like it - they are used to having it all their way.
     As for technology someday changing the amount of piracy, and how common it is for the general public, I think that they will keep pace with each other. Tech advances seldom close a security hole without opening another one (or more). I got online in the early 90's, and I do not recall a time when the availability of pirated material was notably interfered with for more than a few weeks. As soon as technology allows the blocking of an established file distribution process, the motivated parties shift to another workable process, and the game goes on.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 14, 2009)

Personally, I find necromancers far more frightening than pirates.

"_Necromantic pirates... yipes!_", -- N


----------



## renau1g (Dec 14, 2009)

Yeah reminds me of Pirates of the Caribbean (the movie)...


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 14, 2009)

So if you sneak into an evil necromancer's tower and copy all his spells, are you then a necromancy pirate? Man, D&D so does not take into account the black market for pirated spellbooks.


----------



## Nifft (Dec 14, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> So if you sneak into an evil necromancer's tower and copy all his spells, are you then a necromancy pirate?



 No, scribing costs include a tax on spell copying. This is why Mordenkeinen can afford so many mansions.

It's completely unfair for people who have to pay the tax to scribe spells they wrote themselves, but how often does that happen?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Flobby (Dec 15, 2009)

I voted pirated, liked it, bought it. I don't like buying something unless I can look at it and since there is no hobby store anywhere near me, getting a look at the pdf was my only option. Personally I don't find it unethical to download something to take a look at it... Same goes for mp3s. I download it, and if I like it buy it, if not, it goes in the trash.


----------



## El Mahdi (Dec 15, 2009)

deleted


----------

