# Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

It's easy to get a wide variety of D&D books and printed materials with programs available from your neighborhood Google engine, but the question arises, has this had a real impact on the profits or quality of materials produced for either Wizards or any other gaming companies?


----------



## The Cardinal (Sep 5, 2005)

...now where's my asbestos robe?...


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

The Cardinal said:
			
		

> ...now where's my asbestos robe?...




I'm sorry, is that related to gaming, is it a term to alienate or degrade someone? If my question seemed odd or offense, my apologies, it was not meant to be so in any way. Nor was it to enlighten/inform anyone of these facts. I figured piracy was a widely known and large enough problem as it, and especially to the educated folks of this forum, that i wouldn't be rattling anyone's nerves by posting this.


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 5, 2005)

My feeling is not that great an impact with some sales lost but not many - generally people who download stuff either go one of two routes:
1. will not pay for material full stop so you would never get a sale to them

2. will buy some original materials using electronic copies as either samplers or supplemental versions where content can be cut and pasted into dm's notes


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

I certainly can't see it affecting a larger print publisher like WotC to any noticeable degree.  There's a strong case that it hurts the small PDF publishers, though - although many people will argue that it doesn't.  It can't be definitively proved either way.

And now the moderation warning -- we all know how these piracy threads go, and we all know what each other is going to say (and who's going to say it).  Because we're so used to them, I don't feel the need to give warnings.  There will be _zero tolerance_ in this thread for insults, snipes and the like.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, is that related to gaming, is it a term to alienate or degrade someone? If my question seemed odd or offense, my apologies, it was not meant to be so in any way. Nor was it to enlighten/inform anyone of these facts. I figured piracy was a widely known and large enough problem as it, and especially to the educated folks of this forum, that i wouldn't be rattling anyone's nerves by posting this.




No, he's just alluding to the inevitable flame war that this topic will cause.  It's one of those subjects that people get very impassioned about.


----------



## hong (Sep 5, 2005)

To forestall the flames, I suggest we all speak like a pirate in piracy threads. What could be more appropriate? Yarrr!


Hong "not y4rrr!" Ooi


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I certainly can't see it affecting a larger print publisher like WotC to any noticeable degree.  There's a strong case that it hurts the small PDF publishers, though - although many people will argue that it doesn't.  It can't be definitively proved either way.
> 
> And now the moderation warning -- we all know how these piracy threads go, and we all know what each other is going to say (and who's going to say it).  Because we're so used to them, I don't feel the need to give warnings.  There will be _zero tolerance_ in this thread for insults, snipes and the like.





I'm not sure how these piracy threads have fared in the past (new guy), perhaps you can tell me a sample of what has happened?

Most often, i've seen it as a case of "backups" as someone said, I would liken it to an "expanded SRD" if you will (albeit the point of the SRD is to emphasize quickness of reference) and although it still would be illegal to own a PDF of the PHB all the while owning the physical book, I personally don't have qualms as long as they alone have access to it.


----------



## jaerdaph (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> IAnd now the moderation warning -- we all know how these piracy threads go, and we all know what each other is going to say (and who's going to say it).  Because we're so used to them, I don't feel the need to give warnings.  There will be _zero tolerance_ in this thread for insults, snipes and the like.




And with that said, do we *really* need another one? 

If it's easier for people, I can just use the search function and cut and paste the usual suspects' standard responses if you like.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

jaerdaph said:
			
		

> And with that said, do we *really* need another one?




The people who have been involved in the past ones certainly don't need a new one.  Some newer people and those that have somehow missed out on the piracy threads in the past may get some use out of one, though.

Although, it may well be easier just to link to the last few versions.  There was one just about a week ago if I recall correctly?


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 5, 2005)

Yes.. and No.. and It depends.

 Your freindly neighborhood Google will also turn up RPGnow and Drivethru.com quite often.

Software piracy is not really any different than any other stealing...its just easier to do and easier to get away with. Meaning more people are willing to do it.

 So, as usual when things get stolen, two things happen:

 Some stuff sky-rockets in price to offset the loss of profits via the wallets of the legal folks.
 Some stuff drops both in price and quality, developers figuring you should be willing to pay a couple bucks for a PDF even if its just to find out what is in it.
 Some stuff ignores piracy and continues to march on. {usually producers without a need to maintian income from a particular line}

 There have been other threads here where much more intelligent people than me, with background in econmics, can speak more to the profit/loss point.

I think the biggest impact is on the game at large, as ripples of the first two options start diminishing what is legally affordable and worth it. This drives away new players {see threads on the cost of the 3.5 PHB when it came out...or the dozens of $1.00 PDFs on RPGNow...} 

Piracy is just plain bad form. 
Hopefully your question here, in a forum well known for attendance by many publishers of gaming material.. the very folks who are taking a hit from this activity, is truely meant to seek knowledge.. instead of starting a 'discussion' of the most base sort.

 If you want to see an impact on the gaming community at large, convince the pirates that buying the material will mean more and better material down the road. 

If you want ready, quick reference the the PHB/DMG, etc... buy E-Tools. The data sets come with the full book in help format 
 {just no page numbers  }

Cardinal.. agreed. Hopefully this doesn't go that way.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

My question had absolutely no intentions of starting this into a name-calling contest, a rehashing of facts, or in any other way bring about in-fighting. I just genuinely wanted to know your opinions on the matter, and if there were any statistics relevant to this exact area.


----------



## Pseudonym (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Although, it may well be easier just to link to the last few versions.  There was one just about a week ago if I recall correctly?




http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=143244&highlight=piracy


----------



## philreed (Sep 5, 2005)

While a corportation like Habro may be slightly affected by internet piracy it is the smaller companies and PDF publishers, as Morrus mentioned, that are most negatively harmed by illegal downloads.

Look at it this way. 1,000 people download an illegal PDF of the latest D&D hardcover that has sales of 25,000. Those same 1,000 people download an illegal copy of one of my latest PDFs that has sales of 50.

Who do you think feels the greater loss in potential sales?


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

Thanks for the link, i'm reading it now!


----------



## Pseudonym (Sep 5, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link, i'm reading it now!




Happy to help.


----------



## der_kluge (Sep 5, 2005)

I have Bearshare. I use it from time to time to find music files, or hard-to-find software. I'm using it right now to get a data modeling software, but it's taking a while since so few people have it.

On a previous hard drive, I had about a gigabyte of pirated D&D books. If you look, you can find all kinds of stuff. By and large, it's WoTC's stuff, and you can find 2nd edition books as well as mostly 3rd edition stuff. The amount of 3rd party stuff that one might find is really, really small. And oddly enough, I don't recall ever finding any .pdfs on there.

That hard drive crashed, and I haven't had any desire to go back and get any of that stuff. I still prefer having the book over the scanned version. I did end up buying Complete Warrior after downloading it, because I just thought it was so good. So, that's at least one instance of someone buying a product after they'd downloaded it.

But I can certainly understand *why* people download stuff off places like Bearshare. What I'll never understand is why people take the time to scan an entire freaking book into .pdf to make it available on something like Bearshare. Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> What I'll never understand is why people take the time to scan an entire freaking book into .pdf to make it available on something like Bearshare. Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?




That's a really good question. It must be quite some work to do that in a decent fashion.

Anyways, it's really hard to say, whether piracy has any effect on the market. I would guess that the effects are only minor, tho. Hey, maybe they even have a positive effect, by spreading the books they might turn more people into rpgers and some of those will surely buy the books. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Sammael (Sep 5, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?



They are being Chaotic, not Evil. Piracy is a matter of ethics, not morals.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 5, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But I can certainly understand *why* people download stuff off places like Bearshare. What I'll never understand is why people take the time to scan an entire freaking book into .pdf to make it available on something like Bearshare. Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?




In their eyes, what they are doing is not evil-- as far as they are concerned, they are doing a public service. After all, if people like them hadn't taken the time and effort to scan those books in, people like you wouldn't have been able to download them.

The vast majority of people who use p2p services to download media do not consider their activities theft; if they did, they wouldn't be doing so in the first place. You should hear the rationalizations that *real* thieves use to defend their activities and define them as anything but theft.

The people who consider sharing copyrighted material to be wrong-- but do it anyway-- are not the people who scan books and make them available for download. They download what they want, and they may even allow others to download it from them, but they certainly aren't going to put any effort into making new books available.


----------



## Pseudonym (Sep 5, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> What I'll never understand is why people take the time to scan an entire freaking book into .pdf to make it available on something like Bearshare. Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?




I had always assumed that .pdfs of books, with annotated bookmarks, clean scans and whatnot were leaked from in-house sources, as opposed to sloppy, off-centered OCRs from people who are motivated to do so.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 5, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> They are being Chaotic, not Evil. Piracy is a matter of ethics, not morals.




 Thus, combining all the inflammatory power of Alignment threads with all the inflammatory power of Piracy threads!

 Genius!


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 5, 2005)

Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Software piracy is not really any different than any other stealing...its just easier to do and easier to get away with. Meaning more people are willing to do it.




Yes it is. And it's called copyright infringement for precisely this reason. If you steal a car, someone loses his car. If you download copy of X, the developer doesn't lose his copy, rather an imaginary sale. That's why there are different laws for copyright infringement and theft. It's the same thing with tax fraud and stealing, you don't use the same term for the two. 

If "piracy" is wrong or not I do not know. I do know however, that in many cases the pirated copy of a work is superior the legit one. A pirated DVD for example has no region coding, is available over the whole world at once, has no annoying ads you cannot fast forward and so on. Most "pirates" I know download the pirated copies because they are BETTER, not because they are cheap and want a free lunch.


----------



## Feathercircle (Sep 5, 2005)

I don't know how typical my situation is, but I find that piracy is more or less an unavoidable neccessity for me if I continue to take an interest in accquiring gaming products.  

I live in a little college in the middle of nowhere, and I have no access to any real transportation to anywhere that's useful from a gaming standpoint.  I have no access to any local gaming stores, friendly or otherwise, or even any bookstores within a radius of at least twenty miles.  Aside from summer and winter break, I cannot buy hard copies of any D&D books.  As a result, the internet is wonderful for me- most of the gaming companies sell .pdf versions of their books, and I can even find .pdfs of old 2E or 3E out of print products which even a good bookstore wouldn't usually carry.  

But for all their advantages, online .pdf stores have a major disadvantage- there's no way to 'try before I buy', no way to leaf through a book to get a sense of what the quality level is or if it will be of any use to me in my campaign.  Reviews from other people can only go so far- what they value in a book isn't neccessarily what I value.  With some products from some publishers, I know even without looking that it's what I want.  Snagging something like the Draconomicon or some of the old Planescape line is a no-brainer, and totally worth the price.  With others...  well, if I download Unveiled Masters or the Book of Exalted Deeds or the 2E Psionics Handbook and find it lacking, I can't exactly take it back with a reciept and ask for my money back.  The lower cost of .pdfs helps to mitigate that, but if I downloaded anything that looked interesting, the costs would still add up.  

As a result, I snatch pirated copies of these .pdfs off of the internet, leaf through them so I can decide if they're what I'm looking for, and then either delete them or delete and go find a store online where I can buy a legal copy.  This way companies that produce stuff that's good still get my money, and I don't wind up supporting products that I never would have paid for if I'd been able to look at them properly before purchase. 

  For big name publishers like WotC or Mongoose and the like, the lost revenue from the people who don't pay back for the pdfs they keep is negligible- most of their money comes from the sale of the hard copy books anyway... and it's potentially arguable that some the people who are pirating aren't always customers anyway and wouldn't buy the product if they couldn't get it free.  For small publishers, who make their earnings largely or even solely off of .pdfs, the problem is potentially greater....   I know that not everyone pirating does so for the same reasons as I do or is as honest about paying for stuff as I am, but until companies find some way to solve the "sealed box" problem of online pdfs, I don't really see an alternative, at least for me.  I don't really have any suggestions as to how to deal with it- if you make things more piracy-proof, it's usually only a delaying measure- sooner or later someone will figure out how to get past it.  

I'd really like to see someone somewhere do a study on if revenues are being lost as a result of piracy, and if so, how much...   if anyone has seen any data published about this already, I'd be interested.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Yes it is. And it's called copyright infringement for precisely this reason. If you steal a car, someone loses his car. If you download copy of X, the developer doesn't lose his copy, rather an imaginary sale. That's why there are different laws for copyright infringement and theft. It's the same thing with tax fraud and stealing, you don't use the same term for the two.




Yay!  I think I should win a prize.  I predicted Psionicist's post _exactly_!

Gonna see how many more I can predict.  I predicted Phil Reed's post pretty much spot on, too.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

I've never downloaded an illegal .pdf, nor have I ever paid for a .pdf.  Both seem wrong, somehow.


----------



## shaylon (Sep 5, 2005)

I have to agree with Phil's statement.  Guys in the pdf market are hurt more than a large company like Hasbro.

I think most people who pirate or illegally download really had no intention of ever buying the product in the first place, so in Wotc's case that brings exposure as Der_Kluge mentioned.  He read a pdf copy of CW and bought it.  If you get a illegal copy of Phil's 101 series, you aren't likely to go and buy another pdf of that just to show support.

I typically don't steal stuff from any publisher, although I would certainly buy from a small print house before taking an opportunity to steal from them.  Using Phil as an example again, I really like his stuff.  Every product of his that I have seen has been extremely useful.  I would hate to download all of his stuff for free and then have him quit the game because he wasn't making money.

Now, as far as music goes, I used Napster back in the day, and I did have some mp3s of songs I did not own, although I mostly used it to get "Live" versions of songs and older stuff that was hard to find.  My biggest problem with the RIAA outcry was that a band like Mettalica spearheaded it.  One of the richest bands in the world had Lars out there crying on TV about how we are stealing from him.  I was pretty upset about that, and haven't seen Metallica nor bought an album since.  I won't support them now because of how they reacted.  Many smaller bands that started out at the height of Napster had albums sell because of Napster's exposure.  Studies show that CD sales declined after napster was "shutdown".  I can't prove that the decline was because of Napster, but I know that I rarely by music cd's at all anymore; I listen the the radio.  I would rather the music industry never see a dime of my money.  They lost an antitrust suit because they ripped people off when CD's came out, and when sales declined they needed something to blame.  I think a better target to blame would be all the lame bands and pop singers of the late 90's that they tried to force down our throats.  

On the subject of movies, they blame college kids downloading movies for decline in theater seats, failing to look at other issues.  To be sure these downloaders are an impact, but what about movie prices?  It is a fact that most movies are on DVD inside of 6 months from realease, and the price of a new release DVD can be under 20 dollars depending on where you buy.  DVD quality and a nice big TV with home theater can nearly replicate the theater experience, which many people have.  So my girlfriend and I go to see a movie, get popcorn, and two drinks.  Here in Columbus if you make the matinee show would cost about 20 dollars, about 28 if you go at night.  So I can buy a DVD and watch this movie over and over or rent it and watch as many times as I want over 2-3 day period and they wonder why I don't go to the movies?

A couple of people have mentioned that prices can go up based on theft and that is true, but let me pose a question.  Do you think that if they eliminated theft that the prices would go down?  I mean DVD copy protection was supposed to eliminate theft, of course it didn't work for long, but did you see a cut in DVD prices?  I once read that computers are stolen regularly from shipping companies moving them and if they could elminate that theft computer prices would dramatically drop in price.  Computers did drop in price because demand to get machines in everyone's hands caused the companies who make parts to find ways to make things much cheaper.  Integrating sound, video, and network onto the motherboard are some of the ways they made things more cost effective.

Well, I think I am getting a bit off track.  I hope I didn't offend anyone here, wasn't trying to at all.  Just some thoughts and my opinions about the matter.  

Oh, in case the message wasn't clear.  I don't steal, nor advocate it, but I think that some of the parties that cried out the most about "stealing" need to take a better look at their industry and see if there are other things at fault.

-Shay


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Re the actual question - does copyright infringement affect game developers - it doesn't seem to directly lose a lot of sales, but I suspect that if there were no unauthorised downloads the authorised download market might be bigger.  I suspect there are almost no lost sales of printed copies due to downloading (unlike music, perhaps), but something like the Immortals Bestiary may have lost some sales.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

"Piracy" of intangible works seem to lower not raise consumer prices, because the legal product is competing with free illegal product, but no legal copies are 'lost' as such, unlike if you steal computers.


----------



## Turanil (Sep 5, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> You should hear the rationalizations that *real* thieves use to defend their activities and define them as anything but theft.



I see that as the subject for a very interesting thread (in the off topic forum). I immediately start it!


----------



## shaylon (Sep 5, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> "Piracy" of intangible works seem to lower not raise consumer prices, because the legal product is competing with free illegal product, but no legal copies are 'lost' as such, unlike if you steal computers.




I am not sure if you wrote this based off of what I said, but so you know, I agree with this statement and I have heard that is how it works.  I don't think I said anything in my prior post to contradict this, I was commenting on how theft in other sectors is attributed to poor sales when there are other factors that are overlooked.

-Shay


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 5, 2005)

I think it has an effect - and one which is more significant than people generally acknowledge.

I know several guys who have every single 3e book ever printed on paper on .pdf.  They are hardcore gamers with significant disposable incomes and tote their gaming libraries around on laptops now.

If these pdfs were not available - they'd have a lot more dead trees on their shelves.  And the first dead tree versions which would appear would be WotC hardcovers - so in that sense, WotC loses, right?

BUT (there is always a BUT)...their "hobby money" they saved on buying hardcover books has been shifted within the hobby to miniature buying. WotC still more or less (devil is in _that_ detail isn't it?) got the money - just for a different product. 

It's a complicated issue.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 5, 2005)

Is piracy a problem? Most publishers think so.

For example, about 2 years ago, my boss did his own survey on piracy. 83 copies of a PDF sold, more than 700 individual download sources online. As it is, just a few days ago, six of ten volumes of that series were posted for download on the usenet. I have a hard time believing that so many individuals would have refused to buy the PDF at all.

More recently, Eden's Army of Darkness was discovered available on a p2p service, only a week after it was released. Presumably, it was one of the mere 30 copies sold, though they can't be sure since the watermarks weren't present. Over the few days after that discovery, they recorded over 100 downloads of the book. And considering the company victimized, I guess it is no surprise that there was no further effort to examine the data to see if any of those pirated downloads did manage to spawn additional sales.

Most recently has been the flood of Gencon 2005 and other recent releases posted on the usenet this past weekend. I've seen posts for Rifts Ultimate edition, Year's Best D20, a WFRP 2nd Edition book,  and several new WW books, including the latest edition of Mage, none of which are available in a PDF format, AFAIK.

I think the worst thing I've heard regarding piracy was a rumor that an RPGnow staffer has a wife heavily involved with file trading on an RPG channel on IRC. Unfortunately, try as hard as I might, no one would put a name to the accusation, so I certainly hope it was simply a groundless rumor.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Steel_Wind said:
			
		

> I know several guys who have every single 3e book ever printed on paper on .pdf.  They are hardcore gamers with significant disposable incomes and tote their gaming libraries around on laptops now.




Given the availability of the SRD, I find this weird.  But then, I like printed books.  

A low-income gamer I know bought a C&C PHB (ca $10) but normally she uses the SRD and old 2e materials, she can't afford $50 hardbacks.


----------



## francisca (Sep 5, 2005)

I work at a proverbial large, conservative, midwestern state university.  Part of my job is to nail people's heads to the floor who are illegally sharing protected IP.  It's a pretty big problem, as you can imagine.  Not only from a legal sense, but also from a sysadmin point of view, as we need to backup data stored on univeristy machines, etc...

Anyway, in my experience (and only mine, your mileage may vary), most of these jokers downloading mp3s, dvd rips, textbook scans, and RPG scans/pdfs are simply horders.  I've seen hundreds of gigs of stuff, all neatly sorted into folders, just sitting there.  Seriously, we sat down and figured out this one dude had over 2 years of movies and music to watch and listen to, if he listened for 12 hours a day, 5 days a week.  He had over 20G of RPG stuff as well.

Now, I have to wonder, to what purpose?  I think the "thrill" to these guys is the actual finding stuff, downloading it, and checking it off of a list.  I seriously doubt these guys have time to play RPGs because they spend so much time hunting around and catalogging what they have.  

So I'm dubious about two arguments: 
1) People download on a "try then buy" basis.  I don't think they have time to "try" out this stuff.
2) Lost sales.  Like I said, I don't think many of these jokers have time to read and play, so why would they buy it.

I really think most of the people with 10s or 100s of gigs of illegal RPG stuff are actually just packrats.  I really don't think they use it.  They just keep buying bigger drives, blank DVDs, and LTO drives to back up there collection, never having the chance to use 1% of it.  Guess the joke is on them.


----------



## Zappo (Sep 5, 2005)

hong said:
			
		

> To forestall the flames, I suggest we all speak like a pirate in piracy threads. What could be more appropriate? Yarrr!



Hong? Arrr! Long time no see, matey!


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

I just finished reading that other topic of piracy arguements...

it was like watching Wizard vs Wizard counterspell all day long!


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

> has this had a real impact on the profits or quality of materials produced for either Wizards or any other gaming companies?




 AS others have said, the impact on actual sales are probably minimal for big companies, but smaller companies feel it a lot more. 



> Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?




 It is for me, personally. I really HATE thieves. I mean, really, really HATE. 

 Taking something without paying for it, or worse still, taking something and making free copies of it available to everyone and anyone is, IMO, a serious character flaw. Anyone doing that is a criminal and should be punished to the full extent of the law. 

 Furthermore, I don't buy the argument that pirates don't think what they are doing is wrong. They know it’s wrong, they just also know that they can do it with a minimal chance of getting caught. It’s basic psychology. 

 Consider this:
You know driving in excess of the posted speed limit is wrong. Yet how many of you do it? Why do you do it? Because you think you can get away with it without getting caught. The idea that people police themselves is a fallacy. People will do whatever they think they can get away with. That's human nature.

 That’s why I have argued before that the only effective way to stop pirates is a clear and absolute threat of getting caught and punished.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Consider this:
> You know driving in excess of the posted speed limit is wrong.




Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily!  Driving _dangerously_ is wrong, driving fast is not neceessarily so.

It's certainly illegal, though.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

Hm, but are you stating wrong as in "factually incorrect" or as in "what mom and dad told us not to do"?


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Sep 5, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, is that related to gaming, is it a term to alienate or degrade someone? If my question seemed odd or offense, my apologies, it was not meant to be so in any way. Nor was it to enlighten/inform anyone of these facts. I figured piracy was a widely known and large enough problem as it, and especially to the educated folks of this forum, that i wouldn't be rattling anyone's nerves by posting this.




It's a term that means this poster knows that there are widely varying opinions on this subject, and more often than not this type of discussion ends up in locked threads.  

You're going to get 3 basic answers here (or anywhere you post this, probably):  1.  Yes, it hurts the industry and must be stopped.  2.  It might hurt the industry, but there's nothing you can really do to stop it.  3.  It doesn't hurt the industry at all so suck it up, power to the people, stick it to the man, and all that.

Good luck sorting through everything.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> You're going to get 3 basic answers here (or anywhere you post this, probably):  1.  Yes, it hurts the industry and must be stopped.  2.  It might hurt the industry, but there's nothing you can really do to stop it.  3.  It doesn't hurt the industry at all so suck it up, power to the people, stick it to the man, and all that.




Nah, you forgot the side-tangential semantics arguers: the "It's not technically theft because nobody loses anything" people vs. the "It is theft, whatever the legal term may be" people.  They crop up and have their own little argument alongside the actual argument, but nobody else cares.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> The vast majority of people who use p2p services to download media do not consider their activities theft; if they did, they wouldn't be doing so in the first place. You should hear the rationalizations that *real* thieves use to defend their activities and define them as anything but theft.



But why do you insist on using the words "theft" or "thieves", although they are completely inappropriate? Use "copyright infringement". This sloppy wording leaves the doors open for broadsides that have nothing to do with the core of the problem . The number of people who deny "copyright infringement" being illegal is actually pretty low on this board. The number or people who frown upon twisting the English language in order to prove a point is significantly higher .

As for the problem itself, I agree with the answers who state that companies who publish in pdf only have probably more problems with illegal downloads. Print publishers cater to a mostly different market with customers who often don't like pdf's, anyway.

Edit: I wanted to feed something to Morrus' meta-discussion .


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Nah, you forgot the side-tangential semantics arguers: the "It's not technically theft because nobody loses anything" people vs. the "It is theft, whatever the legal term may be" people.  They crop up and have their own little argument alongside the actual argument, but nobody else cares.




LOL!


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily! Driving dangerously is wrong, driving fast is not neceessarily so.
> 
> It's certainly illegal, though.




 Hmm… I see what you are saying, but I don’t completely agree. Driving faster than the posted speed limit is wrong _and_ dangerous. However, I’ll agree that most people don’t see it as dangerous. 

I still maintain that people will do things that they know are wrong, if they think they can get away with it. 

Psychological research shows that often, when people do things they know are wrong, they either engage in some sort of justification strategy such as: "These publishers and big companies make millions. They are ripping off the common man, I'm just like Robin Hood!"

 Or they disassociate themselves from the actual act. Experiments done using mirrors to heighten a person's self awareness show that when a person is highly self aware, they are less likely to engage in "wrong" behavior, because although a person might have high ethical standards, they can, and often do, ignore, justify, or equivocate their apparently dissonant behavior. By heightening their self-awareness, it becomes more difficult for them to justify their transgressions and ignore their own ethical standards. 

 Of course, they might also adjust their ethical standards to be more in line with their behavior. People who commit crimes habitually see their behavior as part of their personal self-concept. Committing criminal acts reaffirms their self-concept as someone who is smarter that the authorities, someone who can do whatever they want without worry about the law. So they keep engaging in reaffirming behaviors because that's who they are and what they do.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily!  Driving _dangerously_ is wrong, driving fast is not neceessarily so.
> 
> It's certainly illegal, though.




Often, driving at or below the speed limit is wrong.  Eg in the UK the motorway speed limit is 70 miles/hour, but normal traffic speed is ca 78 miles/hour.  If you were to drive at 70 miles/hour you would be going significantly slower than the general flow of traffic and posing an an appreciably increased danger to yourself and others.

I tend to think it's morally wrong to harm Bloodstone Press (eg) by downloading his work in .pdf without paying for it.  I am a bit agnostic as to whether downloading the latest Shania Twain single without paying for it is morally wrong - before they started offering reasonably priced music downloads I'd have said not, on balance, now I think it may be a teensy-weensy bit wrong, maybe 50 cents wrong.  Much less wrong than downloading Dungeon Master's Guide II or Van Helsing (the movie), though.  I am certain that downloading a 30 year old song that's not even 'legally' available is not morally wrong.  In fact the copyright law which forbids this is what's wrong.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> The number of people who deny "copyright infringement" being a criminal act is actually pretty low on this board.




I'll deny it - although it's being progressively criminalised, I don't think all copyright infringement is legally a crime, even in USA.  Certainly in UK it's not, it's a civil tort.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Oh, putting Dmitri Skylarov in jail was wrong, as was trying to jail DVD-Jon.  Much wronger than creating software to enable format-shifting of legally acquired works, which I'd say wasn't wrong at all.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press, I have a question for you.  Is it wrong for the Waynesboro TN PD to run a speed trap where they put a 30 mile limit on a clear four lane highway, and rake in thousands of dollars from people who don't slow down in time?  Or is this ok because it's done legally?


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'll deny it - although it's being progressively criminalised, I don't think all copyright infringement is legally a crime, even in USA.  Certainly in UK it's not, it's a civil tort.



Okay, I'll change it to "illegal" then. Using sloppy wording myself doesn't actually strengthen my point .


----------



## Sammael (Sep 5, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Bloodstone Press, I have a question for you.  Is it wrong for the Waynesboro TN PD to run a speed trap where they put a 30 mile limit on a clear four lane highway, and rake in thousands of dollars from people who don't slow down in time?  Or is this ok because it's done legally?



I was about to ask this as well, having experienced this both in TN (where I lived for 3 years) and in my home country of Serbia (where cops set up speed traps all the time, everywhere; a favorite is leaving the "construction ahead, speed limit 30 km/h" signs for YEARS after the construction was finished).


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

Simon said:
			
		

> I tend to think it's morally wrong to harm Bloodstone Press (eg) by downloading his work in .pdf without paying for it. I am a bit agnostic as to whether downloading the latest Shania Twain single without paying for it is morally wrong - before they started offering reasonably priced music downloads I'd have said not, on balance, now I think it may be a teensy-weensy bit wrong, maybe 50 cents wrong. Much less wrong than downloading Dungeon Master's Guide II or Van Helsing (the movie), though. I am certain that downloading a 30 year old song that's not even 'legally' available is not morally wrong. In fact the copyright law which forbids this is what's wrong




 See, these are justification strategies. You seem to be taking the profit margin and the wealth of the producer into account before you decide if its wrong or not. (though the Van Helsing movie doesn't seem to fit... I'd be curious to know why you think it would be more wrong to download a free copy of Van Helsing than  a Shania Twain song).

 On the one hand, it shows that you reason at a high level of morality (see Kholbergs theory of moral reasoning). But on the other, it shows that you have figured out a way to engage in behavior that you know is wrong while maintaining your highly ethical self-concept. 

 Although I like Kholberg's theory, and I would emphasize it if this were a political discussion, I have to take the other side of the argument here. Either downloading copyrighted material for free is wrong or its not. There can't be a middle ground, ethically speaking. 

 The only point that I would concede to you is your last one:


> I am certain that downloading a 30 year old song that's not even 'legally' available is not morally wrong. In fact the copyright law which forbids this is what's wrong




 Although it is still wrong to download such a song, I would agree with you that a lot of people find that to be an easy justification and in fact it is the fault of the copyright holders if they find their material being pirated. 

 Personally, there are songs that are only available in Europe that I would love to hear. In the past, I have been very tempted to download them from some P2P site, using the justification that "If it was available for me to buy in the US, I would. I'm only stealing because I have no other choice. “

 But then I realize that I DO have other choices:  
1. I could visit Europe and buy a bunch of music not available in the US. 
2. I could just live without it. 

 Ultimately, I chose choice #2. Thereby maintaining consistency between my behavior and my self-concept without relying on a psychological trick to fool myself.  

 However, I can fully understand how someone would find that line of reasoning acceptable, and as I said above, I agree with you that it is ultimately the fault of the copyright holder when people pirate material that is not available in any other avenue.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

Ah, but perhaps that is a psychological trick in and of itself.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

Simon said:
			
		

> Bloodstone Press, I have a question for you. Is it wrong for the Waynesboro TN PD to run a speed trap where they put a 30 mile limit on a clear four lane highway, and rake in thousands of dollars from people who don't slow down in time? Or is this ok because it's done legally?




 Yes, I would find that VERY wrong (and I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happened, since I live here in TN). 

 However. that question is treading dangerously close to politics and kholbergs theory, so I'll stop here. 

 I'm not saying that you should obey copyright laws because that's the law. I'm saying you should not download copyright material because it is morally wrong. Unfortunatlly, as i mentioned before, people don't do a good job policing themselves. So we need to enforce the law, since research shows that nothing causes people to obey like the clear threat of getting caught and punished. 

I wish we could live in a world where people always did the right thing without looking over their shoulder, but we don't.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 5, 2005)

Speaking of the RIAA.

_- I don't know what's wrong. We sued them, and they still won't buy our products!_


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 5, 2005)

*My Pirate Story*

I’d love to do a search of the various p2p networks to see if any SEP’s stuff is up there. I believe it must be, as I received a letter from a suspected pirate. Got this fan letter, corresponded with the individual over a few letters, and got curious as his address was not in the customer list at RPG Now. So I asked him where he got our stuff. He indicated a “friend” got it for him, as he didn’t have a credit card. I then offered to send coupons to his friend. Mr Fan wrote me back indicated he would let his friend know about his offer. I told him he didn’t need to as I had a list of customers from RPG Now and all I needed was a name.

Silence.

Just to verify my suspicions, I dropped him a line again, asking if his friend had received certain files that were being released due to one of our releases. His answer would have told me what I needed to know.

Silence. 

I have no proof, but I have strong circumstantial evidence that this guys is a very, very bad man. I would like to drop by his house and take his DVDs, then drop him a line telling him how much I enjoyed them.

You know, if you are going to steal from me, don’t drop me a line, even if you are gushing. 

Sigh.

I don’t know if we lost any sales, but I certainly am a tad p’oed regarding this.

Oh, and: Arrr, we should keel-haul the lubber. Send 'im to Davy Jones locker after he's walked the plank. Arrrr.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

> Ah, but perhaps that is a psychological trick in and of itself.




 Could be, but if you spend too much time thinking about stuff like that, you'll go crazy


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

While your passion towards these matters is certainly intense and perhaps personal to an extreme, violence is not the solution.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 5, 2005)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> I’d love to do a search of the various p2p networks to see if any SEP’s stuff is up there. I believe it must be, as I received a letter from a suspected pirate. Got this fan letter, corresponded with the individual over a few letters, and got curious as his address was not in the customer list at RPG Now. So I asked him where he got our stuff. He indicated a “friend” got it for him, as he didn’t have a credit card. I then offered to send coupons to his friend. Mr Fan wrote me back indicated he would let his friend know about his offer. I told him he didn’t need to as I had a list of customers from RPG Now and all I needed was a name.
> 
> Silence.
> 
> ...




Do all publishers have access to the RPGNow database? Including credit card info?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Do all publishers have access to the RPGNow database? Including credit card info?




Hardly.  They get a list of email addresses and names of those who purchased their product IF the person opted to allow their email address to be shown to the publisher.  That's all.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 5, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'll deny it - although it's being progressively criminalised, I don't think all copyright infringement is legally a crime, even in USA.  Certainly in UK it's not, it's a civil tort.




Criminal copyright infringement is certainly a crime, _and_ a civil tort, at least in the U.S. I believe that this is covered under the Berne Convention as well, to which the U.K. is a signatory.


----------



## Lazybones (Sep 5, 2005)

I think that making fun of the people who legitimately think that the system of copyright laws is "broken" doesn't help the debate. I will stipulate that copyright infringement of new releases is both wrong and illegal (obviously the former is a matter of opinion, the latter a matter of law). Given that 60+ million Americans engage in music infringement (I'd say that the number who have every DLed a copyrighted file runs into 70-80% of computer users, but that's just a guess), I think that this cannot be dismissed as merely a bunch of folks who just want something for nothing. 

My issue is with the corruption of the original intent of the Founders in the Constitution; copyright was seen as a grant of a temporary monopoly by the state to a producer of intellectual content to ensure that said producer of content could benefit from it (thus encouraging more production) before the results of said "intellectual property" were returned to the society via the public domain. IIRC, the original term of copyright was 14 years. 

Fastforward to today, where copyright is essentially a two-lifetime term (life +70, or inception +90 for a corporate-produced material). Folks are paying royalties on "happy birthday"; and if Disney and the other content industries keep getting their way, then movies will NEVER go into the public domain. The nature of the industry spawned by these changes is such that most copyrights end up the property of corporations, who would rather lock up their content for 100 years on the off chance of making a nickel off it someday than return it to the commons where others can benefit from it. 

If you haven't guessed, I have nothing but contempt for current copyright laws. I think that the current copyright regime is actually hostile to the creation of dynamic creative content and is rather the best regulation that money can buy from industries that are trying to hold onto an outdated production and distribution schema.  I do believe that authors/composers/filmmakers should be compensated for their efforts. But I don't think that creating something entitles you to a century plus of "owning" that idea.  After all, most of what we create anyway builds off of the ideas and labors of others. If it were up to me, I'd return copyright to its original 14 year term (okay, maybe a single 14 year extension, but you have to actively file for it and pay a small fee). And you know what? I'd bet dollars to donuts that this single action would cut down on 2/3rds of current piracy, as there would be a HUGE body of public work... music, movies, books, etc. that people could enjoy and benefit from.  I know the counterargument is that we do have such things (from the 19th century!) now; I do enjoy Project Gutenberg materials and public domain classical recordings, but I think that most such materials are inaccessible (in a cultural rather than physical sense) to folks of today's generation. Not so for music from the 1960s-1990s, for example.  

Nor do I think that a 14 year term will serve as a disincentive for the producers of intellectual creative property. Studies (sorry, no links, someone can correct me if they have hard data) have shown that something like 95% of the income derived from intellectual content comes from the first decade of sales, on average. Of course, the content _industries_ will fight for every last damned nickel. 

In any case, I think it's moot. Digital content and high-speed internet is here, it isn't going away, and no matter how many people the RIAA and MPAA sue, the old modes are in their death throes.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Hmm… I see what you are saying, but I don’t completely agree. Driving faster than the posted speed limit is wrong _and_ dangerous. However, I’ll agree that most people don’t see it as dangerous.




Nah, I can't agree with that, I'm afraid.  It _can_ be wrong and dangerous, but it's not necessarily so.  Even if I accepted that it was wrong, I'd still disagree that it was necessarily dangerous.  There are far too many factors involved - traffic speed, driving ability, the performance of the car itself, and the assumption that whoeever made the decision as to what the speed limit should be at a particular location had some bizarre way of determining what speed was safe and what was dangerous.

It's quite possible for someone driving over the speed limit ito be far safer than someone driving  at or below it.  There's no absolute.

Admittedly, I do do it simply because I enjoy it, which is no justification.  But I don't accept the premise that it is necessarily dangerous, and would further state that I believe, in some situations, that it is actually safer.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 5, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'll deny it - although it's being progressively criminalised, I don't think all copyright infringement is legally a crime, even in USA.  Certainly in UK it's not, it's a civil tort.




It is a crime in the USA, Canada and the UK by statute.

The fact that is it also tortious is not surprising; many crimes are also actionable civil wrongs.

.Robert (Barrister & Solicitor - LSUC)


----------



## Sledge (Sep 5, 2005)

Again I ask, why is it that none of the for pay PDFs look any different from the free ones?  The only time you can tell is when you have books that were hardcopy first.  If you're being a professional PDF publisher, make them look professional eh?
I have pdfs from RPGNow that look rather like someone tore a few pages out of their word file and uploaded it.  Now if I'm looking for homebrew stuff on a P2P network (I've got about 30-40 homebrew files) how am I supposed to even know your product is available for sale?


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

> If you haven't guessed, I have nothing but contempt for current copyright laws. I think that the current copyright regime is actually hostile to the creation of dynamic creative content and is rather the best regulation that money can buy from industries that are trying to hold onto an outdated production and distribution schema.




 Surprisingly, I tend to agree with you. I think copyright laws tend to inhibit creativity. However, I still think downloading something without paying for it is wrong. 



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Nah, I can't agree with that, I'm afraid. It can be wrong and dangerous, but it's not necessarily so.




 Fair enough. Maybe my analogy was a little off. 



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> But I don't accept the premise that it is necessarily dangerous, and would further state that I believe, in some situations, that it is actually safer.




 Sure, I can agree with that, I would just refer you to Simon's post above about posted speed limits


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> That’s why I have argued before that the only effective way to stop pirates is a clear and absolute threat of getting caught and punished.




Yeah, that's probably right. But I highly prefer the existance of piracy (granted, I have no losses, virtual or otherwise, from that) to whatever would be necessary to make this happen.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Morrus (Sep 5, 2005)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Again I ask, why is it that none of the for pay PDFs look any different from the free ones?  The only time you can tell is when you have books that were hardcopy first.




None of?  You're kidding, right?

There are PDF publishers out there who produce _extremely_ high quality documents, with better layout, editing, graphic design, etc. than many print publishers.  Plus the added bonus of hyperlinks, bookmarks and so forth. 

That's a broad brush you're waving around there!


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

To add here, the Iron Heroes PDF looks remarkably alike to the original pdf.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

Thanee said:
			
		

> Yeah, that's probably right. But I highly prefer the existance of piracy (granted, I have no losses, virtual or otherwise, from that) to whatever would be necessary to make this happen.




 As I mentioned recently in the private publisher forms over on RPGnow, the only real way to stop pirates is with a low-tech solution. DRM, passwords, and watermarks are NOT the answer. 

 The only thing that will work is people (agents, snoops, narks, whatever you want to call them) who troll around P2P sites looking for pirated material, then busting anyone who provides it to them. Using the same method of apprehension as law enforcement currently uses to catch child pornographers. 

 Any sort of techno-savvy method will not work because there are computer hacks out there who live to break code and "beat" security programs. 

 The only thing that will stop pirates is the fear that the person downloading their pirated material might be a cop who is eager to charge them with a crime.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

In that case, i recommend an alignment shift over, or at least take a Core/PrC class which grants Immunity to Fear, such as Dragonslayer or Paladin, for example.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> But then I realize that I DO have other choices:
> 1. I could visit Europe and buy a bunch of music not available in the US.
> 2. I could just live without it.




3. Buy it from an european online store, that ships worldwide.
4. Buy it on european eBay.
5. Find someone (trustworthy enough) who lives in europe and let that person buy it and send it to you.

I'm sure you have even more options! 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Yes, I would find that VERY wrong (and I wouldn't be surprised if that actually happened, since I live here in TN).
> .




Yeah, if you're ever going through Waynesboro, slow down well before you see the sign... it's set up on a downward slope with a slight curve, it's almost impossible to get under 30 in time AIR.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> He indicated a “friend” got it for him, as he didn’t have a credit card.




It was probably a very remote friend. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> On the one hand, it shows that you reason at a high level of morality (see Kholbergs theory of moral reasoning). But on the other, it shows that you have figured out a way to engage in behavior that you know is wrong while maintaining your highly ethical self-concept.




I'm glad to be clear we're discussing morality & not law.  I'm a Benthamite Utilitarian and a legal positivist, so I have no problem with the idea that a law can be immoral (being anti-utility); modern copyright law certainly fits that category.  I think the reason why it's bad to distribute & download unauthorised Bloodstone Press products is that it does more harm than good (eg it makes you unhappy!), whereas distributing & downloading a 30 year old song does no one any harm and does good to everyone who gets enjoyment from the song.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> I don't accept the premise that it is necessarily dangerous, and would further state that I believe, in some situations, that it is actually safer.



This means you don't agree that German motorways are much safer than those in the rest of the world ? j/k


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> DRM, passwords, and watermarks are NOT the answer.




Surely not.

What I hinted at is more going into the directions of 'big brother is watching you', but it would get too political to go deeper into that topic.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Criminal copyright infringement is certainly a crime.




Criminal _anything_ is a crime...


----------



## Sammael (Sep 5, 2005)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> I’d love to do a search of the various p2p networks to see if any SEP’s stuff is up there.



_Searching_ a p2p network is not illegal by any definition of the law, so I don't know what's stopping you.

I selected a couple of titles mentioned on your website and ran a search through two major p2p networks; it didn't yield any results. I don't know if this answer makes things better or worse for you. Needless to say, I didn't check the two other major sources of pirated stuff on the net, IRC and usenet, and if there are some specialized RPG p2p networks, I am unaware of them.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> This means you don't agree that German motorways are much safer than those in the rest of the world ? j/k




They have found a clever way to make our motorways safe! They put up construction sites every now and then, which drop the not very limited speed limit to 80 km/h or even 60 km/h or lower. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 5, 2005)

Just because it's a crime, doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because something is not right, doesn't make it wrong. In Sweden for example it's a crime to defend your home with a gun, with current laws. It's also a crime to download "warez", with current laws. However, the police don't care about this at all, because the public belive both laws are dumb. In fact, most people from Sweden think downloading a movie or so is more in the lines of importing more beer from Germany than you should, than a jailable offence - "Some people do it, good for them, hey can you burn this CD for me?". The public at large simply don't care at all, and screaming "wrong!" or "right!" or "of course it's wrong" or "everyone think it's wrong" is not going to change this.

There are no universal evils.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Lazybones - I agree we should go back to the 1710 Statute of Anne 14-year term (later adopted in the newly independent USA), extendable to 28 years on payment of a reasonable fee.  I would require registration of copyright also, at a nominal cost for the first 14 years (say $3).


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Sep 5, 2005)

Woo hoo!  I rolled a natural 20 on my will save!  I don't have to post anything meaningful (or not, for those of you who would disagree with me) on this thread!  

Argh, maties!


----------



## Thanee (Sep 5, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> _Searching_ a p2p network is not illegal by any definition of the law.




_Using_ one isn't illegal either. It's _what_ you download there, which makes the difference.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## S'mon (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that you should obey copyright laws because that's the law. I'm saying you should not download copyright material because it is morally wrong. .




Rereading this I realised a problem here - all "copyright" means is you aren't allowed to reproduce the work.  So this is a tautology.

My wife just told me my favourite pet fish died today.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 5, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> However, the police don't care about this at all, because the public belive both laws are dumb.



There are no dumb laws. They all make perfect sense . Here in Arizona, it's forbidden to shoot camels. I think that's a very reasonable law, given the importance of camels for the trade between regions. Or those laws that ban you from hanging male and female underwear on the same clothesline. Just think of the ecological consequences if that underwear proliferates in an uncontrolled way .


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 5, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that you should obey copyright laws because that's the law. I'm saying you should not download copyright material because it is morally wrong.




Are you saying downloading any copyrighted material is wrong? Then by all means stay away from the ENW front page and pretty much everything else on the Internet, because it's sure copyrighted, and when you view it you download it.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

> Just because it's a crime, doesn't mean it's wrong. Just because something is not right, doesn't make it wrong. ...
> There are no universal evils




 oooh, moral relativism rears it’s ugly head....  

  I mostly agree with you. I’ll agree that everything is relative. I'd just point out that if something is not right, it must be wrong, IMO.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 5, 2005)

> Are you saying downloading any copyrighted material is wrong? Then by all means stay away from the ENW front page and pretty much everything else on the Internet, because it's sure copyrighted, and when you view it you download it.




 Let me re-phrase. Taking something that is normally sold for profit without paying for it is wrong. 

 Certainly viewing a web page is not morally wrong (well, in certain circumstances it could be). 

 If I copied the ENW front page and reposted as my own work on my own URL, that would be wrong. 

  Although this is a very interesting conversation, I must now sign off and engage in some behavior that is legally a crime, but is morally pure.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 5, 2005)

Ah, and once again you find the idea that there are no black and whites, no safe harbors to seek shelter, disconcerting?  

Just curious...are your morals those born of upbringing, of religion, peer pressure, personal belief, or a combination of those? That does play a factor in your adamant stand against "evil"


----------



## Nifft (Sep 5, 2005)

*actual numbers?*

Does anyone have actual numbers about buying habits of people who use p2p networks? The RIAA can't get their number straight, the MPAA can't seem to find any either, so I guess this is a rhetorical question.

Why do publishers think that p2p networks are pure theft? Are they blind to the publicity? Or do they simply think the publicity is not worth the "theft"?

If publishers are able to acknowelge that "piracy" leads to both publicity and theft, why has no-one crunched the numbers to see how buying patterns are actually changed?


Given what I've seen in the software industry, the biggest beneficiaries of "piracy" have always been the largest producers of software -- Microsoft, IBM, etc. -- and the biggest losers have always been "shareware" developers. Free software (see penguin to left of post) is naturally immune. 


Anyway, my point is: can we please have some numbers about the actual economic impact before we decide if something is "evil" (or even merely "chaotic"  )?

No, I don't want to hear the number of "lost sales" (i.e. pirated versions) multiplied by MSRP. That's a form of self-delusion. I want to hear about buying habits.

Thanks, -- N


----------



## Ferrix (Sep 5, 2005)

Doubtful, except for perhaps a marginal dent in PDF sales.

There's no replacement for a good hardbound book at the gaming table.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 5, 2005)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> If you haven't guessed, I have nothing but contempt for current copyright laws. I think that the current copyright regime is actually hostile to the creation of dynamic creative content and is rather the best regulation that money can buy from industries that are trying to hold onto an outdated production and distribution schema.




You might have a point, except that under the current copyright regime, more creative material is being produced and made available to the public than at any previous point in history. Whether that is a result of tighter copyright laws is, of course, a subject of debate, but the emprical evidence is that the current copyright regime is quite friendly to the creation of new content.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

*A Case Study in Obedience and Morality*

So, I signed off the computer and went and ran some errands. 

 My first stop was to get some gas. My local convenience store had a new sign up on the pump that asked people to pay first before pumping their gas. So I went in, gave the guy a $10 and told him "I'm going to get $10 on #2." 

 He said "OK" took the $10 and turned the pump on. 

 I went out and started pumping gas. But the pump didn't stop at $10! It went on to almost $11 before I even noticed! And it kept running. I quickly realized I could just keep pumping gas for as long as I wanted, and as long as I didn't go back in to the store and tell the guy, I would easily get away with stealing a bunch of gas. 

 So what did I do? 

I pumped $1 more of gas (because I like round numbers). And I went back in, told the guy "The pump didn't stop on $10, so I pumped $2 more. Here." and I gave him another $2. 

 When I went back in, the guy wasn't even standing at the counter. Nor was he near a window. I could easily have pumped a full tank of gas and driven off without him knowing. But I didn't. 

Why? 

Because I wouldn't want someone to do that to me, and because it would be morally wrong. 

 But then I got in my truck and promptly started driving 60 MPH in a 50 MPH speed zone! 

Why? 

Because I know that out here in the country, there are hardly any cops around. 

 But then when I got close to town, where the speed limit drops to 40 MPH, I slowed down to exactly 40 MPH!! 

 Why?

 Because I know there are a lot more cops in town.

 See how that works? (fear of punishment) 

I bet most people reading this have similar driving habits. If you know there are cops around, you make sure you don’t speed, right?

But my question to everyone reading this thread is, would YOU have gone in and given that guy more money after accidentally pumping more gas than you had bought? Would you do the right thing when no one is looking, or would take the extra gas and run? (especially in these times)


----------



## Aust Diamondew (Sep 6, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> I really think most of the people with 10s or 100s of gigs of illegal RPG stuff are actually just packrats.  I really don't think they use it.  They just keep buying bigger drives, blank DVDs, and LTO drives to back up there collection, never having the chance to use 1% of it.  Guess the joke is on them.




I think you're probably right.  I have a friend has dled about 100 D&D related PDFs he never has used but 1 or 2 of them at all (excluding the 3 core rule books), the rest he glanced over when he got them and thats about it.


----------



## FraserRonald (Sep 6, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> _Searching_ a p2p network is not illegal by any definition of the law, so I don't know what's stopping you.




Nah, I just don't use them anymore. I admit that I did use p2p at one time (which got me hooked on Firefly and got me to buy the DVD collection), but not anymore. I just haven't bothered to download and install the various p2p software in order to do the search. Even if I found something, what would I do about it.



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> I selected a couple of titles mentioned on your website and ran a search through two major p2p networks; it didn't yield any results. I don't know if this answer makes things better or worse for you. Needless to say, I didn't check the two other major sources of pirated stuff on the net, IRC and usenet, and if there are some specialized RPG p2p networks, I am unaware of them.




Thanks, Sammael. I actually didn't expect I would find any of our products if I did search p2p, until the appearance of Mr. Fan (not his real name . . . or maybe it is . . . hmmmm).  Who knows how he and his "remote friend" (nice, Thanee) connect.

Thanks again. Take care.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> But why do you insist on using the words "theft" or "thieves", although they are completely inappropriate? Use "copyright infringement". This sloppy wording leaves the doors open for broadsides that have nothing to do with the core of the problem .




 I don't-- I try to be as precise (and neutral, generally) as possible on controversial discussions, and to me it is plainly obvious that there is a major difference between "theft" and "copyright infringement", regardless of the moral status of the latter.

 I was merely trying to bring some perspective to the argument, because someone who admits to having downloaded numerous illegal .pdfs (though he does say he no longer uses his old collection) expressed wonder at people "being so devoted to evil". 

 I'm still trying to wrap my head around the people who think that scanning a book into .pdf form and making it available for download is *worse* than stealing physical copies of it from the store. Once again, regardless of the morality of copyright infringement, I have to say that theft of a physical product is worse.



			
				Turjan said:
			
		

> As for the problem itself, I agree with the answers who state that companies who publish in pdf only have probably more problems with illegal downloads. Print publishers cater to a mostly different market with customers who often don't like pdf's, anyway.




I have to agree with this, as well-- when there are more download sources available than your customer list, it's hard to argue that you *haven't* lost sales, despite what some advocates of file-sharing might say. There's a big difference between a scanned image of a $30 book that sold thousands of copies, and an exact duplicate of a $5 pdf that fifteen people bought.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Christoph the Magus said:
			
		

> You're going to get 3 basic answers here (or anywhere you post this, probably):  ... 3.  It doesn't hurt the industry at all so suck it up, power to the people, stick it to the man, and all that.




You know, you can defend piracy without having to hold a "stick it to the man" mentality. Of course, there are plenty of people who *do* have this mentality, but there are also pirates who realize they wouldn't exist, and wouldn't have material to enjoy and share, without whatever industry they happen to be pirating from.

I saw a copy of a book once where the original scanner had added a section to the bookmarks asking people who saw the book and liked it to consider buying a legal copy, because of the fine work the designers and publishers did in creating it.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> I bet most people reading this have similar driving habits. If you know there are cops around, you make sure you don’t speed, right?




That's why I advocate increasing the criminal penalties for illegal file-sharing. Increasing to a degree that makes me a pariah among my loser, slacker, sense-of-entitlement friends.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Sep 6, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Anyway, my point is: can we please have some numbers about the actual economic impact




I'd posted about filesharing of Behemoth3's Maze of the Minotaur in a thread  at the Forge a while back:


> Like most RPG companies worth their salt, Behemoth3 has corporate espionage specialists on our payroll. Normally our spies get jobs that are both boring (sifting through Phil Reed's garbage) and futile (not only did we not discover the secret dietary formula that makes him so productive, we didn't even find proof that it exists). So our spies were very happy to be sent to infiltrate pirates' dens, even if the reality wasn't as swashbuckling as they'd hoped, and we were happy to be told that Maze of the Minotaur was being traded on P2P networks.




Insert here the mandatory statement that I don't condone piracy and think creators should be paid for their work; see the post for the reasons I thought filesharing was a good thing for a company in our position.

To satisfy Nifft's request, there was no discernible difference in sales between Minotaur and Stirges; in other words between the books that were and weren't available via filesharing networks (at least when our intern did the search). So, for us, piracy neither provided beneficial free advertising nor cut into sales; or perhaps these two effects canceled each other out.

To answer the original query, though, I think unauthorized sharing is potentially more serious for the RPG industry than it is for the music industry. Here's why:

Artists in the music industry have a revenue stream from live performances; the music-publishing end of what they do is, in many cases, a relatively small part of their income. In our file-sharing era, artists can afford to give up income from unauthorized sharing of their recordings, and treat it as advertising for their concerts. Since the RPG industry has traditionally relied entirely on publishing for income, we don't have this option. 

Behemoth3's new enterprise, Otherworld Excursions, is (among other things) about finding ways for the virtuosos of our art form to support themselves through live performance just as actors or musicians can; a great gaming session is definitely something you can't download from a P2P network!


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> See how that works? (fear of punishment)
> 
> I bet most people reading this have similar driving habits. If you know there are cops around, you make sure you don’t speed, right.)




That's a weird assertion. Just because there are laws against murder doesn't mean everyone will start killing people if the law and punishment disappear. If people drive faster than the speed limit that's because the speed limit is too low and should be raised.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> That's a weird assertion. Just because there are laws against murder doesn't mean everyone will start killing people if the law and punishment disappear.




Howe about stealing?


----------



## Shadowslayer (Sep 6, 2005)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> Artists in the music industry have a revenue stream from live performances; the music-publishing end of what they do is, in many cases, a relatively small part of their income. In our file-sharing era, artists can afford to give up income from unauthorized sharing of their recordings, and treat it as advertising for their concerts.




Well, there's a helluva lot more people behind the production of music than just the artist.  Its the_ record companies_ losing money with file sharing. But I guess the idea of taking food out of the record company's mouth feels more tasteful than taking it out of the artist's mouth. Even though, either way, its the same thing...food's getting taken from someone.

Anyway, I'd say piracy IS an issue for game develpers. Your hard work is getting circulated around for free when you should be getting paid for it. I'm sorry, how is that right? I've written a small book myself (non RPG) and I know if some  scanned my work and started handing it out for free to anyone that wanted it, I'd want him strung up. I don't know how anyone can defend this as being right in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Howe about stealing?




That's not something 10%+ of the population do on a regular basis (even higher for speeding).


----------



## Christoph the Magus (Sep 6, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Nah, you forgot the side-tangential semantics arguers: the "It's not technically theft because nobody loses anything" people vs. the "It is theft, whatever the legal term may be" people.  They crop up and have their own little argument alongside the actual argument, but nobody else cares.




Ahhh!  You're right!  How silly of me to forget that one!


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> Anyway, I'd say piracy IS an issue for game develpers. Your hard work is getting circulated around for free when you should be getting paid for it. I'm sorry, how is that right? I've written a small book myself (non RPG) and I know if some  scanned my work and started handing it out for free to anyone that wanted it, I'd want him strung up. I don't know how anyone can defend this as being right in any way, shape or form.




You don't have an inborn right to get paid for anything. I have (soon) a degree in computer science, where's my inborn right to get a job? More importantly, where's my right to get the job someone without a degree can get without paying a dime for education? There is no such right, even if you think it would be cool if that were the case.

You _do_ have the right to control your work though, but the two are not the same thing.


----------



## Feathercircle (Sep 6, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> I
> 
> So I'm dubious about two arguments:
> 1) People download on a "try then buy" basis.  I don't think they have time to "try" out this stuff.
> ...




As I said, I know I'm atypical- I've got maybe a dozen .pdfs, plus .rtfs of selected bits of the SRD.  If anyone has any solution to the "try before you buy" problem my middle-of-nowhere location gives me that doesn't require me to rely on my friend with the huge .pdf hoard, I'd be glad to hear it.  Anyway, I should probably stay the hell off of this topic from this point on, as I'm rather averse to getting caught in the crossfire that this kind of thread can generate.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> I don't know how anyone can defend this as being right in any way, shape or form.




That's a very serious limitation. You don't have to agree with someone's arguments in order to understand them.

I think the main argument for justifying copyright infringement (as opposed to legal filesharing) is based on the idea that information and ideas are not things that a person or an organization can *own*. You don't lose information when you give it to someone else, and the more people who have a certain piece of information, the more useful that information is-- especially if it's cultural information like fiction or games.

Since the most natural thing to do with information is to disseminate it, and since it becomes more useful the more people are exposed to it, then helping people to find information and providing it to them at no charge is the most moral and justifiable thing to do with that information.

I'm not taking sides in this argument, because I'm personally torn; while I believe whole-heartedly in the above statements, I also know that authors and designers both *need* and *deserve* to be paid for their efforts. I don't know how to reconcile these conflicting values.

The only reason I'm posting this at all is to remind people that there *are* two sides to this issue, no matter how much we believe that our side is correct. There is no such thing as a one-sided issue.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> That's a weird assertion. Just because there are laws against murder doesn't mean everyone will start killing people if the law and punishment disappear. If people drive faster than the speed limit that's because the speed limit is too low and should be raised.




 i've been waiting for someone to bring up murder. There's a reason I used speeding and not murder in my analogy. The psychology of killing is a whole seperate can of worms from what we are talking about. Indeed, its the subject of a new Chapter in my up-coming  Book of Broken Dreams revision. 

[shameless plug] Anyone who buys the antiquated, original version of the Book of Broken Dreams now (for only $5) will get a free copy of the revised version, which will include a new chapter on mobs, group dynamics and crowds as well as a new chapter on the psychology of killing. this revised version will sell for $7 (because of the two new Chapters)
 so, buy now, save $2 and pick up a great gaming sourcebook, no matter what system you play.
[/shameless plug]

 For now I'll refrain from an essay on the psychology of killing and say only that it is very different than what we are talking about here (for reasons cited in my post in the other thread). There are other things that keep you from killing besides laws and morals.


----------



## Shadowslayer (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> You don't have an inborn right to get paid for anything. I have (soon) a degree in computer science, where's my inborn right to get a job? More importantly, where's my right to get the job someone without a degree can get without paying a dime for education? There is no such right, even if you think it would be cool if that were the case.
> 
> You _do_ have the right to control your work though, but the two are not the same thing.




Inborn rights? Who's talking about that?  I'm talking about control of my work. You summed it up yourself in the last sentence.

I reiterate: if some self righteous dork (hopefully this will pass the smiley filter) scanned my work and started handing it out for free to anyone that wanted it, I'd want him strung up.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Sep 6, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> Anyway, in my experience (and only mine, your mileage may vary), most of these jokers downloading mp3s, dvd rips, textbook scans, and RPG scans/pdfs are simply horders.




From one University sysadmin to another, I agree with you 100 percent that the vast majority of these guys are just hoarding stuff. Just an observation from my experience; I am certainly not advocating the behaviour.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 6, 2005)

> I think the main argument for justifying copyright infringement (as opposed to legal filesharing) is based on the idea that information and ideas are not things that a person or an organization can own.




And the main counterargument is that very few people today produce decent quality intellectual property without expecting compensation.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And the main counterargument is that very few people today produce decent quality intellectual property without expecting compensation.




Yes. It's a difficult issue, especially since people producing quality intellectual property *deserve* compensation.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 6, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> And the main counterargument is that very few people today produce decent quality intellectual property without expecting compensation.




My avatar would disagree with you. 

 -- N


----------



## Heretic Apostate (Sep 6, 2005)

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> But I guess the idea of taking food out of the record company's mouth feels more tasteful than




I would have more objection to pirating music and videos if every effort wasn't made by the publishers to limit my useage of something I just spent a lot of money on.  All their efforts at copy protection are less about stopping piracy and more about restricting the options of the honest consumer.  Toss in their incessant whining about "piracy is costing us sales," and I've lost all sympathy for the industry.


----------



## Staffan (Sep 6, 2005)

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> Well, there's a helluva lot more people behind the production of music than just the artist.  Its the_ record companies_ losing money with file sharing.



The record companies aren't exactly hurting. EMI, for example, made $260 million in profit last year.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

I find it amazing how much pseudo-intellectual crud and rationalization gets tossed around as a smoke screen regarding illegal file sharing. If anyone can make  up on the fly in order to justify their behavior is the self-superior, entitlement-minded, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social individual who is just educated enough to twist ethics and moral philosophy into self-serving knots.

I can get nearly every available RPing game book from P2P networks but I don't because 1.) I prefer hard copy with pretty graphics and 2.) It is wrong if you intend on making use of the materials your download ie. if you couldn't download it you would be a customer.

I used to be a file sharer years ago when it first got started with napster. I discovered sharman networks kazaa and downloaded everything I could get my hands on. This included RPG books. I thought it was the most amazing thing in the world. Free stuff is a pretty powerful temptation.

What I came to realize, after I could no longer rationalize the fact that I was using something I didn't pay for, is that morally and ethically I should pay for whatever I was actually getting value from. I now have a huge collection of hard and softcover books....50% of which were once only digital files on my computer.

However, by the same token, I don't believe that file sharing actually hurts the industry big boys too much. I say this because I knew folks who had gigs of RPing materials downloaded and you know what they did with most of it......absolutely nothing. About 95% of the files took up space and nothing more and they new they would be unlikely to ever use most of the stuff they downloaded. 

These folks would never have bought what they downloaded except maybe 5% of the time.....maybe that's too high an estimate. Actually these pirates would never have been customers because they would never have purchased the materials they were collecting. Most of the pirates I knew were merely cheapskate collectors who would relish having huge collections of materials they could look at and read over once or twice before forgetting about it.

I do believe that if you can honestly say that if the P2P networks were unavailable you would have bought the item you downloaded or you know that you are going to use the material then you should *PAY FOR IT*. The last thing I downloaded was Unearthed Arcana in order to look it over. After I found that I could get some use out of this book I bought it. I see nothing wrong with auditioning a book before purchasing it, that seems fair to me but to use it without paying for it is the same as walking into a local gaming store and walking out with the book.

I have a stake in this because within the next year to year and a half I am getting into the PDF publishing market. If folks were using P2P to sample what I am offering in order to see whether or not it fits them as a DM or Player, that's fine by me. If you are downloading something I have spent many hours working on and are going to use it on your game or in your product (if its OGC) I find that tantamount to stealing from me because your are benefitting from my work without paying me.

Anyone who thinks they are sticking it to the man by downloading what that would have otherwise purchased is self-deluded, all they are doing is denying me just compensation for my work and the hard work of other small to medium sized PDF publishers who rely on this income to pay bills, eat, feed their children, pay for gas, clothing, etc. Its the little guy who can't afford lost sales that you are screwing when you take what you are in no way entitled to. 

There aren't enough pirates out there to really hurt WoTC.


Chris


----------



## Sledge (Sep 6, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> None of?  You're kidding, right?
> There are PDF publishers out there who produce _extremely_ high quality documents, with better layout, editing, graphic design, etc. than many print publishers.  Plus the added bonus of hyperlinks, bookmarks and so forth.
> That's a broad brush you're waving around there!




There are indeed some high quality publishers, but the problem is that even these aren't really much better than some free pdfs.  Having a pretty border does not make you look like it's for pay.  For starters, I would suggest a price tag.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> If anyone can make  up on the fly in order to justify their behavior is the self-superior, entitlement-minded, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social geek who is just educated enough to twist ethics and moral philosophy into self-serving knots.




I love you too, pumpkin. 

I could say all the same things about the "self-superior, entitlement-minded, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social" arguments being put forth by people that are trying to stop the sharing of copyrighted materials-- after all, it's awfully hard to make any claims of rational thinking when you can't tell the difference between online copyright infringement and shoplifting.

Not to mention, of course, that their arguments are motivated chiefly by their desire for us to give them money, and their claims that they deserve that money.

Don't get me wrong-- I don't believe that the people trying to make an honest buck off of their hard work are "entitlement-minded, pseudo-intellectual, (and) anti-social"-- they're dedicated professionals in a rough business, producing material that I enjoy, and I respect them. They *do* deserve money, and we should pay them for their work-- but neither you nor they can convince *anybody* of these facts with the holier-than-thou attitude that you and many others are adopting.

The people who are going to buy your products are going to buy them, and the people who are going to download them are going to download them; if you want more of the former, you have to make better products at better prices and do a better job of convincing people that you're the kind of person they want to spend their money on. The more energy you spend on railing against p2p and insulting pirates-- at least some of whom are also customers-- the less energy you have for the first two tasks, and the less you succeed at the third.

That's three advantages the gaming industry has over the recording industry, right there-- I think most people and most companies do a damn fine job, and I'm only too happy to buy as much of this material as I can.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Anyone who thinks they are sticking it to the man by downloading what that would have otherwise purchased is self-deluded ...




Here, I've got to agree with you-- and I have to really wonder about people who enjoy "the Man's" roleplaying games but still feel the need to "stick it to him". If they didn't enjoy the products, why don't they go play something else? If they do enjoy the products... then what the hell is their problem?

I mean, really.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> I'd just point out that if something is not right, it must be wrong, IMO.




Most things - most activities, even - are morally neutral, IMO.  I think it's important to distinguish between good, neutral & bad actions.


----------



## eyebeams (Sep 6, 2005)

The small scale and margins of RPG publishing mean that piracy has the potential to be much more damaging than for music and film. One lost sale out of 1000 or 100 is a lot bigger problem than 1 out of 100,000 or 1 million.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> I could say all the same things about the "self-superior, entitlement-minded, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social" arguments being put forth by people that are trying to stop the sharing of copyrighted materials-- after all, it's awfully hard to make any claims of rational thinking when you can't tell the difference between online copyright infringement and shoplifting.




Well if you can explain to me the ethical/moral difference between shoplifting what you should be paying for and downloading that which you should be paying for.....I may be more amenable to your position.

What right do you or anyone else have to take for free what another asks fair compensation for? You don't like the pricing, don't buy the book. There is no industry in the world where if you disagree with the pricing you get to take what you want. This isn't like there is a cure for cancer in game books that desperate role-players *NEED* to survive and evil developers are charging too much. No, you want, not need, the book you take. There is no need, no right or entitlement to it so therefore you have no intrinsic right to the information contained therein if the item's creator asks for a certain sum for use of said information.

If we were discussing food, clothing, medicine, I would see an argument here. To think that somehow a pirate has any  ethical standing is indicative of an attitude of entitlement to take whatever you want even without paying for it. Please tell me where you or any other human being is entitled to take what is desired as opposed to what is desperately needed to survive.



> Not to mention, of course, that their arguments are motivated chiefly by their desire for us to give them money, and their claims that they deserve that money.




Yeah and those nasty computer makers want you to pay for your laptop, the car companies want you to pay for your car...bad, bad, bad, The wicked, wicked bookstores want you to pay for the books you are going to read...evil. How do you expect folks to keep creating things if they can't earn a decent wage via their efforts. The price they ask is theirs to set and if you don't like it wait to get it second hand or don't get it at all.

Jesus you can't possibly believe that there is no ethical problem with this. I think a course in ethics or an understanding of the Golden Rule is in order for those that believe that theft is justifiable simply because its digital as opposed to physical.


Chris


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Well if you can explain to me the ethical/moral difference between shoplifting what you should be paying for and downloading that which you should be paying for.....I may be more amenable to your position.




Taking an item off a shelf transfers the item from one person to another.  Downloading creates a new good.  All else being equal, the first is econoically neutral - nothing is created or destroyed - while the second is economically good, a new thing is created.  Thus the transfer of information actually involves creation, whereas the transfer of a physical item does not.  Copying/downloading is thus in economic & utility terms _a good thing in itself_ whereas acquiring of a physical good is not necessarily.  Thus unauthorised taking of physical property is much more unequivocally wrong than is unauthorised access to information or unauthorised reproduction of information.  NB the USA did not fully protect other countries' copyrights until the late 1980s (Berne Convention), and not at all before the 1950s (Universal Copyright Convention).  Prior to the 1950s the view in the USA was that it was preferable to allow free reproduction of other countries' copyright works, what is now called piracy.  Only when the US became a net exporter of copyright works did the view change.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Well if you can explain to me the ethical/moral difference between shoplifting what you should be paying for and downloading that which you should be paying for.....I may be more amenable to your position.




No, you won't-- because I've already explained the difference and you've already made up your mind.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> What right do you or anyone else have to take for free what another asks fair compensation for? You don't like the pricing, don't buy the book.




Do you still not understand the difference between *taking* an object and *copying* the information contained within that object?

If a copy of, say, Plato's Republic magically vanished every time I downloaded a copy, you might have a point. However, as long as filesharing involves *copying* material, neither I nor anyone else is taking anything from anyone else.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> This isn't like there is a cure for cancer in game books that desperate role-players *NEED* to survive and evil developers are charging too much.




So... at the same time you're telling me that it's wrong for me to *not steal* from the gaming industry, you're telling me that it's perfectly acceptable for me to *actually steal* from the pharmaceutical industry, as long as I "need" whatever they're selling?

Now, if you want your analogy to actually *work*, you could argue with me whether or not it is ethical for me to copy the formulae of patented pharmaceuticals and make them available to all comers for free. Pharmaceuticals, after all, are even more expensive than roleplaying books, people actually *need* them... and they're generally cheaper to produce.

Don't those hard-working researchers deserve to be compensated for their work, too, though? Or does that only apply to industries you're planning on making money off of?

You don't have any moral authority to lecture me on ethics.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> There is no need, no right or entitlement to it so therefore you have no intrinsic right to the information contained therein if the item's creator asks for a certain sum for use of said information.




At least you're finally acknowledging the difference between a book and the information contained within that book.

Now, if you could explain to me how it is possible to "own" something that can be freely reproduced, we can start to debate this intelligently.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> To think that somehow a pirate has any  ethical standing is indicative of an attitude of entitlement to take whatever you want even without paying for it. Please tell me where you or any other human being is entitled to take what is desired as opposed to what is desperately needed to survive.




I'm not going to keep reminding you that I'm not taking anything-- you'll either get it or you won't.

But I am curious as to what makes you think that human beings have a right to take food, medicine, and clothing from the people who worked hard to produce them-- especially since, unlike when you download a copy of a book, you've actually deprived them of something. You've *stolen* something from them.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The wicked, wicked bookstores want you to pay for the books you are going to read...evil.




Actually, most of the bookstores I frequent are perfectly happy to let me read any book I please without paying for it. They don't make me pay for them unless I damage them or try to leave with them-- you know, if what I'm doing is going to remove a copy from their possession.

Oh my god! Your local public library is nothing but a den of pirates! People go in and read books all the time without paying for them and the staff *encourages* it! They even have *copy machines* installed for the pirates' convenience!



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> How do you expect folks to keep creating things if they can't earn a decent wage via their efforts. The price they ask is theirs to set and if you don't like it wait to get it second hand or don't get it at all.




So... if we're talking about the designers getting a decent wage for their work, why is buying things secondhand okay? If I buy a $30 book in a store, I can be assured that the designers, the publisher, the artists _et al_ are going to see some of that money.

If I buy it off eBay, they don't see another dime. They get the same amount of money as if I'd just downloaded it in the first place.

So... uh... what's your point, again?



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Jesus you can't possibly believe that there is no ethical problem with this. I think a course in ethics or an understanding of the Golden Rule is in order for those that believe that theft is justifiable simply because its digital as opposed to physical




I can and I do. I'm still struggling with how you can justify real theft in one breath, and then condemn copying because it's somehow "theft"-- and so far, my ethics are looking a lot more logically sound than yours.

I've already addressed your hypocrisy in trying to lecture me on ethics-- and if I remember it right, the Golden Rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I've never had anything published for money, but I sure have made a lot of my work available for others to download-- right here, as a matter of fact. And if I ever was published for money, I would expect and approve of other people making it available for free download-- though I'd most likely be contractually obligated not to do so myself.

I'm not going to convince you that copying books is right-- or even that it is acceptable-- but you should really consider taking a deep breath and regaining a sense of perspective before attempting to argue about it. You can argue that filesharing is wrong without mislabelling it "theft" and without adopting a disrespectful tone.

You'd probably be a lot more convincing if you did so.


----------



## philreed (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> And if I ever was published for money, I would expect and approve of other people making it available for free download-- though I'd most likely be contractually obligated not to do so myself.




Are you willing to work at your job for free for the rest of your life?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> NB the USA did not fully protect other countries' copyrights until the late 1980s (Berne Convention), and not at all before the 1950s (Universal Copyright Convention).  Prior to the 1950s the view in the USA was that it was preferable to allow free reproduction of other countries' copyright works, what is now called piracy.  Only when the US became a net exporter of copyright works did the view change.




Actually, the problem in the U.S. was that there were serious Constitutional questions concerning whather Congress had the power to extend copyright protection to foreign made works (due to the language of the copyright clause of the Constitution). The U.S. was a net exporter of copyrighted material long before the laws were changed.


----------



## silvermane (Sep 6, 2005)

> It is wrong if you intend on making use of the materials your download ie. if you couldn't download it you would be a customer.




What if you don't make use of the materials you download? Is that wrong also? Someone wants to defend the "hoarders" on that issue?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Now, if you could explain to me how it is possible to "own" something that can be freely reproduced, we can start to debate this intelligently.




Because "ownership" is a legally defined state of being. "Property" is a legally defined bundle of rights with respect to something. In the case of intellectual property, it is the legally defined right to (among other things) control the reproduction of a certain expression of authorship for a set period of time. That is how it is possible to own something that can be reproduced (although not "freely" as you claim). It is a legally defined relationship, as are _all_ property rights, of any kind.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

philreed said:
			
		

> Are you willing to work at your job for free for the rest of your life?




I'd be happy just to have a job I could do for free. And yes, if I knew my bills were going to be covered, I would work for free. And happily.

I know that, for a lot of you guys, this is *how* you pay your bills-- you don't have the option of working for free, even if you wanted to.

I don't *expect* you to work for free. I buy books-- as much as I can. I encourage other people to buy books, and I've talked a couple of people into buying PDFs from RPGNow. Unlike most people who buy their books in the store, I actually give a damn whether or not you guys get paid; I don't run around, like pirate and non-pirate alike, bitching about how "evil" the industry is and how you're all a bunch of money-grubbing, blood-sucking corporate whores.

And don't tell me the only people with that attitude are pirates; we both know better.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm torn between my belief that spreading information freely is a moral good and the fact that you guys do good work and deserve to be paid for it. So far, the best solution I've found is to buy what I can and to avoid sharing anything that's only available online-- since they need every sale they can get.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Because "ownership" is a legally defined state of being. "Property" is a legally defined bundle of rights with respect to something.




I am not arguing the legal definition of "property" or "ownership"; I know that, in this country at least, both downloading and uploading copyrighted materials is illegal, and I am making no attempt to dispute that.

"Property" and "ownership" have moral definitions as well-- and that is all I am addressing in this argument.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> That is how it is possible to own something that can be reproduced (although not "freely" as you claim).




What do you mean by "not freely"? I'm curious.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It is a legally defined relationship, as are _all_ property rights, of any kind.




This is somewhat disingenuous on your part-- if ownership and property were purely legal concepts, noone would complain when deprived of either lawfully. There is enough outrage at taxation and property forfeiture to indicate that there are clearly moral definitions of these concepts as well.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> I bet most people reading this have similar driving habits. If you know there are cops around, you make sure you don’t speed, right?



At the risk of getting self-righteous myself...

I don't speed in towns or built-up areas, not because of the danger of being caught and fined, but because the thought of running over some 5-year-old who jumps out from behind a parked car scares the crap out of me, and if a little kid ever did decide to do that, I want a reasonable chance of stopping in time. The law has nothing whatsoever to do with it, other than the lawmakers and I agree on exactly why you shouldn't drive like an idiot in a suburban street. The speed limit is there for a reason.

Sense of perspective regarding dead child vs. lost profit aside, I can also see why copyright laws exist. The law is not, I believe, a favour granted to corporate fat-cats by legislative whores. I happen to think that the protection of IP is important, and those who try to make a living by creating it should be protected.

My experience of software pirates and rampant file sharers is a simple one. They cannot be persuaded of the rights and wrongs of what they're doing, and have zero interest in arguing them. They're not interested in changing their ways. They're not scared of being caught, and only a small (very small) percentage of them would actually have purchased the thing they downloaded. In this industry, that small percentage of people can obviously represent a relatively high percentage of total potential sales for a gaming product so logically, piracy must be considered a serious issue.


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm torn between my belief that spreading information freely is a moral good and the fact that you guys do good work and deserve to be paid for it. So far, the best solution I've found is to buy what I can and to avoid sharing anything that's only available online-- since they need every sale they can get.



That's quite a moral judgement you're making there. Phil's PDF's should not be made freely available because you know he tries to make a living from them... do you apply the same diligence to other 'information' you're propagating? Surely it should be up to the creator of a work to decide whether it should be freely distributed, rather than you?

Edit: I'm inferring that you're a file sharer from your comments in the quoted post.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> ]Do you still not understand the difference between *taking* an object and *copying* the information contained within that object?



 I do, and there is none for all practical purposes when the item in question only exists digitally. The wrong isn't in the taking, but in the negative impact the taking/copying has on the creator of said book ie. they do not benefit from the work they put forth. 



> If a copy of, say, Plato's Republic magically vanished every time I downloaded a copy, you might have a point. However, as long as filesharing involves *copying* material, neither I nor anyone else is taking anything from anyone else.




You are rather slickly seperating the act of taking with the impact of the act of taking. There is no no net loss in data when something is downloaded in fact, there is gain, however the gain for you the taker, who is not in any way entitled to what you have taken, and the creator, who is entitled by any rational standard to be paid for the work created.





> So... at the same time you're telling me that it's wrong for me to *not steal* from the gaming industry, you're telling me that it's perfectly acceptable for me to *actually steal* from the pharmaceutical industry, as long as I "need" whatever they're selling?
> 
> Now, if you want your analogy to actually *work*, you could argue with me whether or not it is ethical for me to copy the formulae of patented pharmaceuticals and make them available to all comers for free. Pharmaceuticals, after all, are even more expensive than roleplaying books, people actually *need* them... and they're generally cheaper to produce.
> 
> Don't those hard-working researchers deserve to be compensated for their work, too, though? Or does that only apply to industries you're planning on making money off of?




More pirate BS here. Anyone who can conflate these two issues has real problems. I am not saying that it's ok to take anything from the pharmaceutical companies, I am saying that someone can make a sound argument that in the case of the necessities of life that the right to life trumps the right to compensation. 

Don't spin this into something that it isn't. Life and death ethical decisions are 1000 magnitudes more ethically grey than someone downloading what he has no actual need for just because they think they can get their hands on some kewl new PrCs or spells. There is a vast moral difference between stealing to preserve live and stealing to buff your PC or assist your campaign. 

You know this as well as I do and to claim otherwise is idiotic.



> You don't have any moral authority to lecture me on ethics.




I have every right because you are presenting yourself as someone who confuses rationalization and entitlement with ethical behavior. If your wouldn't be judged don't put your thoughts on the internet to be viewed. That way your could keep your limited ethical understanding to yourself and no one would judge you.




> Now, if you could explain to me how it is possible to "own" something that can be freely reproduced, we can start to debate this intelligently.




Well I guess that removes ownership from anything that anyone can xerox, scan, copy, etc. basically no one can claim ownership even of hard copy books and the ideas therein because one can always scan it or a piece of art or anything at all that would fit on a scanner. More BS.



> But I am curious as to what makes you think that human beings have a right to take food, medicine, and clothing from the people who worked hard to produce them-- especially since, unlike when you download a copy of a book, you've actually deprived them of something. You've *stolen* something from them.




This is adressed above. Conflating issues of life and death or suffering and non-suffering with the piracy of RPing game PDF is smoke screen for the lack of a sound ethical argument. 





> Actually, most of the bookstores I frequent are perfectly happy to let me read any book I please without paying for it. They don't make me pay for them unless I damage them or try to leave with them-- you know, if what I'm doing is going to remove a copy from their possession.




I said in my previous post that there is nothing wrong with downloading something to see what its about. If you decide its right for you, you pay for it, if you find its not you don't and you erase the file. This isn't anywhere near as complicated as you make it out to be.



> So... if we're talking about the designers getting a decent wage for their work, why is buying things secondhand okay? If I buy a $30 book in a store, I can be assured that the designers, the publisher, the artists _et al_ are going to see some of that money.




Someone bought the book in the first place thereby benefitting the creator of said book. The owner may no longer have a need for the book and wants to recoup some of the loss on ebay or whatever. There is no ethical dilemma here, its merely an issue of ownership and the right of the individual who bought the book to keep or sell the book as he or she sees fit. 

The legitimate buyer has the right to resell whatever they have purchased. There is no moral dilemma here. The rights of ownership in this case trump the original rights of the creator of the product because they no longer own it and have no say as to its final destination. Reproducing the product and selling 2000 of them for 33% of retail value is immoral and unethical because all you have a right to sell is the copy you legitimately purchased.



> I've already addressed your hypocrisy in trying to lecture me on ethics-- and if I remember it right, the Golden Rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".




Wow, you can corrupt any ethical position can't you? The golden rule in regards to this issue is....*Would you want someone to take something of yours they didn't pay for and share it with hundreds or thousands of others who also refuse to pay for it when you rely on the income from your creativity to pay your bills?* No Robin Hood....you would not. The golden rule doesn't mean I shouldn't point out the rationalizations for theft that you are offering up as sound ethical arguments.



> I've never had anything published for money, but I sure have made a lot of my work available for others to download-- right here, as a matter of fact. And if I ever was published for money, I would expect and approve of other people making it available for free download-- though I'd most likely be contractually obligated not to do so myself.




Good for you....this is your choice.....*your choice*.....you cannot expect others to make the same choices with materials of their creation.


Chris


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> That's quite a moral judgement you're making there. Phil's PDF's should not be made freely available because you know he tries to make a living from them... do you apply the same diligence to other 'information' you're propagating?




The vast majority of what I share is out-of-print and unavailable for first-hand sale. The rest of it is from companies I couldn't hurt if I *tried* and usually quite comfortably outside of its primary sale cycle-- if it wasn't free and/or public domain in the first place.

I try to give publishers as much room as possible to make their money.



			
				wedgeski said:
			
		

> Surely it should be up to the creator of a work to decide whether it should be freely distributed, rather than you?




Since I don't own a scanner, that decision is made before I get anywhere near it. I only decide whether or not I will be complicit. Really, my moral judgement isn't good for much, since everything I've decided not to share is still readily available from others.

And, no, I do not think it should be up to the creator; it rarely is, anyway, since most creators assign those rights to a third party before publishing. People should have the right to protect their private, confidential information; once you sell something for publishing (or publish it yourself), you've placed it into the public sphere.

It's irrational to speak of having the right to prevent the inevitable.



			
				wedgeski said:
			
		

> Edit: I'm inferring that you're a file sharer from your comments in the quoted post.




I'd as much as admitted it already, though I probably shouldn't have.


----------



## Lazybones (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You might have a point, except that under the current copyright regime, more creative material is being produced and made available to the public than at any previous point in history. Whether that is a result of tighter copyright laws is, of course, a subject of debate, but the emprical evidence is that the current copyright regime is quite friendly to the creation of new content.



Well, I'd suggest that bigger factors are a much larger population, mass education, technology (facilitating the much greater distribution of content... how many hit songs were released prior to the phonograph and radio?), and more leisure time. So I wouldn't agree that the evidence supports the idea that current copyright laws are the key factor. Actually, I think that the current monopolies on distribution by the media companies make it harder to break into the industry. I think when (not if) that monopoly is broken, then there will be fewer "huge hits," but many, many more small-scale producers making less money for their work, but finding audiences they couldn't before. Heck, I think the experience of the RPG industry under the OGL bears this out.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Now, if you could explain to me how it is possible to "own" something that can be freely reproduced, we can start to debate this intelligently.




I wouldn't say it's possible to "own" the information contained in a book.  IP laws, at their core and origin are set up to encourage people to put information into the public domain.  They do that by providing an incentive (a tangible one, rather than simply praise) and that incentive comes in the form of the ability to profit from that information.  (I won't argue whether current IP laws are out of hand, just go with the basic premise.)

Whether you're stealing a book from the shelf at Barnes and Noble or downloading a copy of the pdf from a p2p, you actually aren't hurting the author any more or less.  B&N has already bought the book and the author has (in most cases) gotten his money.  The only additional damage done by stealing the dead tree is done to B&N.  In fact, you're probably doing less damage to the author by stealing the book from B&N because he has already gotten paid for that instance of his IP.

Anyway, the point really isn't about whether copying something causes someone else to lose their copy, or whether you really need that book, even if you can't pay for it.  The real question is, do you believe that people should get reimbursed for, or be able to profit from the labors of their brain?  If so, what's the hang-up?

I'll grant that not everyone makes enough money to have a lot of disposable income for loads of books.  That really, really sucks, and I don't want to see anyone in dire financial straits.  What's great about gaming is that it doesn't take a lot to actually play it for an unlimited time.  Save up $90, and you've literally got everything you need to game 'til the end of your days (the three core books).  Hey, even if you don't have $90, you can use the *free* SRD.  

No one *needs* any of these pdfs to enjoy their games.  They are luxury add-ons to a luxury.  When you download a pdf to use, what you're doing is placing your recreational *want* as a higher priority than either that particular author's right to get paid for his labors or the very notion of such a motivation.  Seriously.  End of story.

I've got to believe that anyone could save up a $30 (or so) for any single book, in a relatively short time -- say, three months.  If you're talking about hundreds of dollars worth of books that you want, and can't afford, then you may want to consider the amount of time you're spending on downloading, reading, and using those books and whether said time might be better invested in some endeavor to increase your income to a point it would better suit your appetites for luxury and play.  As my grandfather used to say, "Wine and caviar tastes, with a beer and crackers job."


----------



## Mercule (Sep 6, 2005)

Having given me spiel, I'll say that I do, in fact, use one p2p network to grab D&D books to preview.  That's why I've got Sandstorm and Frostburn.  Basically, it saves me a trip to B&N to thumb through the books before deciding.  And, using that mentality, I've got no problem with p2p downloads.  That is, of course, provided the people using that justification actually lived by it -- and I can say that I've not pulled anything from a download that I have not also gone out and purchased.  I'm sure it's not legal, but that's where there's a difference between legality and morality.

Ditto to stuff that you just can't buy anymore or has entered the public domain.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Actually, the problem in the U.S. was that there were serious Constitutional questions concerning whather Congress had the power to extend copyright protection to foreign made works (due to the language of the copyright clause of the Constitution). The U.S. was a net exporter of copyrighted material long before the laws were changed.




Well the USA didn't actually _import_ many copyright works because they didn't need to, they just pirated them!  And publishers got around the reciprocity problem by simultaneous protection in Canada, so US works were protected overseas, but foreign works weren't protected in USA.  It was pretty sweet & I understand why it lasted a long time.

However as a non-American I feel this historical injustice requires compensation through free downloading of US-created works...


----------



## wedgeski (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Since I don't own a scanner, that decision is made before I get anywhere near it. I only decide whether or not I will be complicit. Really, my moral judgement isn't good for much, since everything I've decided not to share is still readily available from others.





> It's irrational to speak of having the right to prevent the inevitable.



What you don't seem to appreciate is that it is your very complicity which _makes_ it inevitable.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

wedgeski said:
			
		

> ...a favour granted to corporate fat-cats by legislative whores...




Hm, I'd say that was a pretty good definition of the current state of copyright law.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> I am not arguing the legal definition of "property" or "ownership"; I know that, in this country at least, both downloading and uploading copyrighted materials is illegal, and I am making no attempt to dispute that.




And I'm not talking about that.



> _"Property" and "ownership" have moral definitions as well-- and that is all I am addressing in this argument._





What is the moral definition of "property" and "ownership"?

You might think your car is property. It is not. Property is the legal relationship between you and your car. You have legal rights with respect to the car - you have the right to use it, you have the right to prevent others from using it, you have limitations on your use imposed by law, you have the right to destroy it, and so on. Without that bundle of rights, the car is just a thing, and not property.



> _What do you mean by "not freely"? I'm curious._





I mean that the copying is either (a) illegal, or (b) either bought from or permitted by the owner of the property. Hence, it isn't "freely available to reproduce".



> _This is somewhat disingenuous on your part-- if ownership and property were purely legal concepts, noone would complain when deprived of either lawfully. There is enough outrage at taxation and property forfeiture to indicate that there are clearly moral definitions of these concepts as well._





People would still complain when their property rights are altered lawfully, but that doesn't change the fact that property is a legally defined bundle of rights with respect to a thing. In the case of intellectual property the "thing" in question is a particular expression of authorship.

You asked how one could own something that could be "freely downloaded". That's not different than people asking how one could own land, or a car, or any physical object. How could one own land that you had never seen? How could one own a tree? The answer is simple  in most cases - you can because the law defines a legal relationship between you and the thing.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Well the USA didn't actually _import_ many copyright works because they didn't need to, they just pirated them!  And publishers got around the reciprocity problem by simultaneous protection in Canada, so US works were protected overseas, but foreign works weren't protected in USA.




Even accounting for works that were effectively legally pirated as a result of the odd legal framework, the U.S. was a net exporter of copyrighted material long before the laws were changed.

_



			It was pretty sweet & I understand why it lasted a long time.
		
Click to expand...


_
Unless you've analyzed the Constitutional issues, you probably don't understand.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Unless you've analyzed the Constitutional issues, you probably don't understand.




I understand the Constitutional issue, which seems quite simple - the Constitution grants Congress the ability to grant copyright only for specific purposes, and it's questionable whether granting copyright to foreign works furthers those purposes.  One thing the Constitution doesn't do is say that State legislatures can't grant copyright protection, but state legislatures can't sign international treaties.  Sweet.  

NB I did my PhD on the history & philosophy of Anglo and Continental copyright law.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

Mercule said:
			
		

> No one *needs* any of these pdfs to enjoy their games.  They are luxury add-ons to a luxury.  When you download a pdf to use, what you're doing is placing your recreational *want* as a higher priority than either that particular author's right to get paid for his labors or the very notion of such a motivation.  Seriously.  End of story.




It really is this simple and I find it hard to believe that anyone can rationally make it out to be more complicated than this. I believe that some believe that they are digital Robin Hoods, the vanguard of a new and liberated order of society that will cast down antiquated notions of property.......mostly I doubt it.

Most want something for nothing and want to still feel good about their own character, such as it is, and therefore create convoluted, positively hairsplitting, arguments to rationalize their behavior. Then they couch their rationalizations in college level words and pseudo-philosophical reflections on the nature of good/evil, right/wrong, freedom/structure and whatnot as a marvelous smokescreen to justify what is nothing more than sophisticated theft.


Chris


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Then they couch their rationalizations in college level words...




The fiends.   

I get the impression a lot of people object strongly to any attempt to think about what things are good, what things are bad, and why.  I've always thought this was a very important thing to do, using college level words or not.  Unreflected-upon easy certainties are not preferable to    positions that have been thought through, IMO.  Which isn't to say that gut instincts aren't right, they often are, but thinking about why they might be right (or wrong) can only be a good thing IMO.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The fiends.
> 
> I get the impression a lot of people object strongly to any attempt to think about what things are good, what things are bad, and why.  I've always thought this was a very important thing to do, using college level words or not.  Unreflected-upon easy certainties are not preferable to    positions that have been thought through, IMO.  Which isn't to say that gut instincts aren't right, they often are, but thinking about why they might be right (or wrong) can only be a good thing IMO.




I am all for the exactness of legitimately used college level words. What I am getting at is that BS artists with a little education can weave spells with words that, through their eldritch glamour, hypnotize the less informed reader into believing that his point is valid based upon the number of syllables he used in his words. _"Er, he uses them big college level words, him must know what he's talkin bout."_

If you can't fascinate em' with facts, bedazzle them with bull     . 

This is what in some instances has been going on here and that is what I am referring to.


Chris


----------



## Teflon Billy (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The fiends.
> 
> I get the impression a lot of people object strongly to any attempt to think about what things are good, what things are bad, and why.  I've always thought this was a very important thing to do, using college level words or not.  Unreflected-upon easy certainties are not preferable to    positions that have been thought through, IMO.  Which isn't to say that gut instincts aren't right, they often are, but thinking about why they might be right (or wrong) can only be a good thing IMO.




Nice


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> This is what in some instances has been going on here and that is what I am referring to.




Do you have an example?  I may be biased but it seemed to me like the arguments here eg against equating copyright infringement with theft were generally well-argued and not obfuscatory.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Nice




Thank you.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I do, and there is none for all practical purposes when the item in question only exists digitally.




When the item in question only exists digitally, it is *impossible* to take it unless you take the physical media it exists within-- which would, actually, be theft.

If I make a copy of something you own, you still have as many copies as you had before.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The wrong isn't in the taking, but in the negative impact the taking/copying has on the creator of said book ie. they do not benefit from the work they put forth.




You know, until I so foolishly posted into this thread, noone knew I had ever downloaded anything.

And, quite simply, you're attaching your cart to the wrong horse; the creator is not harmed by the act of downloading, they are harmed by the non-act of not buying. Not even you can argue that we're obligated to buy everything produced-- and if I'm already not-buying, then it makes absolutely no difference whether or not I am downloading.

Your argument also doesn't hold up to the fact that I still buy things-- and a fair portion of things I share, I also own legal copies of.

But, you say, I'm benefitting from something without paying for it! Yes, I am. I also benefit from open source software and from advertising-supported radio without paying for them. I don't pay for my use of fresh air and sunshine, either.

Then again... my usage of open source, radio programming, and sunshine also don't prevent anyone else from using and benefitting from them. Guess I must not be stealing those, either.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> There is no no net loss in data when something is downloaded in fact, there is gain, however the gain for you the taker ...




Still not taking anything-- from here on, just assume I'm reminding you of this everytime you claim I'm taking something. I'm getting tired of typing it over and over again.

And... are you *really* trying to tell me that if I'm gaining something, without depriving anyone else of it, it's wrong? See... that's what economists, games theorists, and ethicists all refer to as a "positive sum game"-- the very essence of beneficial activity.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> ... who is not in any way entitled to what you have taken, and the creator, who is entitled by any rational standard to be paid for the work created.




Yes, by most (not all) rational standards, they do indeed deserve to be paid for the work created; that's why I buy things. I'm also inclined to point out that they do, in fact, get paid for their efforts-- and they're not getting paid any less on account of mine.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> More pirate BS here. Anyone who can conflate these two issues has real problems.




Er, okay... Need I point out that you're the one who brought necessities into it?



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I am saying that someone can make a sound argument that in the case of the necessities of life that the right to life trumps the right to compensation.




Sure, they can. But if you disagreed with it, you'd call that sound argument "pirate BS" and accuse the person making it of "rationalization".

And if your livelihood were attached to the pharmaceutical industry, you'd be a damn sight less cavalier about what people can take because they need it to survive.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Don't spin this into something that it isn't.




I'm tempted to suggest that you stop first. 



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> ... just because they think they can get their hands on some kewl new PrCs or spells. There is a vast moral difference between stealing to preserve live and stealing to buff your PC or assist your campaign.
> 
> You know this as well as I do and to claim otherwise is idiotic.




There's also a vast difference between *stealing* and *copying*-- whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

I value your judgement of my intelligence about as much as I value your judgement of my ethics-- and I'll ask you to maintain a more civil tone, please. For what it's worth, I don't want this thread closed.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I have every right because you are presenting yourself as someone who confuses rationalization and entitlement with ethical behavior.




No, I am presenting myself as a person with a clear and rational system of ethics that you disagree with-- and as a person who is rapidly tiring of your inability to disagree with someone without insulting them.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> If you wouldn't be judged don't put your thoughts on the internet to be viewed. That way your could keep your limited ethical understanding to yourself and no one would judge you.[/.quote]
> 
> Weren't you accusing me of being self-righteous earlier?
> 
> ...


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Do you have an example?  I may be biased but it seemed to me like the arguments here eg against equating copyright infringement with theft were generally well-argued and not obfuscatory.




More than the use of individual words, I see it as educated people conflating situations that are magnitudes of importance apart.

(all examples to follow are not intended to insult the posters though I do find these positions ridiculous)

For example my exchange with one poster equated the fact that I feel that one can morally and ethically preserve one's life at the expense of a manufacturer's right to compensation such as in the case of food or medicine means that therefore I am hypocrtical in claiming that pirating RPG materials is wrong.

Or pseudo-philosophy....nothing is universally wrong... when this is blatant moral relativism in its most self-serving sense. 

How about this gem of brilliance...Its ok to not pay the creator of a product because in copying the item you are actually adding data to cosmos and therefore ripping people off is a good thing as long as you add to the sum total of data in the universe.

Connecting the reality some CEOs of successful companies are effectively robber barons in regard to copyrights with the idea that if they get away with such draconian controls over copyrights then another has a right to take what they want without paying for it.

More than words alone, its the abuse of philosophy and ethics that I see amongst those who seem to have taken a course or two in such subjects but are twisting the inherent subjectivity and uncertainty regarding moral/ethical issues to suit their desire to get something for nothing. There are no Robin Hoods here, no real rebels and no heroic protectors of liberty. There are those who actually believe that their self-declared entitlement to a luxury item trumps the right an author has to compensation for his or her work. They couch it in colorful philosophies but this is what it boils down to.

The rationalization I see here is a base use of intellect and reflects a certain amount of education and knowledge but just enough to BS even themselves into acting without character in regards to this issue. It is the intellect of one that seeks to act without character but isn't honest enough with himself to embrace this lack of character. Instead, they take the cowards road of justifying what they intuitively and intellectually know is dishonest and lacking in integrity.

I would have more respect for someone who had the self-awareness and courage to admit that they know they are wrong to do what they do but choose to do so anyway. I may see this person as a theif but I can respect their honesty. The smoke I see being blown here by some folks makes me scratch my head and wonder if they have actually been hypnotized by their own nonsense.

(apologies to those who really and truly believe they aren't doing anything wrong, though I believe that your numbers are quite rare)

Chris


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> What is the moral definition of "property" and "ownership"?




Well, at risk of being circular, the moral definition of "my property" would, more or less, be the set of objects that it would be immoral for someone else to take or use without my permission.

If I were to characterize the argument I'm having with Sundragon, it would be whether or not "intellectual property" and information qualifies as "property" in the moral sense.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Without that bundle of rights, the car is just a thing, and not property.[/quotes]
> 
> It's funny that you mention that "property" is strictly a legal concept; I'd argue that "rights" are likewise purely a matter of legality.
> 
> ...


----------



## MonsterMash (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> But, you say, I'm benefitting from something without paying for it! Yes, I am. I also benefit from open source software and from advertising-supported radio without paying for them. I don't pay for my use of fresh air and sunshine, either.
> 
> Then again... my usage of open source, radio programming, and sunshine also don't prevent anyone else from using and benefitting from them. Guess I must not be stealing those, either.



Actually advertising supported radio is paid for by the listener in two ways - 
1. hearing adverts from the sponsors
2. purchasing products from those sponsors (whose prices would be lower if they did not have advertising to pay for)

In economic terms sunshine is a bit of a special case. Open source is a complicated case as effectively the cost of supporting the developers has to come from somewhere, whether its employers allowing staff to release code, support for universities and students, etc. In other words it is paid for in an indirect manner.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> If you were applying the Golden Rule to this argument at all, you'd stop trying to win this argument through insults and labelling my personal ethical convictions "rationalizations". Otherwise, I don't really see how the Golden Rule would stop you from arguing with me at all, and I'm not asking you to agree with me or concede, or even to shut up.
> 
> We're arguing; that's what civilized people do when they disagree. It was my choice to get involved in this argument, so I obviously expected to be argued with.




I apologize for insulting you in any way. I simply get exasperated regarding this issue and sometimes have a hard time believing that some folks actually believe the way you do and are not merely rationalizing behaviors they know to be wrong.


Chris


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Well, at risk of being circular, the moral definition of "my property" would, more or less, be the set of objects that it would be immoral for someone else to take or use without my permission.




But by defining "your property" as "something you can limit others from using" you have made a legal relationship between yourself and the object - the right to exclude others. Your "moral" definition is of no consequence without the legal ability to enforce your rights with respect to the object in question.

Property is, almost by definition, a creation of law.



> _If I were to characterize the argument I'm having with Sundragon, it would be whether or not "intellectual property" and information qualifies as "property" in the moral sense._





But there is no "moral sense" for property. Either you have rights in a thing or you don't. And if your rights are not enforceable by law, then they aren't of any value. I suppose you could argue that you have rights that you can enforce your rights by personal force, but that's not what you are talking about.



> _It's funny that you mention that "property" is strictly a legal concept; I'd argue that "rights" are likewise purely a matter of legality._





In application, pretty much. Rights that aren't enforceable are not worth very much.



> _Ah, okay-- we're using different definitions of "free". You're talking about what someone is legally allowed to do, while I'm talking about what a person can do without expending their material resources._





But that's not something that is "freely availabale". Sunshine is generally freely available. Air is freely available (in most cases). No one owns them, so anyone can have them. But, something you have to infringe upon another's property rights to get is not "freely availabale", you, at the very least, run the risk of being caught and forced to pay compensation.



> _Legally, yeah. Getting away from the purely legal aspect, you have to look at the nature of the things described. I don't create more land by hopping over your back fence; I don't get the same benefit from renting or borrowing your land for a couple weeks that I would from owning it. I can't create a parcel of land exactly like yours, for free, and then use it myself._





But you have defined a legal relationship: the right to exclude others. Every time you say "I'm making a moral argument", you just make a legal one that you, apparently, don't seem to understand is a legal argument.



> _I can understand the arguments for intellectual property rights, and I even agree with some of them-- and some of the rights advocated by those arguments-- but I can't regard "intellectual property" the same way I regard real property. The two things are entirely different in nature._





Only if you don't actually understand what property is to begin with. Property is not the thing, it is the relationship between you and the thing.


----------



## CarlZog (Sep 6, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> Now, I have to wonder, to what purpose?  I think the "thrill" to these guys is the actual finding stuff, downloading it, and checking it off of a list.  I seriously doubt these guys have time to play RPGs because they spend so much time hunting around and catalogging what they have.
> 
> ...
> 
> I really think most of the people with 10s or 100s of gigs of illegal RPG stuff are actually just packrats.  I really don't think they use it.




I have to agree with this, if only because I found myself falling prey to that mentality a few years ago. When websites began hosting huge amounts of fan-created material and warehousing older material, it suddenly seemed like Christmas to me.

I downloaded craploads of old games from sites like Home of the Underdogs. At first, I was just downloading stuff I honestly wanted to play. Then I found myself casting a wider and wider net. ("I should download that one too, JUST IN CASE I ever want to play that.")

When I discovered WotC's cache of old 2e D&D materials available free online, I methodically went through and downloaded every one of them. I'll probably never look at half of them, but I found a disturbing sense of satisfaction and comfort from knowing I had them all tucked safely away on my hard drive.

I've downloaded most of the free stuff ever offered from RPGNow and DrivethruRPG.

From computer game fansites, I downloaded mods, patches and manuals for dozens of games. I've downloaded craploads of user-created adventures, characters and rules variations and other junk from fansites for dozens of different RPGs.

Mind you, when I say "craploads", everything I've collected is still fitting in less than 30 gigs, and, as the initial marvel of it all has worn off, I'm downloading less and less. But I do understand the thrill of it, and it has nothing to do with piracy (pretty much everything on my computer is legal). It's just about knowing you've got it.

The biggest thing that prevents people from becoming packrats is the cost of acquiring crap and space required to store it. When stuff is free, and occupies no physical space, it's a lot easier to choose to take it instead of leave it.


Carl


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 6, 2005)

hong said:
			
		

> To forestall the flames, I suggest we all speak like a pirate in piracy threads. What could be more appropriate? Yarrr!
> 
> 
> Hong "not y4rrr!" Ooi




Too bad your sensible post didn't sway these landlubbers...yar.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> Or pseudo-philosophy....nothing is universally wrong... when this is blatant moral relativism in its most self-serving sense.




I've seen some of that, too. Despite our other disagreements, I have to agree with you that self-serving moral relativism is pathetic. If we cannot accept that our own ethical principles are correct-- and cannot argue against that which we know is wrong-- then what is the purpose of pursuing any kind of ethical standard at all?



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> How about this gem of brilliance...Its ok to not pay the creator of a product because in copying the item you are actually adding data to cosmos and therefore ripping people off is a good thing as long as you add to the sum total of data in the universe.




You really have to remember that the point you're trying to *prove* is that downloading something without paying for it is "ripping people off". You can't use the statement to prove itself-- no matter how strongly you feel about it.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> ... but are twisting the inherent subjectivity and uncertainty regarding moral/ethical issues to suit their desire to get something for nothing.




Even if you want to characterize my entire argument as rationalization for my "desire to get something for nothing"-- since you're already doing so-- you have to admit that I'm not relying on (or twisting) subjectivity or uncertainty to justify it. I'm sticking to a very firm, objective, and certain ethical position, and I believe I am right for doing so. 



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> There are no Robin Hoods here, no real rebels and no heroic protectors of liberty.




I agree-- but, in reading this thread so far, I haven't seen anyone claim to be. I'm not a rebel by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm just as certainly no hero. Even if I were either... my file-sharing activities aren't rebellious or heroic. They are, at best, useful to others. (You've been very thorough about what they are at worst.)



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> They couch it in colorful philosophies but this is what it boils down to.




Be careful trying to tell other people what their philosophies "boil down to". People are very rarely accurate when doing so, and they're nearly always offensive.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> It is the intellect of one that seeks to act without character, but isn't honest enough with himself to embrace this lack of character. Instead, they take the cowards' road of justifying what they intuitively and intellectually know is dishonest and lacking in integrity.




I know you aren't directing this toward me-- and I am trying not to take it personally-- but you need to tread *very* carefully here.

Whatever else you believe about me, *know* that I have argued with you honestly, and that I believe everything I have said to you. Intuitively and intellectually, I know that you can't own information and that there is nothing wrong with copying it for others. If I were a coward, or if I were dishonest, I would have taken the easier path of avoiding this thread or taking the far more popular opinion here-- yours.

I will allow people to call me a thief, if they think what I do is stealing. I won't, however, tolerate being called a coward or a liar-- I am neither, and I have done nothing on this thread to suggest otherwise.



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> The smoke I see being blown here by some folks makes me scratch my head and wonder if they have actually been hypnotized by their own nonsense.




As opposed to being hypnotized by the recording industry's nonsense? After all, they're the ones that started a massive propaganda campaign to convince people that copyright infringement was theft.

_edit: Needed to soften my tone in a few spots._


----------



## S'mon (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I apologize for insulting you in any way. I simply get exasperated regarding this issue and sometimes have a hard time believing that some folks actually believe the way you do and are not merely rationalizing behaviors they know to be wrong.




I've noticed that there does seem to be a lot more insults & anger coming from your side than from the opposition.  The fervour seems almost ..._religious_ *eek*


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I apologize for insulting you in any way. I simply get exasperated regarding this issue and sometimes have a hard time believing that some folks actually believe the way you do and are not merely rationalizing behaviors they know to be wrong.




You don't need to apologize, but I appreciate it. I know this is an emotional topic for a lot of people-- and as cold-blooded as I am, I've still probably deleted more words than I've posted in this thread.

For what it's worth, some of the words I didn't delete were sharper than they needed to be-- particularly in my last post before this one. I posted them before I saw this, and I would have been softer had it been otherwise.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

MonsterMash said:
			
		

> In economic terms sunshine is a bit of a special case. Open source is a complicated case as effectively the cost of supporting the developers has to come from somewhere, whether its employers allowing staff to release code, support for universities and students, etc. In other words it is paid for in an indirect manner.




This is true-- there's no such thing as a free lunch. What makes these things relevant to this thread, however, is that the costs are not paid by the people who are benefitting. They're paid by other people, who are generally benefitting in some other fashion.

The Personnel Director or the VP of Research and Development don't benefit from the code the programmer releases-- they benefit from the programmer's improved morale because he's allowed to do what he loves. The person who benefits from the code doesn't pay anything for it beyond his opportunity costs and whatever he already pays for his internet access.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> All else being equal, the first is econoically neutral - nothing is created or destroyed - while the second is economically good, a new thing is created.




Not quite - the second is economically good _if and only if_ in the process of creation there is some addition to the economy.  If the new thing is created such that it does not actually take part in the economy (like copying a file and not paying for it), no good is done in the economy.  Ergo, downloading the file and not paying for it is, at best, economically neutral.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> But by defining "your property" as "something you can limit others from using" you have made a legal relationship between yourself and the object




Only if the law actually backs me up. Since I don't have legislative authority, I can't define the legal relationship between myself and anything.

I think we're starting to get a little too political for this forum; in any case, we've discussed this a few times on RPGnet, though I can't blame you if you've forgotten. My stance boils down to the idea that moral rights and legal rights are the same kind of animal-- justification for the use of force in defense of those "rights", which exist only as long as they can be enforced.

If you're inclined to discuss this further, my email address is korimyr@yahoo.com.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I've noticed that there does seem to be a lot more insults & anger coming from your side than from the opposition.  The fervour seems almost ..._religious_ *eek*




To be fair, according to my side of the argument, the worst thing they're doing to me is calling me a thief; they're not responsible for the copyright laws, after all. (Disregarding worse things I may or may not have been called-- they're not central to the argument.)

According to their side of the argument, I am snatching the food from their childrens' mouths. 

They've got more reason to get upset than I do.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

Taking something that costs money without paying for it is theft. It’s as simple as that. It makes no difference if that "something" is a "copy" of something else. You should have paid for it and you didn't, i.e. You STOLE it. 

It makes no difference if the producer of that material has a theoretically unlimited supply of copies either. Nor does it matter that you theoretically have not deprived the producer of anything. You still should have paid for your copy, and you didn't. You obtained valuable goods without paying for it. i.e. you STOLE it. 

 If you use a descrambler to gain access to cable TV without subscribing, you are STEALING cable, not "freely downloading a copy of a data stream and thereby increasing economic value of TV broadcasts."


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Only if the law actually backs me up. Since I don't have legislative authority, I can't define the legal relationship between myself and anything.




Okay, let's be even more nitpicky accurate - you are referencing a legal relationship between you and the thing.



> _I think we're starting to get a little too political for this forum; in any case, we've discussed this a few times on RPGnet, though I can't blame you if you've forgotten. My stance boils down to the idea that moral rights and legal rights are the same kind of animal-- justification for the use of force in defense of those "rights", which exist only as long as they can be enforced._





If you equate them, why make the big deal about whether you are talking about property in the legal sense or the moral sense?


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you equate them, why make the big deal about whether you are talking about property in the legal sense or the moral sense?




Because they don't always agree; morality is personal, and most people have at least minor variations on their moral values. They are the same in nature, but different in implementation and impact.

The law, however subjectively it is created and enforced, is objective. You can pick up a book and *know* the law-- thus, there's no point in laymen arguing it. The areas where the law can be argued are, to use your term, "nitpicky"; I know the broad strokes of law, but can't argue the fine points of it.

The distinction was also important because I was in the position (incredibly rare for me) of arguing that something is moral despite it being clearly and obviously illegal.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Because they don't always agree; morality is personal, and most people have at least minor variations on their moral values. They are the same in nature, but different in implementation and impact.




But if morals are inherently personal, and apparently subjective, how can there be a "moral definition of property"? I suppose you could have a personal view of property, but that makes almost no sense, since property relates to your relationships to a thing with respect to other people. I simply don't see how this sort of argument can be made, and I really don't see how it has any bearing on whether one can own something intangible.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Taking something that costs money without paying for it is theft. It’s as simple as that. It makes no difference if that "something" is a "copy" of something else. You should have paid for it and you didn't, i.e. You STOLE it.




"Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, and it is one of the mechanisms of reinforcing urban legends. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Though a logical fallacy, nonetheless it is convincing to people because, as one of history's main practitioners of this propaganda technique, [a guy], observed, if something is repeated as true often enough, people will eventually come to believe it is true."


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Why say something when someone has said better already? Nice work


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people.




I... love you, man.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> "Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition, possibly by different people. This logical fallacy is commonly used as a form of rhetoric by politicians, and it is one of the mechanisms of reinforcing urban legends. In its extreme form, it can also be a form of brainwashing. Though a logical fallacy, nonetheless it is convincing to people because, as one of history's main practitioners of this propaganda technique, Joseph Goebbels, observed, if something is repeated as true often enough, people will eventually come to believe it is true."




In other words, you don't have anything useful to say, or any argument that would actually counter the point in question. You just want to quote a Nazi.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

To be truthful, it matters little who says something as long as it rings true for the majority.

Example, Joseph Stalin "One death is a tragedy, a million is a number" or something to that effect.

It doesn't matter what Stalin did in this case, in regards to his statement.

Generally I find that holds true, it's easier to relate or sympathize more easily to 1 or 2 deaths than a sudden mass loss life, not to say someone wouldn't care in the latter. But my point is that targetting the source isn't all that tasteful as long as we can apply it in current situations, or even other situations!

Humans have bias though, so I suppose I shouldn't be attacking you for defending your point view...


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In other words, you don't have anything useful to say, or any argument that would actually counter the point in question. You just want to quote a Nazi.




Yeah, have you *tried* countering the point in question when stated that way?

They just repeat their statement. Again. And again. Which is why the quoted text is relevant.

I haven't seen a case of "proof by vigorous assertion" this bad since I stopped arguing theology in high school.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> In other words, you don't have anything useful to say, or any argument that would actually counter the point in question. You just want to quote a Nazi.




No, I quoted Wikipedia. And it's a valid point, even without the Goebbels part of the quote. I guess someone will mention Godwin's law now, despite the fact that it's on-subject.


----------



## Jacen (Sep 6, 2005)

Once again this topic is up and once again I do want to say something...


			
				Brent_Nall said:
			
		

> Woo hoo!  I rolled a natural 20 on my will save!  I don't have to post anything meaningful (or not, for those of you who would disagree with me) on this thread!
> 
> Argh, maties!



I think I just rolled 1. Maybe even couple of those in row. Or I am just easy...
Anyway just collected some thing I want to comment to one BIG response... Wonder why my post count is still so low 



			
				Primitive Screwhead said:
			
		

> Software piracy is not really any different than any other stealing...its just easier to do and easier to get away with. Meaning more people are willing to do it.



So now piracy means copying it to home? Just want to make sure we are talking about same things because I am still mostly at mode where piracy it trying to gain monetary beneficts through copying&selling. 

Anyway I do disagree with you. Even I would be 100% sure that I am not caught I wouldn't steal any physical property. At least I think so. Just can't be sure because had I been without eating like week because of no money and could steal someones wallet... dunno. That is situation I haven't been in so can't be sure. 



			
				philreed said:
			
		

> Look at it this way. 1,000 people download an illegal PDF of the latest D&D hardcover that has sales of 25,000. Those same 1,000 people download an illegal copy of one of my latest PDFs that has sales of 50.
> 
> Who do you think feels the greater loss in potential sales?



Hmmm... potential sale. What excatly is a potential sale? Is it "I would have bought this hadn't I D/L it"? Well had I D/L it and used it I would have bought it later. So I am not lost sale. If I know nothing about that I won't buy it.



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> Yay!  I think I should win a prize.  I predicted Psionicist's post _exactly_!
> 
> Gonna see how many more I can predict.  I predicted Phil Reed's post pretty much spot on, too.



Well I did too. This almost reminds me about one discussion I had at irc. We were talking about one B5 episode. Can't remember excalty but it was about can one be killed to save many. Well that was my point and his was why can't dead person be sacrificed over many. We had totaly different point of view. The one in question was recovered by doctor -> My opinion was she/he (can't remember gender) wan't dead and murdering one even to save many is wrong. He opinion was that that person was dead, even that doctor could recover him. Only think I could say was that in my opinion that they did right thing (wouldn't have blamed anyone had the situation been real and they chosen differently) and we have different point of view that can be easily compared. Well he did keep "yelling" that I am stupid and they should have saved many because patient was already dead and why can't I understand that. Well telling that I my opinion patient wasn't dead yet didn't help... "He is dead can't you understand that? And it was wrong." Well he didn't get that that in my opinion he wasn't dead and thus it was right thing to do and because we have different basepoints comparing our opinions doesn't lead to anywhere (apples and oranges).  Well long story short - uh - sorry short story told long.



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> I've never downloaded an illegal .pdf, nor have I ever paid for a .pdf.  Both seem wrong, somehow.



Well I never haven't D/L illegal pdf either. I have D/L some "legal" ones without paying the artist. The main point is that we have levy in Finland and thus it is legal to d/l. Well programs are illegal to even d/l. So that is the reason why I don't like it being called stealing. Stealing is illegal here but d/l is not. Well that is only here in Finland though. I have paid for many pdfs and will continue buying them. 



			
				francisca said:
			
		

> So I'm dubious about two arguments:
> 1) People download on a "try then buy" basis.  I don't think they have time to "try" out this stuff.
> 2) Lost sales.  Like I said, I don't think many of these jokers have time to read and play, so why would they buy it.
> 
> I really think most of the people with 10s or 100s of gigs of illegal RPG stuff are actually just packrats.  I really don't think they use it.  They just keep buying bigger drives, blank DVDs, and LTO drives to back up there collection, never having the chance to use 1% of it.  Guess the joke is on them.



Touche. My "illegal" legaly copied pdfs are from friend who hoarded every d20 prf he could find from p2p. I copied them with removable hard drive. Do I have had enough time to go through that gigs of pdfs? Hell no. I have plenty of bought ones that I thought are cool and maybe can use at games but haven't had enought time to properly read them to import them at game. Life sucks  

But there are some copied material that are campaign setting materials in stting I am currently playing in. I have read them and used them and in most cases bought them as books. There are some points that means something to me.
1) It is nice to read at bed when you cant sleep. That is the reason I print the bought pdfs I use.
2) Books look cool on shelf. 
3) If I like it and use it what more excuses can I look for not to give author some compensation? None.



			
				Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> It is for me, personally. I really HATE thieves. I mean, really, really HATE.
> 
> Taking something without paying for it, or worse still, taking something and making free copies of it available to everyone and anyone is, IMO, a serious character flaw. Anyone doing that is a criminal and should be punished to the full extent of the law.
> 
> Furthermore, I don't buy the argument that pirates don't think what they are doing is wrong. They know it’s wrong, they just also know that they can do it with a minimal chance of getting caught. It’s basic psychology.



I hate thieves too, but just can think I am one. Just like I earlier told d/l is not illegal here and givin a few copies for close friends is allowed in law too. So I am thinking that I am not doing anything wrong. Sharing pdfs with p2p is not allowed just a few copies for friends. 
I do think that I have some morals and good ethics and reading here something that in short says you are a thief too is hurting me. And thus giving -10 circumtance penalty to my saving throw against being part at flaming or feeding troll.



			
				Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> When I went back in, the guy wasn't even standing at the counter. Nor was he near a window. I could easily have pumped a full tank of gas and driven off without him knowing. But I didn't.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...




Yes I would have gone to pay more, but I wouldnt have lowered my speed because in town there are more polices. I would have lowered my speed because that lower limit it there for reason. Think about kids and other people. If you are driving 140 mk/h at highway when there is limit of 120 and weather is good. Who am I endangering? Mostly myself but because good car and good road even that is minimal. Only ocassional moose or deer is danger but becase there is a fence on both sides of the road that is not bad. But when I am out of highway and driving within 50 km/h limits it is not me anymore I am endangering. There are other too, plenty of them who are not in car. Bicyclers, walkers and most of all KIDs. That is the reason why I am following speed limits tighter  not because there are more cops.

Wow. I think that I just managed to use excuse number one. "Think about kids"

Anyway as a younger I noticed someone dropping 100 FIM (~17 EUR, but because it was like 15 years ago it was more likely closer to 30 EUR buying worth). I was a kid then and all money I had was given by parents (maybe 5-10 FIM per week). No one else noticed and guess what I did return the money.



			
				FraserRonald said:
			
		

> Nah, I just don't use them anymore. I admit that I did use p2p at one time (which got me hooked on Firefly and got me to buy the DVD collection), but not anymore. I just haven't bothered to download and install the various p2p software in order to do the search. Even if I found something, what would I do about it.




I don't usually d/l rpg material from net because mostly it is waste of time. Reading EN World gives nowadays quite good hint about what to buy . Well there has been some cases that I have bought something that ppl are praised for and been disapointed and sorry about the amount of money I wasted. But I do d/l movies and there are many movies that I have bought as DVD after watching them from computer.



			
				Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> i've been waiting for someone to bring up murder. There's a reason I used speeding and not murder in my analogy.



But tell me why there should be hevier punishment from pirating than murdering someone? At least this apears to be the trend. 



			
				Sundragon2012 said:
			
		

> I find it amazing how much pseudo-intellectual crud and rationalization gets tossed around as a smoke screen regarding illegal file sharing.
> ...
> What I came to realize, after I could no longer rationalize the fact that I was using something I didn't pay for, is that morally and ethically I should pay for whatever I was actually getting value from. I now have a huge collection of hard and softcover books....50% of which were once only digital files on my computer.
> ...




Enough about bosting my ego and showing how much better and holier I am than everyone else and trying to prove that to everyone here at EN world. 

I think this is close to what all this is about. It is not about is it right or not. It is about peoples morals. Do ppl thing that someone should be compensated for that what they did do or not. Ppl d/l doesnät tell anything but if they doesn't have enough backbone to pay for that after they found that it was worth of it that is sad and wrong. It just descripes the situation where our world is currently. And the big question is why and what can be done. Not to cry and make more laws and harder punishments. Maybe parents should be home more and not running after more and more money.

So shortly. My two opinions are 
1) it is wrong to take something physical from someone. 
2) If it is not physical but gives some value for you pay for.

If you d/l book and enjoy it pay the writer. If it sucks dont read it. 
if you d/l RPG book and use it buy the book or pdf.
If you can't afford it pay when you can. I had a almost half a year break from buying from RPGNow because money went somewhere else. But now when both swords and fencing mask is paid for... Money comes and money goes. It just is not enough for everything I want so have to priorise.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Sep 6, 2005)

Let's simplify.

People do work for compensation.  That compensation can be monetary, or it might be something else like satisfaction.  In a capitalist society, money is the typical measure of value, so we can simplify and say people work because they are paid for that work.

Copyright laws are designed to ensure that creators receive value from the intangible aspects of thier creations -- images, stories, music, etc.  You pay the creator for the results of their efforts and talent (plus distributors, marketers, etc., who add value from somebody's standpoint).

Everything we're talking about is basically a LUXURY good.  This is not food, housing, or medical care.  It is stuff you buy to have fun.

So, those who pirate are arguing that they should have the fruits of another's work because they want to have fun using those products but can't afford them.

If I say that I am going to write a book, and I expect people to pay me for that work, then that is my perogative.  I am not obligated to give it to you for free just because you like it.  At what point did you become special?

Justifications of piracy are ALWAYS self-centered.  There is no moral imperative to provide everybody with entertainment.  It is blatantly self-serving on the part of the arguer.

If you don't like the details of the law, e.g., you think copyrights last too long, or you don't like the definition of fair use, then you are free to be socially active and campaign to change it.  Copyrights are not sacred, and there is room for compromise within the framework of our system of government.

You are not free to break the law for selfish reasons and then expect others to accept your tortured justifications.  Information has inherent value, and if you take it without paying for it, then you are stealing.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Information has value? Wow, i didn't know you could tag a dollar value on how to make fire!


----------



## JoeGKushner (Sep 6, 2005)

It probably hasn't impacted the print publishers, like WoTC, as much as it may have publishers who are primarily PDF, but seeing as how people claim you can get anything in PDF these days, either the stuff is out there and not putting the big hurt on the PDF publishers, or the threat is overstated.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Yet another post. This is to the anti-piracy-gang:

I can accept if a writer wants to be compensated for his work. If that's the case, say that. Don't start to argue about morals/ethics/legality etc. It won't help you.

Why?

This is an international forum.

*Using the word "illegal" to prove your point is dumb.*
Even if you think this is the case, US law does not apply in the rest of the world. Until recently it was perfectly legal to download anything in Sweden. It's still perfectly legal to download whatever you want in lots of countries. I don't care what you can or cannot do according to US law.

*Talking about "ethics" and "morals" to prove your point is dumb.*
In Japan you can buy "Lolicon" in regular bookstores. Do you know what lolicon is? It's porn cartoons with naked children age 3-17 or so (check Wikipedia). Lots of japanese men think this is sexually arousing. Nothing wrong with that over there. Damn, that boggled your mind didn't it?  Japanese men probably don't give a damn what YOU think of the subject, it's okay where they live. In many countries, people don't care at all if anyone downloads anything. They don't care about your morals or ethics either.

I say we skip the debate of whether or not something is "legal" or "moral", because these two are by far not universal.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 6, 2005)

You know, I'm curious about one thing...

The title of the thread is "Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?"

Seems pretty clear who should be posting to it. So why are all these nonpublishers throwing in their two cents and bickering over semantics?

I just want to say something. First, just because there is potentially an infinite supply of something, you do not have a right to take as much as you want if it isn't yours to begin with. You took it, you kept it and you didn't pay for it when you should have. I don't see why some people have so much difficulty in grasping the fact that doing so is wrong.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Probably because that's not a universal absolute.


----------



## kenobi65 (Sep 6, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> Information has value? Wow, i didn't know you could tag a dollar value on how to make fire!




Ah, but the knowledge of how to make fire was given into the public domain many milennia ago (see court case "Zeus v. Prometheus").


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

D_Sinclair said:
			
		

> I just want to say something. First, just because there is potentially an infinite supply of something, you do not have a right to take as much as you want if it isn't yours to begin with. You took it, you kept it and you didn't pay for it when you should have. I don't see why some people have so much difficulty in grasping the fact that doing so is wrong.




Why does the tragedy of the commons spring to my mind?


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

If you believe that, then it would be valid, yes. For some people, it's purely mythological, for other's, it's religious.


----------



## AntiStateQuixote (Sep 6, 2005)

kenobi65 said:
			
		

> Ah, but the knowledge of how to make fire was given into the public domain many milennia ago (see court case "Zeus v. Prometheus").




Bravo!


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

D_Sinclair said:
			
		

> You know, I'm curious about one thing...
> 
> The title of the thread is "Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?"
> 
> ...



 Read my post above. You think it's wrong. It's not wrong in other cultures.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> Information has value? Wow, i didn't know you could tag a dollar value on how to make fire!




Hypothetical: suppose you didn't know how to make fire. Would it be worth something to you to have me teach you how to make fire?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Read my post above. You think it's wrong. It's not wrong in other cultures.




A statement that only holds water if you believe morality is relative.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Hypothetical: suppose you didn't know how to make fire. Would it be worth something to you to have me teach you how to make fire?




I posted mine, as a somewhat humorous jab at the other side of this arguement, and that's as far as I intended to take it. If you want to get rediculous and stray this discussion largely away from the initial topic, game developers, specifically those who write and produce RPG books, then we should probably make a new thread, in a new forum. 

But I digress, and that further adds to the point in the previous 12 page thread, the information itself has no value, regardless of supply or demand and whatever intrinsic value one has with that piece of information. It's merely neurons and axons, chemicals and other lovely biological terms that explain our brain coming up with ideas, not a viable product or service that has a value. It's a culmination of many things, not just 1 thing.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition is the false proof of a statement by (prolonged) repetition,






			
				The Persian said:
			
		

> Why say something when someone has said better already? Nice work




 I reiterate because I still don't buy the obfuscation I've read in the last page and a half. And because Korimyr is still saying things like this: 



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> The distinction was also important because I was in the position (incredibly rare for me) of arguing that something is moral despite it being clearly and obviously illegal.




and this 


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> When the item in question only exists digitally, it is impossible to take it unless you take the physical media it exists within-- which would, actually, be theft.




 Which I disagree with. 

and this:


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> And, quite simply, you're attaching your cart to the wrong horse; the creator is not harmed by the act of downloading, they are harmed by the non-act of not buying. Not even you can argue that we're obligated to buy everything produced-- and if I'm already not-buying, then it makes absolutely no difference whether or not I am downloading.




 which is a false circular argument.

 if you were already non-buying, and you DIDN'T fileshare, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are having this conversation because people DO fileshare. 

And this: 


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> And... are you really trying to tell me that if I'm gaining something, without depriving anyone else of it, it's wrong?




 Yes. 



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> See... that's what economists, games theorists, and ethicists all refer to as a "positive sum game"-- the very essence of beneficial activity.




 Its not. 

 and this:


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> I'm still benefitting from it without paying for it; by your standards, that is morally unacceptable. While this is less applicable for roleplaying books, I don't need to own a copy of a book to benefit from having read it.




 That's an obfuscation. 

And this:


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> Ah, okay-- we're using different definitions of "free". You're talking about what someone is legally allowed to do, while I'm talking about what a person can do without expending their material resources.




 Then by your definition pirates do not freely make copies. The computer costs money. The scanner, the web access etc..... but that's just nitpicking.  



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> But, you say, I'm benefitting from something without paying for it! Yes, I am. I also benefit from open source software and from advertising-supported radio without paying for them. I don't pay for my use of fresh air and sunshine, either.
> 
> Then again... my usage of open source, radio programming, and sunshine also don't prevent anyone else from using and benefiting from them. Guess I must not be stealing those, either.




 The "value" of open source software and ad supported radio is determined by the people who are providing it to you. It is up them, the owners of the material to decide its value and what you should have to pay to use it. If they choose to give it away free, that's their choice, not yours. 

Then you say:


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> I have to agree with you that self-serving moral relativism is pathetic. If we cannot accept that our own ethical principles are correct-- and cannot argue against that which we know is wrong




And still you say:


			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> You really have to remember that the point you're trying to prove is that downloading something without paying for it is "ripping people off".




Let me reiterate, since you still don't seem to get it: 
That is a false circular argument.

 If you were already non-buying, and you DIDN'T fileshare, we wouldn't be having this conversation. 

 Therefore, you can't say that "you wouldn't have bought it anyway." Because clearly you have it, so we have to assume you would have (and should have) paid for it. 

 Why is that hard for you to understand? 



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> I'm sticking to a very firm, objective, and certain ethical position, and I believe I am right for doing so.




 Yeah, and I'm saying its flawed. 
 Shall I reiterate again? 



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> I agree-- but, in reading this thread so far, I haven't seen anyone claim to be. I'm not a rebel by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm just as certainly no hero. Even if I were either... my file-sharing activities aren't rebellious or heroic. *They are, at best, useful to others*




 BINGO! 
 Dare I say _valuable_ to others? And therefore worth money?



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> Whatever else you believe about me, know that I have argued with you honestly, and that I believe everything I have said to you. Intuitively and intellectually, I know that you can't own information and that there is nothing wrong with copying it for others.




 Then you are flat out wrong. As I have said, you gained ownership of valuable property without paying for it. 

 I still fail to see how gaining a copy of valuable goods without paying for it is anything but theft. How do you see theft as "moral?" 

 Because it "spreads information around?" and it "creates a new copy of the product?" 

 That's just more obfuscating. 

After all the legal semantics, it is still theft.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> A statement that only holds water if you believe morality is relative.




change "believe" to "know"


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> But I digress, and that further adds to the point in the previous 12 page thread, the information itself has no value, regardless of supply or demand and whatever intrinsic value one has with that piece of information. It's merely neurons and axons, chemicals and other lovely biological terms that explain our brain coming up with ideas, not a viable product or service that has a value. It's a culmination of many things, not just 1 thing.




Using that analysis, nothing has _intrinsic_ value (including information). Which I don't disagree with. But that doesn't mean that something does not have value.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> change "believe" to "know"




Nope, it is still "believe". "Know" implies a divine omniscience which I assume you do not have.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 6, 2005)

For those in the "information should be free" camp, how about looking at it this way?

You're not paying for the information when you buy a PDF.  You're paying for a service, and that service is the organised presentation of that information to you.  By downloading the PDF and not paying for it, you're refusing to pay for a service, not an object.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> For those in the "information should be free" camp, how about looking at it this way?
> 
> You're not paying for the information when you buy a PDF.  You're paying for a service, and that service is the organised presentation of that information to you.  By downloading the PDF and not paying for it, you're refusing to pay for a service, not an object.




That is an excellent point, exactly the kind of argument we should concentrate on.

This is common in the computer industry, especially for corporations that tries to make money from open source. The product is free as in freedom. What you pay for is support and other services.

Publishers should really consider the ransom model someone mentioned a month ago or so.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Ah, but how far along the line of "service" one pays for also determines price.

PDF vs Hardback

consider one doesn't have the work of printing, binding, checking for errors, physical quality, shipping to stores, warehouses, various distributors, etc.

consider the other includes OCR, bookmarks, links, online support and other such "perks"

which is harder work? you decide


----------



## Rykion (Sep 6, 2005)

Data/Knowledge/Information has been a commodity for a very long time.  It is how teachers and authors have earned all or part of their living for thousands of years.  Computer programs, recorded music, and data files are more recent additions to the commodity of data.  Many countries have added to their copyright and IP laws because the ability to transfer data without right has drastically increased over the last 10 years.  The commodity of knowledge is the primary source of income for an increasing number of people such as programmers, accountants, scientists, teachers, authors, musicians, etc.  Anyone who holds a job that requires a certain level of education is being paid in part for their knowledge. 

Information may be freely given, but to take it without paying when the creator asks for compensation is wrong.  It may not be illegal in some countries, but that doesn't make it right.  My dictionary from 1982 does list the appropriation of ideas or words without right as stealing, so it isn't a recent concept.  It may not meet the legal definition of stealing but that doesn't mean the term doesn't apply.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionist said:
			
		

> Talking about "ethics" and "morals" to prove your point is dumb.
> In Japan you can buy "Lolicon" in regular bookstores. Do you know what lolicon is? It's porn cartoons with naked children age 3-17 or so (check Wikipedia). Lots of japanese men think this is sexually arousing. Nothing wrong with that over there. Damn, that boggled your mind didn't it?




No. I'm pretty sure I'm not boggled. 



			
				Psionist said:
			
		

> Read my post above. You think it's wrong. It's not wrong in other cultures.




 No. you used an irrelevant example of anima child porn to point out something most of the people reading this already know: cultural norms exist. 

I challenge you to name a culture where theft is a social norm. And note I said "theft" not borrowing or sharing. 



			
				D. Sinclair said:
			
		

> I just want to say something. First, just because there is potentially an infinite supply of something, you do not have a right to take as much as you want if it isn't yours to begin with. You took it, you kept it and you didn't pay for it when you should have. I don't see why some people have so much difficulty in grasping the fact that doing so is wrong.






			
				The Persian said:
			
		

> Probably because that's not a universal absolute.




Right, but it should be. Among ethically minded people it is. 



			
				The Persian said:
			
		

> Information has value? Wow, i didn't know you could tag a dollar value on how to make fire!




 Check Amazon, I'm sure someone has already beaten you to it.


----------



## Kurotowa (Sep 6, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Let's simplify.
> 
> People do work for compensation.  That compensation can be monetary, or it might be something else like satisfaction.  In a capitalist society, money is the typical measure of value, so we can simplify and say people work because they are paid for that work.
> 
> Copyright laws are designed to ensure that creators receive value from the intangible aspects of thier creations -- images, stories, music, etc.  You pay the creator for the results of their efforts and talent (plus distributors, marketers, etc., who add value from somebody's standpoint).




I disagree with your simplification.

Artists create art for art's sake.  Writers will write because they feel a drive to write, just like painters will paint because they love it and photographers will carry a camera whenever possible.  Look at www.fanfiction.net and www.deviantart.com and all over the internet.  Those people give away their work, as you define it.  If profit was a person's primary goal there are so many better lines of work than the creative arts.

Copywrite laws were designed to encourage artists to release their works into the public domain for the betterment of society and the general public good.  They were an alternative to the patronage system, where only the rich patrons benefited from the creative works.  The purpose is to support creators by giving them limited control over their works for a limited time to allow them to gain compensation for their efforts.

Each time this subject comes up I think back to past time the technology advanced past the current laws and busniness models.  The movie studios being emotional over VCRs, the record labels getting furious at radio, the sheet music companies becoming hysterical over player pianos.  There was a lot of shouting and when it was over people had adapted to the new technology and the creative types keep going on just fine.  I can't help but see this as the same thing.

People are never willing to wait, they want to enjoy the benefits of the new technology NOW.  Are digital distribution has so *many* benefits.  Except that PDFs are clumsy, eBooks suck, the pricing structures are crazy, and the official lines of distribution are lacking.  So people do what they have to, to use the new technology.  Sooner or later digital books will find their iPod to meet the demand.  The more the potential customer base is attacked, insulted, and demonized the later it will be.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Right, but it should be. Among ethically minded people it is.





I should have purple hair, but I don't. Like others have said, if you truely believe, heck, *want* that, why don't you get more politically active? Maybe you do care for the notion, but you're not serious enough to take a proactive stance on it.  

Ethics are also subjective to a point, popularity, age, ethnic backgrounds, political backgrounds, monetary motivation and a myriad of factors i can't even begin to fathom all play a role in ethics too!


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

> I should have purple hair, but I don't. Like others have said, if you truely believe, heck, *want* that, why don't you get more politically active? Maybe you do care for the notion, but you're not serious enough to take a proactive stance on it.




 Actually, i'm a lot more politically active than you know...


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Actually, i'm a lot more politically active than you know...




Does that include pushing for some universal standard on morals and ethics? I don't mean just pertaining to copyright/theft/this whole subsection of topics too...


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

Sorry, poltical discussions are banned here


----------



## Rykion (Sep 6, 2005)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> I disagree with your simplification.
> 
> Artists create art for art's sake.  Writers will write because they feel a drive to write, just like painters will paint because they love it and photographers will carry a camera whenever possible.  Look at www.fanfiction.net and www.deviantart.com and all over the internet.  Those people give away their work, as you define it.  If profit was a person's primary goal there are so many better lines of work than the creative arts.




For every good free artist and fiction writer there are 50 very poor ones.  The good ones usually turn professional and post little or no new stuff in their free areas.  The amount of things they create goes up as they have more time to devote to their art since they are making money from it.



			
				Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Copywrite laws were designed to encourage artists to release their works into the public domain for the betterment of society and the general public good.  They were an alternative to the patronage system, where only the rich patrons benefited from the creative works.  The purpose is to support creators by giving them limited control over their works for a limited time to allow them to gain compensation for their efforts.




People taking things without compensating the creator is exactly what we are talking about here.



			
				Kurotowa said:
			
		

> People are never willing to wait, they want to enjoy the benefits of the new technology NOW.  Are digital distribution has so *many* benefits.  Except that PDFs are clumsy, eBooks suck, the pricing structures are crazy, and the official lines of distribution are lacking.  So people do what they have to, to use the new technology.  Sooner or later digital books will find their iPod to meet the demand.  The more the potential customer base is attacked, insulted, and demonized the later it will be.




Those willing to buy online are still a very small number compared to all customers.  People are not "doing what they have to do."  They are doing what they want to do.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Then again, you should reiterate on the point brought up earlier too, if you want to draw a clearer contrast.


----------



## Henry (Sep 6, 2005)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> Artists create art for art's sake.  Writers will write because they feel a drive to write, just like painters will paint because they love it and photographers will carry a camera whenever possible.  Look at www.fanfiction.net and www.deviantart.com and all over the internet.  Those people give away their work, as you define it.  If profit was a person's primary goal there are so many better lines of work than the creative arts.




To me, this is an oversimplification, as well. "Ars Gratia Artis" is not the ONLY goal for all artists, only for some. In fact, if an artist make compensation for their works, all the better, because they do what they love, and don't have to worry about balancing doing what they love against their need for sustenance and prosperity.



			
				The Persian said:
			
		

> Information has value? Wow, i didn't know you could tag a dollar value on how to make fire!




People who have served prison time for insider trading might say that info has a particularly HIGH value.  In this day and age, information as a whole has the greatest value of all. It's irrelevant that thousands produce works for free as a proof against info having no value; it means that that particular information does not have as high a value as other information.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> To me, this is an oversimplification, as well. "Ars Gratia Artis" is not the ONLY goal for all artists, only for some. In fact, if an artist make compensation for their works, all the better, because they do what they love, and don't have to worry about balancing doing what they love against their need for sustenance and prosperity.
> 
> 
> 
> People who have served prison time for insider trading might say that info has a particularly HIGH value.  In this day and age, information as a whole has the greatest value of all. It's irrelevant that thousands produce works for free as a proof against info having no value; it means that that particular information does not have as high a value as other information.




Well, saying a number of products, or ideas, or "x" in this case have value, or hold some certain property, while others do not...doesn't mean, from what you said, that one is always one or the other, rather, it "can have" but doesn't always stick to one side. Is that true?


----------



## caudor (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> That’s why I have argued before that the only effective way to stop pirates is a clear and absolute threat of getting caught and punished.




I'm not much of a techie, but this is something I don't understand.  Of course, I don't know much about these file-sharing networks.  

Isn't there a threat of getting caught right now?  I mean, if some service like Kazaa sees someone downloading copyrighted material, don't they just trace it back to the users computer and report them?  I just find it hard to believe that folks with gigs of data downloaded do not actually get caught.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> It's irrelevant that thousands produce works for free as a proof against info having no value; it means that that particular information does not have as high a value as other information.




I disagree. Just because a book has a price tag doesn't mean the information in the book is more valuable than information you can get for free (as in no cost).

"Advice is probably the only free thing which people won't take."


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> That’s why I have argued before that the only effective way to stop pirates is a clear and absolute threat of getting caught and punished.




Ah, terrorism. That probably works.

_
terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear_


----------



## Rykion (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ah, terrorism. That probably works.
> 
> _
> terrorism
> ...




Has Bloodstone Press ever called for violence against people that pirate copyrighted material?  The threat of legal punishment and violence are two very different things.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Has Bloodstone Press ever called for violence against people that pirate copyrighted material?  The threat of legal punishment and violence are two very different things.




Ah, but now he's going to state that legal punishment requires violence or the threat of violence to be enforced, and hence all law is backed by terrorism.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionist said:
			
		

> Ah, terrorism. That probably works.
> 
> 
> terrorism
> ...




 Would you stop, please. 

 With that logic all law enforcement is terrorism (and I might actually agree, but that's not the point). 

 Getting fined or imprisoned is not “terrorism.” As you are trying to couch it. Fear of legal punishment and fear of violent death are two very different things. 

 as i have said in this thread and others, psychological research shows that nothing elicits obedience from people like the clear and present threat of getting caught and punished. Shall I reiterate some more? 

I wish it wasn't like that. I wish we could live in a world where people did the right thing with out looking over their shoulder, but we don't. 

 People come up with all sorts of distorted ideas like:
"I'm not really 'taking' anything." 
and
'I'm not really hurting anyone."
and
"I'm actually helping to spread information, which IMO should be free." 

 All of which is crap. 

 Obtaining information that has a price tag on it without paying for it is wrong. Or, if you prefer, obtaining the fruits of someone's labor without paying for it is wrong. 

 Would you like see me say it again?


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ah, terrorism. That probably works.
> 
> _
> terrorism
> ...



Accusing someone of fostering or promoting terrorism isn't going to get you far here. I'd advise to cut it out now, before it's decided that your membership could be done without.



Anyway, before a charged debate like this is further derailed, and more accusations of politics are tossed off...

Awhile ago I did an experiment (Some of you may remember it) regarding Limewire, which is hooked into all the P2P networks.

I took the free downloads of various products, inflated the PDF size, added a small EULA when it was opened that basically had tucked in it (The User Agrees that upon opening this product they have consented to take part in a poll and data gathering experiment) that made the small "crippled" virus installed in it active.

Each time the thing was opened, it was nice enough to "ping" a site, showing me how many times it was opened, if it was a new IP or a return IP, and would reping every 30 minutes.

I found out that while people pirate them, the majority of them open it once or twice (but they may have figured out what was going on or deleted it because it was only the demo) and then not again.

BUT...

ON the average, your big name designers, or stuff made for the larger lines (Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, core books, Shattered Lands, Ravenloft, etc) were downloaded QUITE a bit, and those artificial PDF's saw a lot of circulation.

(Go ahead and complain and yell at me about inserting a crippled IP tracker in the document, frankly, I don't care, it was legal)

Does it hurt the big boys? Doubtful. Ever tried to use one of those crappy scans to do anything but claim you have it? The smaller guys, who do PDF's? Probably.

As for the PDF "locking" done by DTRPG awhile back, that was cracked about 30 seconds after Adobe had that function hit the web.

Piracy is out there, it does some damage, but it's not the machinegun into the crowd that some people claim.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Please do, it seems to be the majority of what you contribute on this thread.


----------



## Speaks With Stone (Sep 6, 2005)

Arguing that the information has no value is clearly just an attempt at justifying an illegal activity.  If the information had no value to the pirate, then the pirate would not download an illegal copy.  Who takes on risk for no gain except for the thrill seeker?  Even in the case of the thrillskeeker, the value of the information is only the fact that it is protected by copyright and therefore offers the thrill of piracy.

I don't believe that most piracy has to do with thrill seeking.

Defending piracy by saying that you would never pay for the pdf so no money is lost is a rationalization only.  If you sneak into a theatre to watch a movie, it is no defense to say you wouldn't have paid for a ticket.  You received a benefit that you did not pay for.  What about stealing Cable?  Is that justified because the Cable company has no idea and is not harmed? 

I don't see any difference in the behavior.  It's easy to do, but that doesn't make it right.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 6, 2005)

caudor said:
			
		

> Isn't there a threat of getting caught right now?  I mean, if some service like Kazaa sees someone downloading copyrighted material, don't they just trace it back to the users computer and report them?  I just find it hard to believe that folks with gigs of data downloaded do not actually get caught.



Hehhehehehehee That's so cute.

Naw, just messing with you buddy.

They aren't going to report jack. I have yet to hear of KaZaA or LImewire turning in someone who was passing off Revenge of the Sith the day BEFORE it came out in theaters.



You know, I put forward this arguement awhile back, and nobody bothered with it except for me. The funny thing is, I put it forward to music companies and several movie companies, and now it's all over the place.



Music: Take 3-4 minutes of high pitched screeching, label it as your hottest, newest song, and let it hit the network.

Movies: Take the RAW, uncompressed footage of your movie's *TRAILER*, make it around 700-900 MB, and let it hit the networks. Have someone watch for when they change the name/details, and match it. Works like a charm.

I've inflated the demo copy with the words: *"I'M TOO CHEAP AND WORTHLESS TO BUY THE REAL THING!"* splashed across each page, and hit it onto the networks.

It works. It's harder and harder to find the real product nowdays.

But sadly, nobody in the PDF business listened to me.

//shrug//



Now, as to "information is valueless, dude, and should be shared by all!!!" crowd.

Corporate espionage is BIG BUSINESS! Everything from hard extraction of data and prototypes to hacking mainframes. Corporations are ruthless about it. Do you think for ONE minute if you were to snag Beoing's plans for thier latest fighter jet that they wouldn't slit your throat and dump your charred body in a ditch somewhere?

Information is power and wealth in that arena.

And who are you to decide whether or not something that was worked on for hundreds of man hours is valueless and should be free? Do you think that the information just appears out of thin air and everyone's just grabbing it and racing to PDF it first? Writers, editors, proofreaders, artists, layout copyist, producers, distributers, R&D dwonks, all don't deserve to get paid, because they should do this for love and free?

Puh-lease. Nobody researches or creates new information just out of love. Calling all information worthless is rather ludricious, when you consider that the core code of Windows Alpha is just information.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Unfortunately, that hardly works on newer P2P programs, as users can now leave comments in files (warning, fake or low quality, etc), or you can even have multiple names for the same file -> right click on said file and check "details". A good deal of users put "fake" in the title of the file to inform others that they aren't real. The true files flourish (more sources) and the fake ones die out (1 to no sources)


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 6, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, that hardly works on newer P2P programs, as users can now leave comments in files (warning, fake or low quality, etc), or you can even have multiple names for the same file -> right click on said file and check "details". A good deal of users put "fake" in the title of the file to inform others that they aren't real. The true files flourish (more sources) and the fake ones die out (1 to no sources)



LOL Puhlease.

You watch the copies, and quickly adjust yours. And a lot of the larger downloaders NEVER look at the data, merely host it.

If you toss enough copies out, and persist at it for a bit of time, pretty soon it gets muddled enough that the casual/oppotunistic downloader just gives up.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Not sure how effective you've seen it been used, but the program i've seen has very very few fake or *bugged* releases. I'm not lying here, I have no reason to make this up - i've seen it. Maybe Kazaa and Limewire are infested with that garbage, but they are incredibly mainstream, which means the chances of trash are higher than most other low-key P2P services.

By the way, the people that just "go for the data" are likely hoarders as others have mentioned. Anyone with half a brain knows how to avoid a fake.

Lastly, for every "caual/opportunistic" person who can't figure it out, they have others, or go to others for what they want


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Okay, so you folks against piracy can accuse people here are thieves, and you are also free to install viruses on peoples computers, but I cannot mention a word that actually means "fear" in latin? That's odd. And who are you to judge me, you don't have a moderator title.



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Awhile ago I did an experiment (Some of you may remember it) regarding Limewire, which is hooked into all the P2P networks.
> 
> I took the free downloads of various products, inflated the PDF size, added a small EULA when it was opened that basically had tucked in it (The User Agrees that upon opening this product they have consented to take part in a poll and data gathering experiment) that made the small "crippled" virus installed in it active.




I call shenanigans. PDF's are not network aware, I've read the specification and written a small parser. You cannot create a PDF that "phones home" according to the 1.6 specification. You can defenitely not embed executable files in the document.


----------



## Mercule (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ah, terrorism. That probably works.
> 
> _
> terrorism
> ...




Oh, look.  It's Godwin's Law for the new millenium.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 6, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I've inflated the demo copy with the words: *"I'M TOO CHEAP AND WORTHLESS TO BUY THE REAL THING!"* splashed across each page, and hit it onto the networks.
> 
> It works. It's harder and harder to find the real product nowdays.
> 
> ...



Those are excellent points, and perhaps the only worthwhile way to reduce piracy. Note that there is no way to actually _stop_ piracy, but I believe it can be significantly reduced by using the measure recommended above.

If I were an independent PDF publisher, I'd create 6-10 PDFs filled with garbage, identical (or very similar) in size to my own PDF, and post them on the p2p networks several days before my real product hits the online stores. I believe that WotC is currently doing the very same thing with their books. I'm pretty sure that, after downloading 2-3 fakes, most people on p2p networks give up. Some actually don't bother to delete the fake stuff, which adds to the confusion. 

If you do a search for a recent popular WotC product (DMG2) on one of the p2p networks, you'll find the real thing (two versions of it, actually), but you'll also find a bunch of fake files similar in size. Fake files were released the same day that DMG2 hit the shelves. Coincidence? I think not.

On the other hand, some companies really need to do something about their books being available on p2p networks. I do not particularly care for Malhavoc Press, but their PDFs appear to be incredibly popular (probably the most popular d20 products) on p2p, and they are _all_ readily available from PDF stores at very low prices. I'm not sure how big of a hit in sales Malhavoc is taking, but it's got to be there.

On the other hand, I've never seen some other publishers' PDFs on p2p networks. I don't think this is necessarily a good sign, since it may mean that people either don't know about them or don't care about them enough to pirate their stuff.

For the record, I do download PDFs, but only of books I actually own, or so that i can check them out before I order them online. I don't have a local gaming store, and the closest gaming store is about six months behind on release schedule. I'm probably one of the biggest buyers of RPG products in my country at any rate.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Okay, so you folks against piracy can accuse people here are thieves, and you are also free to install viruses on peoples computers, but I cannot mention a word that actually means "fear" in latin? That's odd. And who are you to judge me, you don't have a moderator title.




Whipping out the "law is terrorism" silliness is not a new, or particularly insightful tactic. You get derision for using it for the same reason that people who pull out the "taxes are theft" or "government is oppression" rhetoric get derision: those sorts of arguments are worthy of derision.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

But when the power handed to it, and it's tactics come close, or parallel it in some aspects, why not mention it offhandedly?


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Whipping out the "law is terrorism" silliness is not a new, or particularly insightful tactic. You get derision for using it for the same reason that people who pull out the "taxes are theft" or "government is oppression" rhetoric get derision: those sorts of arguments are worthy of derision.




Ah, you failed to mention those who say "copyright infringment" is "theft". 

That probably evens it out though.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

The Persian said:
			
		

> But when the power handed to it, and it's tactics come close, or parallel it in some aspects, why not mention it offhandedly?




It wasn't mentioned off-handedly. It was put forward quite strongly.

And nothing has shown that"it's tactics come close, or parallel it in some aspects", at least not in this instance.

And, labelling legal enforcement "terrorism" essentially ignores all the nuances of government that differentiate civilization from barbarism.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ah, you failed to mention those who say "copyright infringment" is "theft".




Nope. You haven't differentiated copyright infringement from theft in any meaningful sense. Differentiating fining you for violating the law from terrorism intended to force you into ideological agreement is pretty easy to do.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It wasn't mentioned off-handedly. It was put forward quite strongly.
> 
> And nothing has shown that"it's tactics come close, or parallel it in some aspects", at least not in this instance.
> 
> And, labelling legal enforcement "terrorism" essentially ignores all the nuances of government that differentiate civilization from barbarism.




I never said law enforcement is terrorism. I said trying to get rid of piracy by instilling fear (of say lawsuits) to the public is terrorism, instead of working out a solution together.

Edit: The reason we have laws against murder for example is because the majority of a society think that's a good idea. This is not the case with piracy. Especially not in say Asian countries.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> It wasn't mentioned off-handedly. It was put forward quite strongly.
> 
> And nothing has shown that"it's tactics come close, or parallel it in some aspects", at least not in this instance.
> 
> And, labelling legal enforcement "terrorism" essentially ignores all the nuances of government that differentiate civilization from barbarism.




I feel it would be better for you to defer this statement to the one who put the idea forth- I was simply illustrating another angle of this. I'm thankful government in some regards has seperated us from barbarism, but it does have it's faults as well, and some take it into their hands in ways they see fit. Wether that's "right or wrong" is up to you, of course.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> I never said law enforcement is terrorism. I said trying to get rid of piracy by instilling fear (of say lawsuits) to the public is terrorism, instead of working out a solution together.




Should we eliminate embezzlement by working out a solution together?

How about burglary?

How about trespass?

I think that the idea of "working out a solution" has been exposed as the silly idea that it is. But in any event, it is also mostly unworkable, since the "online community" has shown absolutely no interest in "working out a solution", whenever something is thought up, it is almost immdiately circumvented.

And the idea that "fear of lawsuits" is terrorism is one of the most derision-worthy ideas I've seen in a while.


----------



## Henry (Sep 6, 2005)

Ralts is not a moderator, but he did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. 

ME, I'm the real thing.

Let's please cut personal insults and bickering. Let's also cut the parts where users suggest they know what other users are thinking, please, because that leads to more bickering, and less actual discussion.

I don't want to see ENWorld having to ban all discussions of copyright the same way religion and political discussion is banned, but we may have to if no one can rationally discuss it without getting snide, patronizing, or insulting.

Thank you, all.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Heh, appears the round has been reset. 

Why don't we offer a few posts and discuss whether or not a pirated copy is better or worse than the original?

I know for movies, the pirated copy is usually better than the legit one you buy in a store. The original DVD has ads in it, and region codes, and are not available in the whole world at the same time. Compare this with the pirated copy that doesn't has ads in it, no region coding and it's available in the whole world _before_ it's released in stores. It's the same thing with TV-series. No ads, you can watch it whenever you want and you can watch it in weird countries where it's not shown at all. For movies and TV-series, the pirated version is superior the original.

How about RPG books? I don't really know, because of unfortunate time-relating problems I've not been able to play for a while. In this case, is the pirated copy better or worse than the original? PDF's are probably better for creating characters but the printed version is of course better during actual play. This is good for the RPG industry, because the pirated version is not obviously better.

If the pirated copy is better than the original, how can this be changed? I know many pirates, and none of them pirate books (as in novels) because it's annoying to read those on your computer. This is why novels are rarely pirated. Books with technical contents (such as RPG rulebooks with prestige classes and feats) will probably be pirated because these are used for character creation, which most people do on computers anyway. How do you change that? One idea is to write less crunch and more fluff usable in-game. Hmm.

What do you think?


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 6, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> I know for movies, the pirated copy is usually better than the legit one you buy in a store.



I suppose if you're not looking too closely at quality of picture, that's true.  I doubt the pirated ones are HD - most pirated movies I've seen bits of are shot off of screens, or are screeners sent out to reviewers at best - which still are not the highest quality.  Occasionally you'll get a high-quality pirated version, but even then, it's not the optimized bit rate of a final, unpirated DVD.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 6, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I suppose if you're not looking too closely at quality of picture, that's true.  I doubt the pirated ones are HD - most pirated movies I've seen bits of are shot off of screens, or are screeners sent out to reviewers at best - which still are not the highest quality.  Occasionally you'll get a high-quality pirated version, but even then, it's not the optimized bit rate of a final, unpirated DVD.




There are many different versions of the same movie. Some have really crappy quality, but there are versions with quality identical to DVD:s (they take longer to download though). Wikipedia have details as usual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warez#Movie_piracy


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Sep 6, 2005)

Kurotowa said:
			
		

> I disagree with your simplification.
> 
> Artists create art for art's sake.  Writers will write because they feel a drive to write, just like painters will paint because they love it and photographers will carry a camera whenever possible.  Look at www.fanfiction.net and www.deviantart.com and all over the internet.  Those people give away their work, as you define it.  If profit was a person's primary goal there are so many better lines of work than the creative arts.




Professional writers are paid.  Professional means you make a living at it.  Work you publish yourself gets you NO credit in the professional field, because anybody can do it.  Having somebody pay you means that your work is valuable enough to merit consideration.  I have tried to write, and that is the way it is.



> Copywrite laws were designed to encourage artists to release their works into the public domain for the betterment of society and the general public good.  They were an alternative to the patronage system, where only the rich patrons benefited from the creative works.  The purpose is to support creators by giving them limited control over their works for a limited time to allow them to gain compensation for their efforts.




Copyright recognizes that people need that compensation.  You say so yourself.  If I write something, my control is hardly limited.  I have a whole host of rights that I can auction off if it is good enough -- domestic publication, international publication, serialization, movie rights, etc.  Eventually, the work passes into the public domain for the good of all, but not before I get compensation for the hard work involved.



> Each time this subject comes up I think back to past time the technology advanced past the current laws and busniness models.  The movie studios being emotional over VCRs, the record labels getting furious at radio, the sheet music companies becoming hysterical over player pianos.  There was a lot of shouting and when it was over people had adapted to the new technology and the creative types keep going on just fine.  I can't help but see this as the same thing.




Industry reaction to new technologies is prone to hysteria and hyperbole.  That is because they make their money from controlling the rights to these properties, and they frequently do not understand the new technologies or how those rights are effected.  That is unfortuante, and frequently irritating, but it is not entirely irrational.



> People are never willing to wait, they want to enjoy the benefits of the new technology NOW.  Are digital distribution has so *many* benefits.  Except that PDFs are clumsy, eBooks suck, the pricing structures are crazy, and the official lines of distribution are lacking.  So people do what they have to, to use the new technology.  Sooner or later digital books will find their iPod to meet the demand.  The more the potential customer base is attacked, insulted, and demonized the later it will be.




By definition, somebody who pirates property is not a "potential customer."  That is like calling a shoplifter a potential customer under the theory that if they like what they stole, they may come back and buy some.  The phrase, "I want it," is NEVER a good reason.  Nobody cares what people who say this want, because it is almost always self-serving and acquired at the expense of others.


----------



## The Persian (Sep 6, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I suppose if you're not looking too closely at quality of picture, that's true.  I doubt the pirated ones are HD - most pirated movies I've seen bits of are shot off of screens, or are screeners sent out to reviewers at best - which still are not the highest quality.  Occasionally you'll get a high-quality pirated version, but even then, it's not the optimized bit rate of a final, unpirated DVD.





*screeners* are garbage for those way too impatient.

DVD-rips and DVDRs are indistinguishable in quality


----------



## Wayside (Sep 6, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> Occasionally you'll get a high-quality pirated version, but even then, it's not the optimized bit rate of a final, unpirated DVD.



Actually, full-quality DVD rips are probably the second most common format after DivX-compressed ones (and even those sport a loss of quality invisible to most TVs).


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Those are excellent points, and perhaps the only worthwhile way to reduce piracy. Note that there is no way to actually _stop_ piracy, but I believe it can be significantly reduced by using the measure recommended above.
> 
> If I were an independent PDF publisher, I'd create 6-10 PDFs filled with garbage, identical (or very similar) in size to my own PDF, and post them on the p2p networks several days before my real product hits the online stores. I believe that WotC is currently doing the very same thing with their books. I'm pretty sure that, after downloading 2-3 fakes, most people on p2p networks give up. Some actually don't bother to delete the fake stuff, which adds to the confusion.




Sounds like a damn good model to me. Record companies have been doing this for a while and it pisses people off to have downloaded junk over and over again. Many game books are large and the time and energy of stumbling aroung looking for the right 120MB file after downloading it a few times is going to be offputting to any but the most hard core pirates.

I think a good idea is to send out an initial dummy copy and the after there are some who notice the fake, release another one of a slightly different size and do so until the P2Ps are glutted with garbage masquerading as your materials. Will this stop eveyone? No, but it will slow the pirates down and really screw with the networks as there is greater and greater confusion regarding which is the good file.....if there even is one. The ultimate anti-pirate virus.

Actually advertise multiple files as the good file in the title and really mess with their heads.   I know for a fact that the hoarders ie. the majority of file downloaders, won't even attempt to open the file for a little while being merely satisfied to have it in their collection. By the time the dummy files are opened a couple folks may already have the dummy file.


Chris


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 7, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Actually, full-quality DVD rips are probably the second most common format after DivX-compressed ones (and even those sport a loss of quality invisible to most TVs).




Sure, there are "DVD Quality" rips, but it's important to know that DVD by itself isn't a particularly great mark of quality.  There are bad DVD's of movies, and good DVD's of movies, and to make the latter rather than the former takes a lot of work and optimizing.  I've read Psionicists Wiki link, and it didn't change my position or knowledge of the situation at all.  The best pirated DVD's will match up poorly to the worst quality prpfessionally produced DVD's, IMO.  Even DVD screeners done at professional production companies are lesser in quality than the eventual final DVD's.

The difference is hard to discern.  Most people - probably even me - can't tell the difference.  But everything about them in terms of picture quality is likely to be better.  Just so you know where I'm coming from, I've been a professional video photographer and editor.  I've worked in those production companies - including ones that make Academy screeners - and  I've worked on shows for network TV and cable.  I no longer work in that field, and DVD authoring isn't my specialty, but I dabble, and given access to the source material I could make DVD rips just like you find on the net, maybe better.  And I know the limitations.  The $500,000 edit suites still can do more than a guy with Premiere at home.  Or even a guy who has access to $15,000 worth of equipment, like me.


----------



## The Sigil (Sep 7, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Oh, I wouldn't say that, necessarily!  Driving _dangerously_ is wrong, driving fast is not neceessarily so.
> 
> It's certainly illegal, though.



And there's the rub.

The arguments can, by and large, be summarized thusly:

1a. Most (not all) publishers will tell you that "pirating" stuff is (morally) wrong.

1b. Most (not all) downloaders will tell you that "pirating" stuff is (morally) right, even if it's not legal... in the same way that speeding may be illegal, but that doesn't make it wrong.

2a. Most (not all) publishers will tell you that "pirating" causes lost revenue.  Some will say each download is a lost sale.  Some will say some downloads are lost sales.  Some will say that only a very few downloads are lost sales.

2b. Most (not all) downloaders will tell you that "pirating" does not cause lost revenue.  They will tell you that if it wasn't free, they wouldn't have purchased it.  They will tell you that they want to "try before they buy" and then say, "well it wasn't that good" (in which case, the download has a higher probability of causing a "lost sale" since the downloader already admitted an interest and without the download might have been willing to buy).

3.  There are no studies with relevant data, because doing such studies are incredibly tricky... and when they are done, they tend to be contradictory.  Depending on whose study you believe, you will conclude that (a) MP3 swapping helps CD sales, (b) MP3 swapping has no effect on CD sales, or (c) MP3 swapping hurts CD sales.

4. There is often a semi-tangential discussion on the goods and evils of copyright as currently ensconced; downloaders frequently point to "unreasonable copyright" to defend their activity as (a) a form of civil disobedience or (b) justify their copying on moral grounds ("copyright is broken, therefore I am under no obligation to respect it") and (c) PDF products - especially DRMd ones (another tangent) - do not behave like regular RPG books with respect to Right of First Sale doctrine.  Publishers often counter those arguments with (a) you aren't "sticking it to the man" but rather sticking it to a "mom-and-pop shop" and (b) point out that if copyright was significantly shorter, even 7 years, most of the "pirated material" would be under copyright anyway, but usually have no answer to (c).  

5. As a tangent to copyright, "Fair Use" often comes up as well and how that is defined.  If you own a PHB, is it "Fair Use" to have a scanned/OCR-d copy provided you don't share it with others?  Is it okay to buy a PDF then send a copy to your whole gaming group?  Etc. etc. etc.  This tends to be muddier water to navigate, because not only is moral right and wrong ambiguous (as it is in the 4 above sets), ethical/legal right and wrong is ambiguous (because "Fair Use" is decided on a case-by-case basis).

6. Economically, people point out that (especially for PDF publishers), demand is greater at the "free" price point than any other price point - and that it's extremely hard for publishers to compete with "free" and turn a profit.  In some cases, the product is identical (PDFs being shared), in some cases better/worse (see comment about region-free DVD rips or consider a low-resolution image-scan with no OCR of an RPG book).

There, in a nutshell, are pretty much all the arguments that either side floats.  Where I stand on these issues is pretty-well documented, no need to re-hash them; anyone who cares can search for them.

--The Sigil


----------



## Kurotowa (Sep 7, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> Professional writers are paid.  Professional means you make a living at it.  Work you publish yourself gets you NO credit in the professional field, because anybody can do it.  Having somebody pay you means that your work is valuable enough to merit consideration.  I have tried to write, and that is the way it is.




Professional writers are paid pennies.  Of the professional writers in my family (professional meaning published by a large publishing house and doing it nearly full time) none has ever earned a good living, certainly not enough to support themselves.  So what's your point?



			
				DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> By definition, somebody who pirates property is not a "potential customer."  That is like calling a shoplifter a potential customer under the theory that if they like what they stole, they may come back and buy some.  The phrase, "I want it," is NEVER a good reason.  Nobody cares what people who say this want, because it is almost always self-serving and acquired at the expense of others.




Again, I disagree.  Someone who downloads a movie or book IS a potential customer.  They have already shown interest in the work.  The fact that they downloaded it instead of procuring it from a different more legal source just means there was a compelling reason for them not to (going by the assumption that people don't break the law unless they feel justified somehow).  Maybe it was the price, which says something about the resources of a lot of people or the pricing structure of the legal version.  Maybe it was the distribution, or the availability, or the quality.  All of those are areas that can be explored for ways to make legal versions more attractive.  But branding every person who downloads something as a selfish thief ends the discussion entirely on a very poor note.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Read my post above. You think it's wrong. It's not wrong in other cultures.




Unfortunately, those few cultures left that do not possess a developed concept of individual ownership are few and far between. Worse for your argument is the fact that they are also typified as primitive, and therefore aren't likely to have an understanding of a calculator, let alone the capacity to log on and steal. Comparing sexual behaviors of different nations isn't exactly a suitable analogy. I'd also like to point out that while Japan may have loose sexual morals, they've done more to crack down on illegal file trading than any other country, up to and including the shutdown by force of three different file trading services.

Another flaw in your argument is the fact that virtually no one who is taking things they do not own and not paying for them comes from one of those few cultures with no sense of property ownership. Just because some other culture does something does not make it right for you to do so as well.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 7, 2005)

> Professional writers are paid pennies. Of the professional writers in my family (professional meaning published by a large publishing house and doing it nearly full time) none has ever earned a good living, certainly not enough to support themselves. So what's your point?




So, your immediate family is representative of the entire writing community? Unless there are four thousand professional writers in your family, you do not even begin to have enough samples to make any claims about the writing community.



> gain, I disagree. Someone who downloads a movie or book IS a potential customer.




You mean WAS a potential customer. After all, once he acquired (illegally) a coupy of said information, he no longer needs to purchase it.



> They have already shown interest in the work. The fact that they downloaded it instead of procuring it from a different more legal source just means there was a compelling reason for them not to




And the reason, to quote Scott Adams, would be: He's a greedy weasel.



> oing by the assumption that people don't break the law unless they feel justified somehow




What a silly assumption. People break the law because they don't think they'll get caught.



> Maybe it was the price




In which case, he shouldn't buy it, if he doesn't want to pay for it.



> But branding every person who downloads something as a selfish thief ends the discussion entirely on a very poor note.




Someone is acquiring something they have no right and failing to compensate the people who deserve the money because they made said thing. I call 'em like I see 'em. That's was my moral justification back in my pirating days. At least I was honest with myself. I was doing a bad thing, but at least I didn't try to pretend I was some modern day Robin Hood fighting against the Man. I stole stuff because I was greedy and didn't want to pay. And that's why you steal stuff, and that's why anybody steals stuff.


----------



## Sundragon2012 (Sep 7, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Someone is acquiring something they have no right and failing to compensate the people who deserve the money because they made said thing. I call 'em like I see 'em. That's was my moral justification back in my pirating days. At least I was honest with myself. I was doing a bad thing, but at least I didn't try to pretend I was some modern day Robin Hood fighting against the Man. I stole stuff because I was greedy and didn't want to pay. And that's why you steal stuff, and that's why anybody steals stuff.




Thanks for your honesty.

I felt exactly the same way when I was pirating things. Hey, I was a kid in Toys R' Us with an unlimited shopping spree. The temptation outweighed my character at the time and I stole what I wanted. I felt bad about it from time to time but I assuaged that by getting something new and distracting. I never pretended to be anything more than a thief which is exactly what I was.

Morally I was a thief.
Ethically I was a thief.
I had no right to do what I did but I did it because I wanted to....very simple, very clean and uncomplicated rationale. 

Funny thing is that outside of that I was about as morally "good" as anyone can reasonably be. I saw my piracy as my only vice/character flaw and accepted it as it was. Everyone has some vice I thought so I felt that it was if not ok, then at least tolerable.

I wasn't increasing the sum total of shared information in the universe, I was a guy who preferred to get for free what other schmucks had to pay for, period. Early on, there was the charge of getting away with it but then later it was as matter of fact as personal hygiene, just something you did every day. There was no overarching philosophy or righteousness and if you asked me even then whether or not I was doing the wrong thing I would have admitted that I was without a second thought. In fact I would get into arguments with others who did what I did but attempted to justify their behavior.



Chris


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2005)

I just got back from Russia to find my relatives from New Orleans had to move in with me...so forgive me if this has been covered already:



> Yes it is. And it's called copyright infringement for precisely this reason. If you steal a car, someone loses his car. If you download copy of X, the developer doesn't lose his copy, rather an imaginary sale. That's why there are different laws for copyright infringement and theft. It's the same thing with tax fraud and stealing, you don't use the same term for the two.




First- let me state that I'm an entertainment attorney, so I deal with copyright all the time.

Copyright Infringement is one of the numerous subclasses and synonyms of theft including larceny, burglary, robbery, conversion, embezzlement etc. that have cropped up in English/American jurisprudence over the last 800 years or so.  The law gives them seperate names and rules because of the nature of the properties affected by the crimes and the nature of the type of crime committed.  Copyright infringement is the name given to a particular kind of theft (unauthorized reproduction or use) applying to a particular kind of property (intellectual property).



> Black's Law Dictionary
> *Theft* is..the act of stealing.  The taking of property without the owner's consent...the fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, _with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same_, and to apporpriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking...Theft is any of the following acts done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of his propertty: (a) _Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property_;  (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or  (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.




(Emphasis mine.)

Compare to US Copyright Info 

Make no mistake- copyright infringement IS theft in any jurisdiction in which a sovereign (King, country, state, etc.) has recognized that property rights exist in intellectual property.  I'm not aware of any country that doesn't at this point, and most countries respect the laws of others (in theory, at least).

And from my experience (not scientific evidence, but it is what I have personal knowledge of), it IS the little guys who get hurt the most.  Most of my clients are in the music biz.  One of my buddies has a small record label that released an album for a new band that was selling for about $10...except on a Russian website that was selling pirated copies for $4.  He can't afford to touch them, and they're moving about 10x his legit sales in the pirated copies.  Those sales will never generate royalties for his clients, and will not count on Billboard's sales numbers- which is a critical measure of a band's popularity.

So, while Hasbro may not be too concerned right now, smaller companies like Green Ronin or Malhavoc could stand to lose A LOT.  Heck, long term, even WOTC might encounter trouble if their sales fall just shy of Hasbro's expectations...They might face budget cuts that could cost jobs.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 7, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Make no mistake- copyright infringement IS theft in any jurisdiction in which a sovereign (King, country, state, etc.) has recognized that property rights exist in intellectual property.  I'm not aware of any country that doesn't at this point, and most countries respect the laws of others (in theory, at least).




What about this then? http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html



> (a) The language of 2314 does not "plainly and unmistakably" cover such conduct. The phonorecords in question were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" for purposes of 2314. The section's language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. Pp. 214-218.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 7, 2005)

DOn't care what kind of moral wriggling and yanking out of moldy old arguements you do.

It's still stealing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2005)

Dowling v. United States 473 U.S. 207 (1985), the case you cited, is not on point.  The appellant, Dowling, was challenging whether he could be convicted under the copyright law for _transporting_ illegal goods "stolen, converted or taken by fraud".  The Supreme Court held that he could not.

They did NOT decide that the bootlegs and pirated materials were not stolen goods, or that copyright infringement wasn't theft, or that Dowling didn't commit an illegal act.  They just held that the material Dowling was transporting was not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud."  In fact, the illegality of Dowlings acts are discussed both in the holding and the dissent.

Understand: "stolen, converted or taken by fraud" needs to be read as a whole.  In other words it means _stolen by fraud, converted by fraud or taken by fraud._  Fraud was not involved here.

Here, the US gov't tried to extend copyright infringement into an area it didn't belong, probably in order to get access to harsher penalties.  If they had tried to convict Dowling of the transport of stolen merchandise, he would have lost and not been granted audience into the Supreme Court.  In fact, they may have even done so- the case ONLY covers the 2314 count- no mention is made of other charges that may have been leveled against Dowling, and reading the case's first footnote you'll find that there were multiple counts, to 6 of which Dowling's co-defendants plead guilty.

The copyright infringement occurred, it was a theft.  It just wasn't "stolen, converted or taken by fraud," and Dowling was a transporter of stolen goods, not a copyright infringer.


----------



## Wayside (Sep 7, 2005)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> I've read Psionicists Wiki link, and it didn't change my position or knowledge of the situation at all.  The best pirated DVD's will match up poorly to the worst quality prpfessionally produced DVD's, IMO.



As far as I know, data is data. You don't need any kind of video suite or fancy equipment to make an image (an exact digital copy) of a DVD. I can copy the image to my harddrive and play it there by mounting it on a virtual DVD drive, for example, and this is identical to putting the DVD in my DVD player and watching it that way. I can also use a DVD burner to make an exact copy of the DVD with no loss of quality. There's no kind of video transfer involved--this is reserved entirely for using divx and other compression schemes, which take a 4 gig DVD image down to about 700 megs. These compressed files do lose some quality, but DVD images do not.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 7, 2005)

That depends on what, exactly, you mean by pirated DVDs.

I know a place that sells pirated DVDs of stuff that is still in the theaters...in their 1st week of their run!

That may be the kind of stuff Kid Charlemagne is referring to.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 7, 2005)

Hi Danny, nice to have input from someone who could legitimately start his posts with "IAAL and..." rather than "IANAL but..."!

Very interesting reading.

Cheers


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Corporate espionage is BIG BUSINESS! Everything from hard extraction of data and prototypes to hacking mainframes.




Yes. Where did you think I developed my ethics regarding the distribution of information?

I'm sorry to say, that as much as I love roleplaying, it isn't a real big factor in my ethical decisions-- I don't base my worldview around my desire to play roleplaying games. 



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Do you think for ONE minute if you were to snag Boeing's plans for thier latest fighter jet that they wouldn't slit your throat and dump your charred body in a ditch somewhere?




And Bloodstone Press would be all too happy to do it, too, if he could get away with it.

I never said information was "worthless" or "valueless"-- I said it should be free. The fact that some people are willing to kill to protect certain information doesn't change that it should be free-- if anything, it makes it more important that it be made free.

If it were "worthless", I wouldn't be saying-- repeatedly, I might add-- that the people who create that information should be compensated for doing so. I wouldn't care if they got their paychecks, and I wouldn't avoid sharing the products of people I'm worried might not get paid because of it.

And yes, if it were within my means, I *would* snag Boeing's prototype plans, the core code to Windows Alpha, and the name of the man who shot Kennedy-- but as I said before, I'm no hero, and my charred body would end up in a ditch before I even got close.



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Information is power and wealth in that arena.




Yes. That's why it must be distributed.



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> And who are you to decide whether or not something that was worked on for hundreds of man hours is valueless and should be free?




Who are you to decide what can and cannot be shared freely? Who are you to stop me?


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Not quite - the second is economically good _if and only if_ in the process of creation there is some addition to the economy.  If the new thing is created such that it does not actually take part in the economy (like copying a file and not paying for it), no good is done in the economy.  Ergo, downloading the file and not paying for it is, at best, economically neutral.




Your understanding is different from that of The Economist, where I got this argument from.  
According to The Economist (& the standard economic theory the writer was expounding) any valued good is an economic good.  The normal way of valuing these goods is "what would you be willing to pay for it". Eg: if I build my own computer table, it does not "take part in the economy", yet it is still an economic good because I attach value to it.  Likewise a piece of software I download for free.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr said:
			
		

> Who are you to decide what can and cannot be shared freely? Who are you to stop me?




 The owner of the copyright, who has decided how much I am willing to sell *copies* for in the free market system. 


> Originally Posted by Warlord Ralts
> Information is power and wealth in that arena.






			
				Korimyr said:
			
		

> Yes. That's why it must be distributed.



Distribution of wealth?  Now you endorse communism?



			
				Korimyr said:
			
		

> And Bloodstone Press would be all too happy to do it, too, if he could get away with it.




 Apparently you missed my post on page 3, where I said 


			
				Me said:
			
		

> The psychology of killing is a whole separate can of worms from what we are talking about. Indeed, its the subject of a new Chapter in my up-coming  Book of Broken Dreams revision.
> 
> [shameless plug] Anyone who buys the antiquated, original version of the Book of Broken Dreams now (for only $5) will get a free copy of the revised version, which will include a new chapter on mobs, group dynamics and crowds as well as a new chapter on the psychology of killing. this revised version will sell for $7 (because of the two new Chapters)
> so, buy now, save $2 and pick up a great gaming sourcebook, no matter what system you play.
> ...



 
 Of course, I should also point out that anyone with a pirated copy of that book won't be getting a free copy of the revision from me, and anyone who obtains a free copy from anyone other than me would be stealing it. 

 Really, if you can read all the legal and ethical arguments of the past two pages alone, and still not offer up any better defense, or reconsider your attitude, then this conversation is at it's hopeless conclusion.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2005)

IAALL*.  In the UK Theft is a particular criminal offence defined as taking a physical thing with "intention to permanently deprive" the legal owner of that thing.  Copyright infringement per se is a tort, not a criminal offence at all.  Fraud isn't Theft, either.  Burglary & Robbery are criminal offences which both include theft in their definitions.

*I Am A Law Lecturer.


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 7, 2005)

> IAALL*. In the UK Theft is a particular criminal offence defined as taking a physical thing with "intention to permanently deprive" the legal owner of that thing. Copyright infringement per se is a tort, not a criminal offence at all. Fraud isn't Theft, either. Burglary & Robbery are criminal offences which both include theft in their definitions.




 Fair enough. 

 But I am not, and have not been, arguing the legal aspect of this. I'm leaving that to the copyright lawyers, law lecturers and arm-chair law experts around here.  

 I have been arguing since page 1 about the ethical and psychological aspects of file-sharing. 

 Taking something that you should have paid for is ethically wrong and is best characterized as "theft."


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Distribution of wealth?  Now you endorse communism?




At risk of becoming political, not exactly. Re-distributing wealth does no good if you turn all the power over the distribution of wealth over to the government-- the point is for wealth and power to be held in *more* hands, not fewer.

I certainly wouldn't want the "stateless society" promoted by Marx, either.



			
				Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Apparently you missed my post on page 3, where I said




Really, it was a cheap shot on my part. I do not think, however upset you are about piracy, that would stoop to killing me, and I should not have said so.



			
				Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Of course, I should also point out that anyone with a pirated copy of that book won't be getting a free copy of the revision from me ...




Of course not. I wouldn't dream of asking you for one-- not that I have pirated any of your works.

What is Book of Broken Dreams, by the way? If it includes a chapter on mob psychology, I may be interested.



			
				Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> Really, if you can read all the legal and ethical arguments of the past two pages alone, and still not offer up any better defense, or reconsider your attitude, then this conversation is at it's hopeless conclusion.




That wasn't really a defense-- my defenses have been posted earlier. I can't use Boeing's (or anyone else's) ruthlessness as the basis of my morality, no matter how offensive it is to me. In any case, the copying and distribution of their prototype designs is, as Sundragon2012 would point out, a far cry from the wholesale copying of supplemental material for a roleplaying game.

My attitude on this matter is something I have considered, and reconsidered, and considered again; even with some of the well-thought and well-written arguments on the previous pages, I still believe it to be valid and correct.

I don't really think any of us came into this thread thinking we'd change our minds-- or, really change anyone else's mind-- but we have at least improved the level of discussion beyond "copying is theft!" and "books cost too much!". I figure at least some of us have gained some insight into the counter-arguments for their position, and that's worth something.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 7, 2005)

Bloodstone - I was directing that mostly to Danny "Entertainment Lawyer" Alcatraz.  

>> Taking something that you should have paid for is ethically wrong <<

I think this is true but tautologous.  I also think the law is an important factor.  Eg the (UK) law says I can resell books secondhand without compensating the publishers/authors.  Is the secondhand book trade morally ok?  What if the law changed so that resale became illegal or required me to pay a royalty to the Copyright Collections Agency?  Would reselling without compensation then become morally wrong, equivalent to theft?


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr said:
			
		

> What is Book of Broken Dreams, by the way? If it includes a chapter on mob psychology, I may be interested.




 What it is: A book on the "rules of psychology" in an RPG. It is written for d20, but a lot of people find it most useful for Call of Cthulhu. The chapter on personality runs on its own mini-game mechanic (a % system) and can be added to any RPG system. 

 The current version does not have any info on mobs, but the revision will. In fact that chapter is almost done. its 8,000 + words about group dynamics. It discusses juries, crowds, elite groups Vs ordinary groups, group process, dynamic social impact theory, group conflict, leadership of groups, behavioral contagion and mobs. The discussion on mobs covers trampling, what causes mobs, how mobs affect people that are in them, riots, and panics. 



			
				Korimyr  said:
			
		

> My attitude on this matter is something I have considered, and reconsidered, and considered again; even with some of the well-thought and well-written arguments on the previous pages, I still believe it to be valid and correct.



Then there is still hope for you.  



			
				 Korimyr said:
			
		

> I don't really think any of us came into this thread thinking we'd change our minds-- or, really change anyone else's mind




I did. Attitude change is possible. And Sundragon2012's post about how he used to pirate, but then changed his ways is a good example (I think it was him, anyway, who said that. I know someone did, but I'm not going to look for it). 

 Attitude change is not easy. It is one of the most difficult things to do in psychology, but it can be done. With over 2000 page views so far, I’m sure some folks reading this have given some more thought to the issue. And maybe some of them have taken a second look at their current set of attitudes, as you have. And maybe some of them will change. If not this time, maybe next time. 



			
				S’Mon said:
			
		

> I also think the law is an important factor. Eg the (UK) law says I can resell books secondhand without compensating the publishers/authors. Is the secondhand book trade morally ok? What if the law changed so that resale became illegal or required me to pay a royalty to the Copyright Collections Agency? Would reselling without compensation then become morally wrong, equivalent to theft?




I think this has already been addressed earlier when someone pointed out that buying a book gives you ownership of that copy. 

 Hypothetically changing the law would, in my opinion, require a lengthy look at *why* we are changing the law. If I find the reason to be morally sound, then I would support it and say “yes.” On the other hand, if I could find no morally sound reason to support such a change in the law, I would not support it and the answer would be “no. “


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Bloodstone Press said:
			
		

> What it is: A book on the "rules of psychology" in an RPG. It is written for d20, but a lot of people find it most useful for Call of Cthulhu. The chapter on personality runs on its own mini-game mechanic (a % system) and can be added to any RPG system.
> 
> The current version does not have any info on mobs, but the revision will. In fact that chapter is almost done. its 8,000 + words about group dynamics. It discusses juries, crowds, elite groups Vs ordinary groups, group process, dynamic social impact theory, group conflict, leadership of groups, behavioral contagion and mobs. The discussion on mobs covers trampling, what causes mobs, how mobs affect people that are in them, riots, and panics.




Hmm. Going to need to put money back on my credit card. 

How long's your special offer going on?


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr said:
			
		

> How long's your special offer going on?




 The current version (which was made back in 2002 and is in desperate need of a revision) will continue to be available for $5 until I disable it sometime in December or January. The revision (selling for $7) will be released sometime in April... maybe sooner, but no sooner than February.


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> I never said information was "worthless" or "valueless"-- I said it should be free. The fact that some people are willing to kill to protect certain information doesn't change that it should be free-- if anything, it makes it more important that it be made free.
> 
> If it were "worthless", I wouldn't be saying-- repeatedly, I might add-- that the people who create that information should be compensated for doing so. I wouldn't care if they got their paychecks, and I wouldn't avoid sharing the products of people I'm worried might not get paid because of it.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure I understand your point.  I would like some clarification.  What kind of natural law, right, or principle specifies that information in general should be free?

There is a difference in my mind between transparency for the common good (e.g., the US Freedom of Information Act, or SEC reporting requirements), and information that is private property by law and has no direct impact on public welfare.  For example, if a large company were poisoning groundwater, that should be made public.  That same company's proprietary technology, however, should not.  Eliminating their ability to compete effectively would drive them out of business, and do a net public harm through lost jobs, tax revenue, and GDP.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> I never said information was "worthless" or "valueless"-- I said it should be free.




When you understand the inherent contradiction in this statement, you might understand what is being discussed here.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 7, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That depends on what, exactly, you mean by pirated DVDs.
> 
> I know a place that sells pirated DVDs of stuff that is still in the theaters...in their 1st week of their run!
> 
> That may be the kind of stuff Kid Charlemagne is referring to.




There's a difference between bootlegs and files you can download. Bootleg copies are manufactured in countires like china and meant to be sold for profit, like pirated copies of Nike t-shirts. Every single "pirate" i know think this is wrong. People who download stuff from the Internet are usually regular people from western countries who don't do it for profit. Every single "pirate" I know think this is right, or atleast "not wrong".


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

I view filesharing as not much different from loaning stuff from friends, combined with the 'if' that I had a zillion friends!    I mean, there's not much difficulty in loaning a DVD from a friend, or loaning it from the library, for free. DLing from the net is about the same. Actually CDs are even worse than MP3 - all kinds of copyprotections so you cant use comp to listen them, no nifty playlists with songs from 100s of different albums on cd-players, you get them later than MP3's, which usually come 2 weeks before release date .. I could go on. 

Besides copyrights last too long anyway .. they should be much shorter. I mean, if everyones right to earn money from their design / creative effort was the most important thing, then shouldn't drug patents, for example, last as long as copyrights too?


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 7, 2005)

Besides, I have to pay taxes to the record industry on blank CD-R and DVD-R. It's my legal right to download all the music I want as I've paid for it.


----------



## GeorgeFields (Sep 7, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> On a previous hard drive, I had about a gigabyte of pirated D&D books.
> That hard drive crashed, and I haven't had any desire to go back and get any of that stuff.
> 
> What I'll never understand is why people take the time to scan an entire freaking book into .pdf to make it available on something like Bearshare. Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?




Like you, I had several Gig of downloaded .pdf's on a hard drive that crashed without the desire to take the time to reacquire them. I had trouble finding one book in particular to complete a set, but I had the actual book. I decided to scan it in myself, but quit after only 5 pages because it was more trouble than it was worth. I guestimated it would take me 3 or 4 days without sleeping to scan in a 300 page book. These people that scan in 300+ page books either have vastly superior computers and software or don't seem to have a life that needs their attention.


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Besides, I have to pay taxes to the record industry on blank CD-R and DVD-R. It's my legal right to download all the music I want as I've paid for it.




Thats soooo true, it's a total rip-off.


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

GeoFFields said:
			
		

> Like you, I had several Gig of downloaded .pdf's on a hard drive that crashed without the desire to take the time to reacquire them. I had trouble finding one book in particular to complete a set, but I had the actual book. I decided to scan it in myself, but quit after only 5 pages because it was more trouble than it was worth. I guestimated it would take me 3 or 4 days without sleeping to scan in a 300 page book. These people that scan in 300+ page books either have vastly superior computers and software or don't seem to have a life that needs their attention.




I pirate a lot of stuff (just trust me), but DLing RPG stuff always seemed kinda waste of time. I used to download some, but I noticed that they just took up space, and I don't have the patience to read them any more than I would leaf one at the store. Real books are still a bit superior  I did check out Barakus before buying it by DLing it.. just to make sure before I order stuff from USA.

Nyah-nyah-nyah, had I not DLed it, I wouldnt've bought it


----------



## GeorgeFields (Sep 7, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> I pirate a lot of stuff (just trust me), but DLing RPG stuff always seemed kinda waste of time. I used to download some, but I noticed that they just took up space, and I don't have the patience to read them any more than I would leaf one at the store. Real books are still a bit superior  I did check out Barakus before buying it by DLing it.. just to make sure before I order stuff from USA.
> 
> Nyah-nyah-nyah, had I not DLed it, I wouldnt've bought it




Same here, but I've bought a few books I lost on that hard drive because they were so good. Even though I had SEVERAL gig of .pdf's, I had probably only looked at maybe a dozen beyond more than a glance.
I agree that books are far superior in all ways, and printing out hundreds of .pdf's to look at is just plain crazy. Even of the few .pdf's I've legitimately bought, only two of them have seen the printer.


----------



## D_Sinclair (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Besides, I have to pay taxes to the record industry on blank CD-R and DVD-R. It's my legal right to download all the music I want as I've paid for it.




Must be a canadian thing. Here in the United States, the blank manufacturers pay a fee on packages of CDs marked a certain way. This is why packages of CD-Rs marked as "for music" cost significantly more those marked "for data". Physically there is no difference. the excess money pays the fees colled out to the recording industry. Once people realized there was no difference, this idiotic appeasement scheme fell apart. Unfortunately, most people still believe there is some sort of difference between the two that makes those "music CD-Rs" a necessity for burning music CDs.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Besides copyrights last too long anyway .. they should be much shorter.




The only problem with this justification is that the vast majority of things that are downloaded on a regular basis are those things that would still be in copyright even if the term was vastly reduced down to something like 20 years, or even 10 years.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 7, 2005)

Lots of twisting and turning to validate what people know good and well is stealing.

And if all information is made free, whose going to bother making more information.


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 7, 2005)

> They are being Chaotic, not Evil. Piracy is a matter of ethics, not morals.




I'd argue it's both a problem of ethics and morals, and not really whether it has an effect on the market or not, from my point of view. To be honest, I don't care if it has an effect on the market or not (and to answer shortly, I think it does have an effect on small publishers - the vast majority - and none on the giants - the tiny minority). 

*For me theft is theft. *

Morally speaking theft is wrong. Ethically speaking, thinking theft is not wrong is selfish and/or short-sighted.


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Lots of twisting and turning to validate what people know good and well is stealing.




Nawh mayne, it's more like loaning it, like you'd loan a DVD from your friend. It starts when I've DLed the movie, CD, whatever, and ends when I kick it from the recycling bin


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand your point.  I would like some clarification.  What kind of natural law, right, or principle specifies that information in general should be free?




The nature of information itself, being that when information is shared, the amount of information available is increased-- not only because of the additional copies, but because of the way that new information promote new connections between older pieces of information.



			
				DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> There is a difference in my mind between transparency for the common good (e.g., the US Freedom of Information Act, or SEC reporting requirements), and information that is private property by law and has no direct impact on public welfare.




There is such a difference in my mind, too. FOIA and SEC reporting, or the more stringent transparency measures in Sweden or Finland are far more important-- I'd argue morally *necessary*-- than simply spreading informational luxuries like games.

The vast majority of what I share is public domain and non-gaming related; non-classified military documents, pre-copyright books, MIT's free textbooks, and so on. If I could get my hands on "charred body in a ditch" information (thank you, Ralts), I'd share that, too; unfortunately, I'm neither a hacker nor a spy, and I have no inclination to become either.



			
				DreadPirateMurphy said:
			
		

> For example, if a large company were poisoning groundwater, that should be made public.  That same company's proprietary technology, however, should not.  Eliminating their ability to compete effectively would drive them out of business, and do a net public harm through lost jobs, tax revenue, and GDP.




I don't know-- if a large company were poisoning groundwater, I'd think crippling them and driving them out of business would actually be a public good, despite the lost jobs/tax revenue.

But that's not really what we're talking about here, since we all know that the only game publisher that poisons groundwater (and kills puppies!) is White Wolf.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Nawh mayne, it's more like loaning it, like you'd loan a DVD from your friend. It starts when I've DLed the movie, CD, whatever, and ends when I kick it from the recycling bin




Except that you are stealing exactly what the property in question is: the right to make additional copies. If your friend deleted the item from his computer when he sent it to yours, then that would be analogous to a lending arrangement.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> The nature of information itself, being that when information is shared, the amount of information available is increased-- not only because of the additional copies, but because of the way that new information promote new connections between older pieces of information.




The only problem with this view is that the net result will likely be less new information generated, decreasing the information avaliable in the long run, because you destroy one of the primary incentives to making information public _at all_.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you understand the inherent contradiction in this statement, you might understand what is being discussed here.




Air's free; if you think it's worthless, you've never had an asthma attack.

How much did you pay for your humanity?

Not all values are (or can be) measured in money.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> The only problem with this view is that the net result will likely be less new information generated, decreasing the information avaliable in the long run, because you destroy one of the primary incentives to making information public _at all_.




*sigh* Unfortunately, this is true. Even with the fan-sites and online gaming community running at full crank, they wouldn't be able to put out nearly the amount of content that the professionals do-- because the professionals can afford to do it full-time. There's also the issue of quality, because even the best amateurs usually have a hard time finding a good layout artist or proof editor.

I'm thankful, at least, for the fact that no amount of sharing could really hurt any of the big print houses, but I'm worried about the small-run (especially the electronic) publishers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Air's free; if you think it's worthless, you've never had an asthma attack.




Air is not always free. Nor should it be. Once you understand that, you will be ready for this conversation.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Once you understand that, you will be ready for this conversation.




I should have asked you how much you paid for your condescension lessons.

Then again, maybe some things are better off kept to oneself.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> I should have asked you how much you paid for your condescension lessons.




When you make child-like statements like "information should be free", expect a certain amount of scolding to go on. When you start talking like someone with a grasp on the issues, you will be met with responses of a different tenor.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you make child-like statements like "information should be free"




_"Information should be free"_

"This was uttered by Peter Samson who was a legendary member of the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT. I would put [that] phrase as being coined circa 1959".


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

_edit: Double post._


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you start talking like someone with a grasp on the issues, you will be met with responses of a different tenor.




And when you learn how to talk to other adults in an appropriate fashion, you will be met with further responses.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> And when you learn how to talk to other adults in an appropriate fashion, you will be met with further responses. Until then, I am done with you.




When you argue like an adult, you will be treated as one.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> "This was uttered by Peter Samson who was a legendary member of the Tech Model Railroad Club at MIT. I would put [that] phrase as being coined circa 1959".




A man who also coined terms to give units of "irony", and "parsimony", called a hammer an "adjusting tool" and a host of other silliness. I'm thinking this is not the guy to go to for a serious definition on anything.

And his quote was "information wants to be free", not should.


----------



## Morrus (Sep 7, 2005)

Cut it out, you two - right now.  Be polite or don't post.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you make child-like statements like






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Once you understand that, you will be ready for this conversation.






			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> When you argue like an adult, you will be treated as one.




Enough with your derogatory comments, if anyone here is acting like a stubborn child it's you. After all, it's not Rat here who's name-calling, you are. Your opinions are not worth more than Korimyr the Rats.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Enough with your derogatory comments, if anyone here is acting like a stubborn children it's you. After all, it's not Rat here who's name-calling, you are. Your opinions are not worth more than Korimyr the Rats.




Actually, yes, they are. Because mine are grounded in the reality that information is valuable, and valuable things cannot be free, let alone should not be free. If you want to make pollyanna-esque arguments about how everyone should have fluffy bunnies on demand, then your opinions are pretty much without merit. If you want to actually deal with how the scarce resources of the world should be allocated among the many individuals who demand them, then you've actually got something to talk about.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Sep 7, 2005)

By claiming all information should be free, you essentially cause the stagnation of technology.

Electronic microchip schematics are information.
Data format and transmission protocols are information.
State of the art technology schematics and theorums are information.

By stating those should be free, and making it OK to disseminate those, no matter what the wishes of the creator, will make it so nobody will work on any of it. Why should a corporation devote millions, or billions, to developing a new technology, when all of the research data and final data are now free, and anyone can have it. Why should they do thier competitors a favor and create all of this for free.

Scientific discoveries are rarely done by a guy in his garage any more (I can't think of any right off hand in the last 20 years) but instead by large government or corporate labs. Even colleges recieve generous amounts of money from the government and corporations in the hope that thier research will pan out.

By insisting that information should all be free is insisting that nobody should be recompesnenced for the time and effort it took to develope that information.

And your basic humanity did have a cost. A major one. And it still does.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 7, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> By stating those should be free, and making it OK to disseminate those, no matter what the wishes of the creator, will make it so nobody will work on any of it.




This is simply not the case-- one need only look at Open Source, publically-funded research, and the natural human desire to create and to learn.

We would lose some of the incentive to research, but I think this would be more than made up for by the advantage gained from the ability to build off of others' research. We'd also gain by the fact that we'd have far fewer people researching cosmetics and synthetic sugar substitutes-- who'd then be free to research things that are more beneficial.

Same kind of science that leads to improved cosmetics and newer diet sweeteners can be used to create new medicines or new methods to clean up toxic waste.

I'd like to respond to the rest of your post, but this has become too political already. 



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> By insisting that information should all be free is insisting that nobody should be recompensed for the time and effort it took to develop that information.




There are ways of compensating authors and designers (and researchers, if we wish to maintain that argument) that don't involve selling their works directly for profit-- and given how rampant piracy is, it is in the best interests of everyone who makes their money in any information industry to discover those ways.



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> And your basic humanity did have a cost. A major one. And it still does.




Maybe you're right... but who's paying it?


----------



## Falkus (Sep 7, 2005)

> This is simply not the case-- one need only look at Open Source, publically-funded research, and the natural human desire to create and to learn.




Open source and the like is not a praticularly popular way of producing information. Windows still powers ninty-five percent of the computers in the world.



> We would lose some of the incentive to research, but I think this would be more than made up for by the advantage gained from the ability to build off of others' research. We'd also gain by the fact that we'd have far fewer people researching cosmetics and synthetic sugar substitutes-- who'd then be free to research things that are more beneficial.




The equipment to perform advanced biology and pharmeceutical research can cost upwards of tens of millions of dollars. Who exactly would do this sort of thing without expecting compensation? I'll answer it, nobody.

Oh, and who the **** are you to say what should and shouldn't be researched?



> There are ways of compensating authors and designers (and researchers, if we wish to maintain that argument) that don't involve selling their works directly for profit--




Name one that could ever possibly work.


----------



## Numion (Sep 7, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that you are stealing exactly what the property in question is: the right to make additional copies. If your friend deleted the item from his computer when he sent it to yours, then that would be analogous to a lending arrangement.




But if I stole his right to make copies, the copyright, shouldn't I now be the holder of the copyright? I stole it, right? 

Of course, that didn't happen. I don't have the right, so I couldnt've stolen it. But thats a minor point for me, and the law of the land actually agrees with me (and here even goes as far to tell me that I'm just making fair use of the content, pretty far from thieving) so there's no truth to saying I stole anything.

Why are people so adamant in claiming that copying stuff is thieving, BTW? Trying to bolster their argument about the legality or moral rightness of such? Please .. thats so lame. Argument your case on the facts at hand, not yelling "filthy thieveses" in gollum voice


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 7, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Open source and the like is not a praticularly popular way of producing information. Windows still powers ninty-five percent of the computers in the world.




Ever heard of OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Python, Miranda, BitTorrent, DC++, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic, XVID, phpBB, PHP, Apache etc?

These are all open source projects.


----------



## Henry (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ever heard of OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Python, Miranda, BitTorrent, DC++, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic, XVID, phpBB, PHP, Apache etc?
> 
> These are all open source projects.




While these projects are great, not one is used by any more than 5 to 10 percent of all computer users, and even opensource projects do not preclude developers from making money off of them. Just because there are numerous open source projects, it doesn't mean they are a popular means of software development. For every open source project, there are thousands of companies developing software IP and selling licenses conventionally. The projects you've mentioned are successful, but sucessful in a "Malhavoc Press vs. WotC" kind of way.

Most open source developers make their money from services rendered rather than selling code info. Where this breaks down with file-sharing is that the developers of RPG products are not compensated for services rendered. In my analogy, it's like getting phone or on-site support from Red Hat for you box running a Linux distro, but not paying them for it.


----------



## Steel_Wind (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Ever heard of OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Python, Miranda, BitTorrent, DC++, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic, XVID, phpBB, PHP, Apache etc?
> 
> These are all open source projects.




Yes, clearly he has. 

Did you bother to read what you quoted? The market share expressed there is about accurate.  

I'm blown away at the ranting going on here in this thread now.  Near as I can tell:

*1 - Copying is not theft; it's copyright infringement*

That would be correct as a legal assessment. The problem is that those who are pursuing that issue aggressively seme to be doing so with a view to establishing that copyright infringement is not a moral wrong or an offence of moral turpitude. A view which is hard to accept when taken to extremes.

The discussion is soundling like a broken record at this point.  you guys stopped listening to one another long ago.

2 - Someone, Korimyr, is parttling on about* information desiring to be free and how researchers "need to find the ways" to make money off of patents because piracy is a fact of life.*

Here's another fact: goernments have police. Courts have wide and sweeping investigative and injunctive powers.  When they choose to use them, the rampant piracy we often see comes to a screeching halt and the powerless and ineffectual government you were sing at is now the Big Bully.  Be careful of The Man. Most of the time he's nice enough - and then somedays he decides to BE The Man.

Look - I'm not  big fan of the RIAA and I could care less about their business model  -I don't even care much about some of the artists who apparently are suffering. There are others and there always will be. It's just not important to me.

But shrugging at music downloading is one thing, gaming stuff and movies another.

Really. Try to be a little responsible in some of the views advocated here.  While I am not a fan of big pharmaceutical companies trying to maximize their profit by keeping out generics for as long as they possibly can - I DO realize there is a reaon for the patent.

Just because I think software patents are stupid - does not mean that I throw the baby out with the bathwater.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Sep 7, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> As far as I know, data is data. You don't need any kind of video suite or fancy equipment to make an image (an exact digital copy) of a DVD.




You are correct, however I was replying primarily to the below quoted material, which was mostly about gettin a pirated copy that significantly deviates from the original, and gets to the consumer faster.  If its out before the legit copy, it's generally bootlegged in some way, and is of lesser quality.  It's true that you can get exact digital-to-digital copies after something is released, but in that case Psionicist's points in the quote below have no relevance to the discussion.



			
				Psionicist said:
			
		

> I know for movies, the pirated copy is usually better than the legit one you buy in a store. The original DVD has ads in it, and region codes, and are not available in the whole world at the same time. Compare this with the pirated copy that doesn't has ads in it, no region coding and it's available in the whole world _before_ it's released in stores. It's the same thing with TV-series. No ads, you can watch it whenever you want and you can watch it in weird countries where it's not shown at all. For movies and TV-series, the pirated version is superior the original.


----------



## Jacen (Sep 7, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> But if I stole his right to make copies, the copyright, shouldn't I now be the holder of the copyright? I stole it, right?
> 
> Of course, that didn't happen. I don't have the right, so I couldnt've stolen it.



No you didn't because you already had that right. Fair use right - it is said in law that person is allowed to make copy for his own use. No matter what is the source (original, copy, "illegal" copy, piratted pdf, d/l mp3 etc.). And I need to point out that computer programs are exceptions they aren't allowed to be copied. Anyway law says that I have right and I do pay for that right that extra tax in blank medias be it CD-R, DVD-R, cameras memory card!, blank cassete, rocordable digi-TV receiver - and not that cameras memory card stores only pictures takem BY ME and I own the copyright and still I have to pay for government.  Digi-TV box has limited room that can't be replaced and thus that copy is not staying forever and yet fee is collected.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> But thats a minor point for me, and the law of the land actually agrees with me (and here even goes as far to tell me that I'm just making fair use of the content, pretty far from thieving) so there's no truth to saying I stole anything.
> 
> Why are people so adamant in claiming that copying stuff is thieving, BTW? Trying to bolster their argument about the legality or moral rightness of such? Please .. thats so lame. Argument your case on the facts at hand, not yelling "filthy thieveses" in gollum voice




Yes we are just using our rights as told in law and paying for it and still ppl here are shouting THIEVES!. Life sucks  But it would be nice ppl to understand that even you are living in big country its laws aren't global. 

I know that RPG authors doesn't get any cent from that levy collected, but that is one more reason to buy the original if you like the product or use it. 

Well I can live without buying pdfs. I quit buing music CDs after copyprotection came. Nowadays one can't be sure if it is CD or some plastic disc that only resamples CD - haven't even d/l any mp3s after that. There is enough music on radio and in my collection of over 200 CD. Damn that sarcasm is hard... that looks more like a threat made by a kid - that is not intention. Just trying to point out that I do not need them. I like them and like to play but no not need. Hmmmm... luxury products or something was the term.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 7, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> While these projects are great, not one is used by any more than 5 to 10 percent of all computer users




I doubt it. Every computer user with an internet connection use open source software indirectly. Apache for example is used by over 65% of all web servers in the world. When you use ENWorld, you are being served by open source software (Apache, PHP and MySQL). Even if you don't use ENWorld, most ISP's uses BIND for their DNS servers. Open source software translate the enworld.org name to an IP address. These are not small projects. These projects are the very foundation of the Internet. Not Malhavoc Press (nothing wrong with Malhavoc though ).

As for user software: Firefox has a market share of over 11% and increasing, it's much higher in some countries (30%+ in Finland for example). BitTorrent amounts for over 35% of the Internet traffic worldwide ( http://in.tech.yahoo.com/041103/137/2ho4i.html ), don't know what that means though. Windows network code is based on open source software from BSD but with a different license.

This is a huge movement, not an insignficant 5%.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 7, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> I doubt it. Every computer user with an internet connection use open source software indirectly. Apache for example is used by over 65% of all web servers in the world. When you use ENWorld, you are being served by open source software (Apache, PHP and MySQL).




Damn you beat me to it.  I was going to say Apache has the lions share of the web server market.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 7, 2005)

That's probably because IIS sucks _really_ bad. Unfortunately, we use .NET web services and ASP.NET at work, so IIS is a must. Bah.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 7, 2005)

> Ever heard of OpenOffice, Firefox, GIMP, Python, Miranda, BitTorrent, DC++, Thunderbird, Media Player Classic, XVID, phpBB, PHP, Apache etc?




And have you ever heard of Windows, Doom III, Half-Life 2, Command and Conquer or Neverwinter Nights?



> These are all open source projects.




Whoop de ****ing doo. Do you actually have a point to make?



> This is a huge movement, not an insignficant 5%.




The vast majority of decent quality software produced in the world is not open source. Especially computer games and other entertainment. Regardless of whatever delusions a guy might have about a world without copyrights, the cold hard fact is that modern entertianment requires significant resources to produce.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2005)

> There are ways of compensating authors and designers (and researchers, if we wish to maintain that argument) that don't involve selling their works directly for profit-- and given how rampant piracy is, it is in the best interests of everyone who makes their money in any information industry to discover those ways.




I would love to see some of these compensatory models.

What compensates the writer, his editor, etc. for the work he does in creating a work if not the money he needs to support his family?  What about the musician, his producer, his engineer, his mixer, etc?

Should creative types be government employees who get an annual income while the world may freely download their stuff??  If so, do they get differing sums based upon the popularity of their work?

If that's your model, I'll just say its a lot less fair or efficient than letting the free market do its magic.  The money used to pay the salaries of creators of intellectual property will have to come from taxes, and in all likelyhood, the sum they would recieve would be MUCH less than they currently do.  Or, to put it another way: if you think its unfair for a musician to take home $0.25/CD sold...how is it MORE fair for them to take home $0.07/CD sold?

PS: S'mon...why put "Entertainment Lawyer" in quotes?  Yes, UK laws differ...but in the US, "theft" isn't limited to physical property...witness our current fuss about ID theft.  It, too, is just information...  Ditto our recent No Electronic Theft Act of 1997, which expressly gives criminal liability to the intentional distribution of copied software over the Net.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I would love to see some of these compensatory models.




So would I. Unfortunately, I haven't discovered them, either.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> What compensates the writer, his editor, etc. for the work he does in creating a work if not the money he needs to support his family?  What about the musician, his producer, his engineer, his mixer, etc?




When referring to compensation in this thread, I am still referring to monetary compensation. Money's the primary form of compensation for most useful work in most (if not exactly all) of the world-- and the few holdouts do not have social models I would care to emulate.

I *would* like to see a world where this is not the case-- but that's so far beyond the scope of this thread as to be not worth discussing.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Should creative types be government employees who get an annual income while the world may freely download their stuff??  If so, do they get differing sums based upon the popularity of their work?




That's one solution. I share your reservations about how effective it would be-- and there are obvious questions about the quality and integrity of the art produced in such a system. 

The ransom model has its share of problems, too, but it's something worth investigating.

You might argue that these models are worse than the ideal pay-per-copy system-- the one in which piracy doesn't exist and everyone pays for what they use-- but as the existence of this thread proves, we don't get to work with the ideal. 

Before you argue that I'm part of the problem-- because, for the most part, I can't say that I'm not-- remember that I'm participating in this thread because I consider myself an ethical, responsible human being, as do the others participating here. Even if we conceded the argument today, ceased all file-sharing activities, and became model consumers, there are the millions of people using filesharing software to download copyrighted materials who do not care about the the ethics of what they're doing. There are the bastards burning whole CDs of data or music and selling them for $4 a pop without paying a dime to the people who created the data or the music.

If the game designers and authors wish to continue to be paid-- and they're certainly justified in that wish-- they have to realize that the pay-per-copy model is, at best, a temporary measure. It's been propped up by new media technologies, and received a boost from the online market, but the ability to make flawless reproductions of information online is going to kill it eventually-- and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Or, to put it another way: if you think its unfair for a musician to take home $0.25/CD sold...how is it MORE fair for them to take home $0.07/CD sold?




You're walking this pirate down the wrong plank. I'm not too worried about musicians with signed record deals, and I don't concern myself (too much) with the deals made between creator and publisher.

I also think, that is I were concerned about that, that engaging in piracy wouldn't be the correct solution-- because, after all, if they get $0.25 per CD sold now, and would get $0.07 per CD sold under some government-sponsored program, they'd still get $0.00 per CD downloaded off the Internet.

I'm no Robin Hood, and I know that. I'm just a guy caught with his conscience pulling him in two different directions-- and trying to defend the compromise he's making from people who don't acknowledge one of the ideals he's trying to uphold.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 8, 2005)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> But I can certainly understand *why* people download stuff off places like Bearshare. What I'll never understand is why people take the time to scan an entire freaking book into .pdf to make it available on something like Bearshare. Why are some people so devoted towards being evil?




In the piracy community, status is measured by the quality and speed of one's work. Theirs is a community like any other, albeit with a different focus than many of us will find acceptable.

The effort they go to is no different than gaining status in an MMO, after all. 

- Ket


----------



## Ace (Sep 8, 2005)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Lots of twisting and turning to validate what people know good and well is stealing.
> 
> And if all information is made free, whose going to bother making more information.




I am not pro copyright infringement (though I would like to see a 28 year limit and an abandonware clause) howevever I think your statement is a bit wrong here. Money is not the only reason to make stuff  

In fact  a lot of information made just for the fun of sharing or to satify a personal itch or whatever reason. 
The web is full of bad to great fiction, art, music, reviews, computer software and gaming stuff all free and legal for the taking. In some cases they are promos or adds for a sale product, others are released just because computers make it very easy.

. In not that many years (IMO) most forms of information will have a low cost of entry. Since Information (as versus hard goods) will have a pretty low cost of entry this means a lot of people contributing and even idf they contribute just a spot  there will soon be more than anyone can even use.

 Eventually it will be possible to use a cheap PC to do gene sequencing with software paid for with tax payers  money 

This may be a bad idea mind but it does mean that the current value of information is in flux 

Now IMNSHO there are good reasons to hide/license information -- mainly national security ones (there are people who would misuse the knowledge of how to create certain weapons FREX) and possibly ones related to the need to create profit to remburse funding of high capitalization projects such as medicine -- 

The former reason will probably last indefinetly  but the later-- don't be too sure 

if you want a media  example check out Star Trek New Voyages 

http://www.newvoyages.com/

This is a crude version of tommorows home movie -- the kind of thing that someday may be so easy to make it will be made in large numbers (possibly by expert systems) and will knock the wind out of media. It look almost as good as a production from the 1960's and was basically a garage project

Unless the state smashes (which is too political to discuss in this thread)  them other technologies will fall in line and the garage inventor will return 

Until then -- well  Stay within the law and please don't steal PDF's especially from the little guy. It does hurt our friends and fellow travelers (or is it Travellers  in the hobby


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 8, 2005)

I think the quote feature is overused


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2005)

> Me
> Or, to put it another way: if you think its unfair for a musician to take home $0.25/CD sold...how is it MORE fair for them to take home $0.07/CD sold?






> Korimyr the Rat
> You're walking this pirate down the wrong plank. I'm not too worried about musicians with signed record deals, and I don't concern myself (too much) with the deals made between creator and publisher.
> 
> I also think, that is I were concerned about that, that engaging in piracy wouldn't be the correct solution-- because, after all, if they get $0.25 per CD sold now, and would get $0.07 per CD sold under some government-sponsored program, they'd still get $0.00 per CD downloaded off the Internet.





Sliiiight misunderstanding there, Kor- we all understand (I hope) there is no economic model that can compete with free goods.

My point was that with a single payor (gov't job) model, the EFFECTIVE price/unit consumed (by download, obtaining physical copies, etc.) will drop precipitously, _especially_ with works that can be downloaded electronically, since acquisition cost is near nil, which means that scarcity is non-existent, and infinite demand can be satisfied.  The more download the $50k/yr artist generates, the less he is being paid per unit.  Economically, he'd be best off by producing just 1 unit per year for that salary:  imagine Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon released 1 song at a time over a period of 10 years (its easy if you try).

As far as I know, there is NO government position that pays a competitive wage as compared to equivalent or analogous non-government positions.  Example- my father, a physician, makes about 8-10x what he made as a military physician (varies annually), even accounting for losses in income due to insurance companies that reimburse him for his services at less than his cost for providing his services.

A creator of intellectual properties as a gov't employee will, thus, be less well off than if he tried to sell his goods on the open market...with the sole exception being those who create goods that are virtually worthless....say, perhaps, 80' tall pornographic statues of Confederate Generals made from molded bear poop.

The Dutch tried this for some time with painters and other creators of fine art (sculptures, etc.).  As late as the early 1990's, anyone in the world could apply to become a Dutch state artist.  You did your art and they got ownership of everything you produced...for $15k/year (_many artists of quality can make that much from a single canvas or sculpture_). I don't know the current state of that program.


And this doesn't even address the issue of how easy it would be for the gov't to censor art in such a model.  After all, all they would have to say is "Your canvases are in storage in Hangar 18 at Nellis AFB...we can't display it at this time..."



> Korimyr the Rat
> If the game designers and authors wish to continue to be paid-- and they're certainly justified in that wish-- they have to realize that the pay-per-copy model is, at best, a temporary measure. It's been propped up by new media technologies, and received a boost from the online market, but the ability to make flawless reproductions of information online is going to kill it eventually-- and there's nothing any of us can do to stop it.




I don't know...if the majority of humans rediscover their ethics, perhaps IP creators will still be able to eke out a living at what they do.

Its not the tech thats the problem.  Its just a tool.  Its just that most people who violate copyrights don't even realize the consequences of their actions.  If I may analogize- guns are tools.  They are not inherently evil.  They don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier to do so.  The difference between the effort it takes to stab or bludgeon someone as compared to a simple pull of a trigger has had a devastating effect on murder rates in my former home city (New Orleans).

Similarly, while filesharing programs make copyright violations easier, they are NOT the cause.  In fact, such program (and related technologies) will ultimately make even LEGAL copies of IP much cheaper (even PHYSICAL copies) by radically reducing or eliminating many overhead costs in the distribution chain- transportation, warehousing, shrinkage, salaries and even excess production.

As far as I can tell from my personal research and the research of others, while piracy is indeed big and growing business, the average (mode) PIRATE is just an ordinary joe who "shared a file"- not the Russian Mafioso who is ripping discs and selling copies for $4/pop.



> Ace
> In fact a lot of information made just for the fun of sharing or to satify a personal itch or whatever reason.
> The web is full of bad to great fiction, art, music, reviews, computer software and gaming stuff all free and legal for the taking. In some cases they are promos or adds for a sale product, others are released just because computers make it very easy.




The difference is that people who decide to release their stuff for free _made that decision themselves_...copyright infringers are acting contra to the will of the owner/creators of the IP.



> Ace
> In not that many years (IMO) most forms of information will have a low cost of entry. Since Information (as versus hard goods) will have a pretty low cost of entry this means a lot of people contributing and even idf they contribute just a spot there will soon be more than anyone can even use.




That depends on how you define "low cost of entry."  A pharmaceutical formula may take billions to perfect.  An artist may spend thousands of dollars and decades of his life honing his craft; a writer may sacrifice his marriage while creating his magnum opus.  Some inventors (like Nicola Tesla) were so focused on their creations that they alienated themselves from society.

Sure, anyone can create a little IP...but the stuff that_ matters_...that takes talent, drive, and luck- which deserves to be rewarded.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Sep 8, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Besides, I have to pay taxes to the record industry on blank CD-R and DVD-R. It's my legal right to download all the music I want as I've paid for it.




Yup. I love being Canadian


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> PS: S'mon...why put "Entertainment Lawyer" in quotes?




Because Danny Entertainment Lawyer Alcatraz looks silly.    I wasn't doubting your claim to be an Entertainment Lawyer, in fact I believe it 100%.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Some inventors (like Nicola Tesla) were so focused on their creations that they alienated themselves from society.



It should be noted that Nikola Tesla died poor, because he was utterly uninterested in monetary wealth. His only goal was research, and all he needed the money for was continuation of research.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Sep 8, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> It should be noted that Nikola Tesla died poor, because he was utterly uninterested in monetary wealth. His only goal was research, and all he needed the money for was continuation of research.




Wasn't he also batshit loony?


----------



## Sammael (Sep 8, 2005)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> Wasn't he also batshit loony?



Pretty much, yeah. But without his insanity, the world would look a lot different today.


----------



## JBowtie (Sep 8, 2005)

I'd just like to point out that copyright law is not homogenous nor universal.

I believe that most posters are working off the assumptions of US or Canadian law.

Rather than cite all the laws I am familiar with, I will point out a few oddities you may not be aware of.

In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.

In Russia, digital goods have no copyright protection; this is why AllOfMp3 could not be shut down. Russians who download, upload, or otherwise manipulate digital works are not breaking the law.

In Australia, there is no fair use. There is currently a commission looking at changing this, but until it is signed into law Australians cannot enjoy the rights most of you have.

With regards to open source, I will only observe that Microsoft uses a lot of BSD-licensed code. Their TCP/IP stack, which allows Windows computers to connect to the internet, is still based on open-source code.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 8, 2005)

JBowtie said:
			
		

> In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.



This law, by the way, was requested by U.S. based multinational corporations, and was one of the requirements that the U.S. placed before China in order to join the WTO.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 8, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This law, by the way, was requested by U.S. based multinational corporations, and was one of the requirements that the U.S. placed before China in order to join the WTO.




When I researched this (US requiring China impose death penalty for copyright infringement) recently I found it was apparently a requirement imposed in bilateral US-China trade negotiations, in 1994 I think, not a result of multilateral WTO membership negotiations.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 8, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sliiiight misunderstanding there, Kor- we all understand (I hope) there is no economic model that can compete with free goods.




That's not my point-- I understand what you're saying. The point is, the amount of money the creators get, per unit sold, isn't proper justification for piracy; piracy doesn't increase this amount, and since it doesn't increase sales, it doesn't do anything to help the creators.

With the exception of small-run publishers, I'd also argue that it doesn't hurt the creators, but that's a seperate argument.

I guess, what I was trying to say was that I agreed with you about the so-called Robin Hoods being full of something suspiciously resembling the waste products of certain agricultural processes. If you're worried about the amount of money creators get per unit, refusing to buy more units doesn't actually help anything.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Economically, he'd be best off by producing just 1 unit per year for that salary:  imagine Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon released 1 song at a time over a period of 10 years (its easy if you try).




True, but this is the same for anyone paid by according to a time interval instead of per task-- anyone paid by the hour is better off doing as little as they can get away with, so that the work will take longer and they'll be paid more.

This hasn't managed to bring the construction or service industries to a screeching halt yet.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As far as I know, there is NO government position that pays a competitive wage as compared to equivalent or analogous non-government positions.  Example- my father, a physician, makes about 8-10x what he made as a military physician (varies annually), even accounting for losses in income due to insurance companies that reimburse him for his services at less than his cost for providing his services.




Aren't we talking about people *not* being able to make it in the private market, though?

Which is it-- can they not survive the private market, or is the private market utterly and wholly superior to any other model?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A creator of intellectual properties as a gov't employee will, thus, be less well off ... with the sole exception being those who create goods that are virtually worthless.




This is among the problems of government-sponsored art-- as well as the censorship issue you mention later in your post. I do not think this is a proper solution, either; what I do think is that leaving it to the private market, *especially* using the current business models, is economic suicide in the long run.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You did your art and they got ownership of everything you produced...for $15k/year (_many artists of quality can make that much from a single canvas or sculpture_).




And many artists of quality would have been grateful for that sum, even if it is a pittance. If I remember correctly, Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't know...if the majority of humans rediscover their ethics, perhaps IP creators will still be able to eke out a living at what they do.




Well, aside from my standard disclaimer that my ethics are firmly in place-- this is simply never going to happen. We can't base our social policy or our ethics on an ideal world; it's the same reason that pacifism is no good.

I might also point out, that in an ideal world, artists would get paid *and* people would have free and legal access to material. As long as artists rely on unit sales for their incomes, and as long as perfect reproduction is practically free, we're not going to have *either*, much less both.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If I may analogize- guns are tools.  They are not inherently evil.  They don't kill people, but they make it a lot easier to do so.  The difference between the effort it takes to stab or bludgeon someone as compared to a simple pull of a trigger has had a devastating effect on murder rates in my former home city (New Orleans).




I have a sneaking suspicion that you would like my views on this issue even less than you like my views on intellectual property. Information isn't the only thing I think people should have free and relatively equal access to.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The difference is that people who decide to release their stuff for free _made that decision themselves_...copyright infringers are acting contra to the will of the owner/creators of the IP.




As, I'm sure, are people who decide to purchase their copies used-- because not only are they getting the superior, hardcopy version, they're doing so without compensating the creator. Yes, this is legally protected, and occurs far less often than digital copying, but from the perspective of the creator's pocketbook, it's the exact same thing.

There are a lot of things I could do with a book that I'm sure the author wouldn't care for. That does not change the fact that I am justified in doing them.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sure, anyone can create a little IP...but the stuff that _matters_...that takes talent, drive, and luck- which deserves to be rewarded.




I really don't think anyone is arguing against this; I'm certainly not. However, the need for creators to be properly rewarded for their work cannot be allowed to prevent the free spread of knowledge.

Even the "luxury knowledge" that this thread is primarily concerned with.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 8, 2005)

> So would I. Unfortunately, I haven't discovered them, either.




You know, Lenin, Castro and all the other great revolutionaries of history all had an idea of what they wanted to do after they tore down the current system. You, you just want to tear down the system and not replace it with anything.



> True, but this is the same for anyone paid by according to a time interval instead of per task-- anyone paid by the hour is better off doing as little as they can get away with, so that the work will take longer and they'll be paid more.




For anything not so nebulous as art, it's easy for the employer to fire lazy ones. Art isn't so easy, and the government tends not to fire workers when it can avoid it.



> Which is it-- can they not survive the private market, or is the private market utterly and wholly superior to any other model?




Given that you've never been able to demonstrate a model superior to the private market, we're forced to logically conclude that the private market is the superior model.



> And many artists of quality would have been grateful for that sum, even if it is a pittance. If I remember correctly, Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime.




And a hell of a lot more artists wouldn't be. That it isn't enough to survive on. It's below the poverty line.



> As, I'm sure, are people who decide to purchase their copies used-- because not only are they getting the superior, hardcopy version, they're doing so without compensating the creator. Yes, this is legally protected, and occurs far less often than digital copying, but from the perspective of the creator's pocketbook, it's the exact same thing.




Strawman much? Part of the right of having a license is the right to give that license to someone else.



> I really don't think anyone is arguing against this; I'm certainly not. However, the need for creators to be properly rewarded for their work cannot be allowed to prevent the free spread of knowledge.




We had to burn down the village to save it. Sound familiar? Your policy would prevent the creation of new knowledge. There would be no more scientific research, no more movies, no more television, no more computer games, no more computers, for that matter. You aren't advoacting the free spread of knowledge, you're advocating its destruction.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 8, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Given that you've never been able to demonstrate a model superior to the private market, we're forced to logically conclude that the private market is the superior model.




You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- and I'm arguing with people who are trying to tell me it isn't broken.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Your policy would prevent the creation of new knowledge. There would be no more scientific research, no more movies, no more television, no more computer games, no more computers, for that matter. You aren't advocating the free spread of knowledge, you're advocating its destruction.




I'm not advocating the destruction of the current system-- the current system is doing that all on its own. I'm advocating taking advantage of the benefits of that system while they last and trying to talk people who I respect and whose work I enjoy out of going down with it.

For that matter... even as our Byzantine system of intellectual property is falling apart-- because it is insustainable given the realities of digital reproduction-- we have more new material being created than ever, for more profit than ever. (Maybe it's not getting to all the places it needs to go, but entertainment and corporate research are at all-time highs.) And we're already beginning to see that people are stepping up to replace that system.

Not because it's desirable, and not because the old system was bad, but because it is *necessary* because the old system is not adaptable to the new technology.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 8, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- and I'm arguing with people who are trying to tell me it isn't broken.




Yes, you do. You need to give an idea of how a better system could be put in play than the one that is being used. Otherwise you are just engaging in of form of the Nirvanah fallacy.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 8, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> When I researched this (US requiring China impose death penalty for copyright infringement) recently I found it was apparently a requirement imposed in bilateral US-China trade negotiations, in 1994 I think, not a result of multilateral WTO membership negotiations.




Do you have a reference for this? I have searched for information on the U.S. request that China impose the death penalty to copyright violations, but haven't been able to find anything. I'd like to see what is out there on the topic first hand.


----------



## Rykion (Sep 8, 2005)

Strangely enough, I can't find anything on the Chinese copyright death penalty.  I did find the US embassy's explanation of Chinese copyright laws.  It doesn't mention the death penalty at all.  I would expect it to if the US required it. Here is the site: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/ipr/copy.html


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 8, 2005)

Rykion said:
			
		

> Strangely enough, I can't find anything on the Chinese copyright death penalty.  I did find the US embassy's explanation of Chinese copyright laws.  It doesn't mention the death penalty at all.  I would expect it to if the US required it. Here is the site: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/ipr/copy.html




I haven't either, which is why I asked. I see the assertion made that China has the death penalty for copyright violations, and that this was the result of a U.S. demand, but I haven't ever been able to find anything supporting this. Having looked at the detailed discussion of Chinese copyright law that you provided, I'm wondering if the whole "China has the death penalty for copyright violators" thing is an internet myth.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 8, 2005)

> You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- and I'm arguing with people who are trying to tell me it isn't broken.




There's a difference between auto mechanics and social sciences. You're advocating the destruction of the current system, but you do not know if it is possible for their to be anything to replace the current system. Even if the current system is not perfect, it beats no system at all.



> I'm not advocating the destruction of the current system-- the current system is doing that all on its own. I'm advocating taking advantage of the benefits of that system while they last and trying to talk people who I respect and whose work I enjoy out of going down with it.




This sounds exactly like what a looter would say. You're part of the problem, not the solution.



> And we're already beginning to see that people are stepping up to replace that system.




Open source software and fan fiction is not a replacement.



> Not because it's desirable, and not because the old system was bad, but because it is necessary because the old system is not adaptable to the new technology.




And how do you know that? Maybe in two years there'll be a whole branch of the FBI specializing in tracking down information pirates, with an international authority to do so.


----------



## med stud (Sep 8, 2005)

Well since this discussion turned into a trench war on the right/wrong about downloading copyrighted materials pretty early I assume that it hasn't changed. I will let that discussion go and I will offer my points on the effects instead.

My bio: I haven't published anything I don't plan to do it. I have downloaded, though, when it was legal to do so. 

The effect downloading had on me was that it made me aware of things I wouldn't be aware of otherwise. I have many records with, for example, NIN and Johnny Cash now that I bought after downloading and thought "wow, this is good. These guys deserve to be paid for it." On the other hand, I have more songs made by them than I would ever afford or be willing to buy. I think this is where it turns difficult; on one hand, I have copyrighted material that I haven't payed for. On the other hand, both the property holders of Johnny Cash's work (may he rest in peace) and Trent Raznor (and, of course, the record companies) has gotten money they wouldn't have otherwise. I'm maybe not the most common kind of downloader but I don't think I'm that rare either.

Since I haven't done any research on this subject and I haven't made any deep interviews or analyzes on the people I know that downloaded I can only use my self as a reference for my next argument and that is, how do I react when I find something that I really want? The answer is that I buy it. I might want to check it out first but as a rule of thumb, as a lot of unused things I have proves, I buy it on gut feeling. When I'm curious about something, though, I don't buy it. If, for some reason, I can see what I'm curious about and it makes me change my mind I might buy it instead. With P2P I could check things out; 95% of what I downloaded I only looked at once and then I didn't look at it again but the other 5% I actually bought (I wasn't the kind of guy who downloaded 100s of gigs just because I could, hence the high number). I think this is pretty common, actually. I think it's seldom anyone really, really wants something and then they go: "Hey! Maybe I can get it for free!" and start searching for it. I think the absolute majority of downloaders go "Hmm since it's free I might give it a look." On the other hand, if they turn out to like it they maybe use it without paying for it.

So I think we have three factors here: On one hand, the people who buy something that they wouldn't buy if they hadn't downloaded it and on the other hand the people who doesn't buy something that they would have buyed if they hadn't downloaded it. In between there are all the things that none of them would have bought anyway. I think that the last cathegory is the absolute majority.

I think that, for role playing games, that the first cathegory wins out. A pdf isn't expensive compared to what you get for it, there is an inherent sympathy factor to the guy that struggles to make ends meet when publishing and I think role players as a whole are pretty morally conscious people (I actually think that  ). On the other hand the food on my table is not on the line when I guess this so it doesn't matter much to me whatever I'm right or wrong so I can afford to keep it on a purely theoretical level.

In short, I think P2P-networks are either beneficial to pdf publishers or that they doesn't have a big impact at all. 

PS: I'm not defending a moral position or anything here. I present what I think is correct and my reasoning behind it.

PSS: Can we please leave Chinese copy right laws out of this? I think this board is pretty clear on political content in threads... :-/


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 8, 2005)

> It should be noted that Nikola Tesla died poor, because he was utterly uninterested in monetary wealth. His only goal was research, and all he needed the money for was continuation of research.




Technically, according to a biography of his, he actually made quite a bit of money.  However, he spent it and gave it away almost as fast as he earned it.



> In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.
> 
> In Russia, digital goods have no copyright protection; this is why AllOfMp3 could not be shut down. Russians who download, upload, or otherwise manipulate digital works are not breaking the law.




In China and Russia, the pirate organizations fall into 2 main categories: Those with state support (generally pirating the IP of the EU and USA), and those actually operating in the same plants the multinationals are using because of the cheap labor costs.  The latter are the ones that are the most amusing to me- essentially, when machinery is offline because of "maintenance" or because the "shift change" or end of day reasons, the pirate employees fire up the machinery to run off illegal copies with the same equipment & packaging as the legit copies.

As for Russia's laws about digital data, EU and USA attorneys are going after those sites by putting pressure on the companies that process the payments.  If Visa, MC and the like find out the site has material that is pirated, they'll stop processing the credit card charges.  This, of course, shuts the site down...until its re-established as a different site.



> I'm not advocating the destruction of the current system-- the current system is doing that all on its own.




No, people who aren't playing by the rules are tearing up the system.  A boat works fine as long as there's no hole in the part below the water.  IP laws are the boat & copyright violators are puncturing the hull.



> This hasn't managed to bring the construction or service industries to a screeching halt yet.




Because (no insult intended) those industries do not depend on the unique abilities of any one person.  They are largely staffed by unskilled laborers and skilled laborers who have learned certain tasks- creativity is not an essential job quality.  Those in construction WITH creativity are generally architects or master craftsmen...who have invested as much time and energy into their skill-sets as any artist.

As for capitalism not being broken- I'll admit it does a poor job with handling the requirements of human beings who ineficiently insist on being clothed and fed and housed even though they're unemployed because their job got outsourced to a country where labor is cheaper...in the SHORT run.  Over time, the global economy will equalize salaries-but it will take generations, and US workers will probably see a decline in standard of living.

But, simply put, no other system does better at compensating workers for their work.

++++++



> I have a sneaking suspicion that you would like my views on this issue even less than you like my views on intellectual property. Information isn't the only thing I think people should have free and relatively equal access to.




I believe in responsible gun ownership.  That includes being certified in proper care & maintenance, use (fire control, accuracy, etc) and storage of the weapons.  Those with mental illnesses or criminal backgrounds should not have access to guns.  I also believe in a national database for gun ownership/gun crime data.

Hell, for a while where I live presently (TX), there was a guy who had a military surplus tank and live rounds- all legal- that he rolled out every July 4.  I had no problem with that.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, people who aren't playing by the rules are tearing up the system.  A boat works fine as long as there's no hole in the part below the water.  IP laws are the boat & copyright violators are puncturing the hull.




If the system is designed in such a fashion that it's that easy to violate the rules, and that difficult to catch the people who violate the rules-- so that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are violating those rules on a continual basis-- then the system is *broken*.

Good boats are designed to stop and contain leaks, and to be able to withstand minor punctures. If the boat's sinking that badly, it either wasn't seaworthy in the first place or you're sailing in the wrong ocean.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Because (no insult intended) those industries do not depend on the unique abilities of any one person.  They are largely staffed by unskilled laborers and skilled laborers who have learned certain tasks- creativity is not an essential job quality.  Those in construction WITH creativity are generally architects or master craftsmen...who have invested as much time and energy into their skill-sets as any artist.




No offense taken-- and I do see your point. However, I do think you overestimate the uniqueness of artists and writers as well. While they may require more innate talent than construction or service work, they are also learned tasks, and for the hundreds of people (possibly thousands) who make their living in this industry, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people eager to take their place.

Skill and creativity may be necessary traits for authors, but they're not unique traits. Cost-of-entry may hold a lot of bad products out of the marketplace, but it also denies us the fruits of a number of brilliant minds.

This argument is veering off-topic, however-- unless we want to discuss how other forms of piracy (software piracy in particular) might lower the cost-of-entry for RPG designers. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> As for capitalism not being broken- ... Over time, the global economy will equalize salaries-but it will take generations, and US workers will probably see a decline in standard of living.




I would dearly love to engage you in another forum-- one more appropriate for political discourse-- but we cannot continue this line of argument here. 



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But, simply put, no other system does better at compensating workers for their work.




*Some* workers. And I would also amend your statement to read "no other system *we've tried yet*". Remember, as far as economic ideologies go, the concept of intellectual property is still relatively new-- and we saw a major upheaval in economic systems during the Indutrial Revolution, too.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, you do. You need to give an idea of how a better system could be put in play than the one that is being used. Otherwise you are just engaging in of form of the Nirvana fallacy.




No, I don't. A man with your background in the law really should be familiar with the Opposition's burden in a debate.

My argument is that the current system is failing and that a new system is needed-- and I am capable of demonstrating this. *You're* capable of demonstrating this, because you've been using evidence of the system's failings as arguments against my conduct. I think every person in this thread-- except a few arguing that piracy has absolutely zero effect on sales-- is capable of showing that the current system is not working.

You don't have to be an engineer to see the bridge is out-- and you don't have to know how to fix it in order to report it.

Or to learn to swim.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Open source software and fan fiction is not a replacement.




Why not? Everything I need to do on a computer, I can do with open source software-- I even have a handful of entertaining games. And not all fan fiction is creepy erotica.

You're also leaving aside the fact that they're not the only possible replacements. We've got shareware (which works for non-software electronic information), ransom, and donation models-- and while all have their drawbacks, so does the current system. Almost certainly, someone soon is going to discover another business model for electronic publishing-- and we can see how well that one works.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> And how do you know that? Maybe in two years there'll be a whole branch of the FBI specializing in tracking down information pirates, with an international authority to do so.




Now who's dreaming?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 9, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> No, I don't. A man with your background in the law really should be familiar with the Opposition's burden in a debate.




If you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning public policy, yes, you do. What you are engaging in is the Nirvanah fallacy - denigrating a current system for its flaws, essentially comparing it to some unnamed, but perfect alternative. Unless you come up with some sort of alternative that cures the ills, you don't have any kind of argument that the current system is worse than any usable alternatives. You say "the current system is BROKEN" as if that proves some sort of point. It doesn't. Until you put forward some sort of option to replace the current system, your entirer argument is completely nullfied by the simple observation that the current system is better than any known alternative.

And you aren't "the opposition" (and public policy debates aren't a court of law). You want something changed. The burden, realistically, is on you to prove that this change is needed, and would be beneficial. You have yet to prove that changing would be beneficial, because you have not provided any alternative to compare the current system to.


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning public policy, yes, you do. What you are engaging in is the Nirvanah fallacy - denigrating a current system for its flaws, essentially comparing it to some unnamed, but perfect alternative. Unless you come up with some sort of alternative that cures the ills, you don't have any kind of argument that the current system is worse than any usable alternatives. You say "the current system is BROKEN" as if that proves some sort of point. It doesn't. Until you put forward some sort of option to replace the current system, your entirer argument is completely nullfied by the simple observation that the current system is better than any known alternative.




This might be the case if Korimyr were actually arguing that we should tear down capitalism.  However, as I read him, he'd simply arguing that we should start looking for better alternatives (with the awareness that there might not _be_ a better alternative to be found).  IF the current approach is as flawed as Korimyr claims it is (and I'm neutral on that), then I think we're justified in mounting a search for a better alternative based on the hope that there is such a better alternative.  That's what epistemically responsible people do when their current paradigm begins to break down.

Ugh, starting to sound like Kuhn.  Scientific paradigm shifts are actually an interesting analogy here, though.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> If you want to be taken seriously in a debate concerning public policy, yes, you do. What you are engaging in is the Nirvanah fallacy - denigrating a current system for its flaws, essentially comparing it to some unnamed, but perfect alternative.




I'm not denigrating the current system, however-- I am predicting its demise. As it stands, my only complaint with the current system, as it would be practiced in ideal form, is that it prevents the free flow of information. In the real world, however, the use of file-sharing technology means that the system cannot prevent dissemination-- and that is why the system is failing. The current system *depends* on controlling the flow of information to compensate authors; it is based on a functional impossibility.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Unless you come up with some sort of alternative that cures the ills, you don't have any kind of argument that the current system is worse than any usable alternatives.




Until you acknowledge that the ills exist, beyond blaming them on simple criminality, there is value in pointing them out.

As long as publishers are crying for the blood of the pirates-- or, at least, their criminal prosecution-- they're not doing anything to adapt themselves to the reality of the changing information market. It doesn't matter how many people they shut down, how many lawsuits they file, or how many draconian new laws they pass; if they do not adapt to this technology, they will be as dead as the companies that maintained the gas streetlights.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Until you put forward some sort of option to replace the current system, your entire argument is completely nullfied by the simple observation that the current system is better than any known alternative.




Not if my argument is that we need to be looking for those unknown alternatives. 



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> And you aren't "the opposition" (and public policy debates aren't a court of law). You want something changed. The burden, realistically, is on you to prove that this change is needed, and would be beneficial. You have yet to prove that changing would be beneficial, because you have not provided any alternative to compare the current system to.




Alright-- you may have a valid point here. 

But we're both arguing for something to be changed, here. I want the laws changed, and you want the behavior of hundreds of thousands of people-- the vast majority of them completely unorganized-- changed. You've neither proposed any real benefit to *them*, nor have you provided any meaningful vehicle for that change.

And, for the record, I have proposed benefits of changing the laws-- I've argued that it would allow for more creativity on the part of more people, as they gained more material to work with. I have also argued against-- if not wholly refuted-- the notion that the end of pay-per-copy art and entertainment (not to mention computer utilities) would prove the end of *all* art and entertainment.

The main failing in my argument-- because of my lack of adequate knowledge of business models-- is that it doesn't adequately provide for the just compensation of authors. However, wasn't this thread originally started because people were concerned that the current system, with its current flaws, was also not adequately providing this compensation?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 9, 2005)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> This might be the case if Korimyr were actually arguing that we should tear down capitalism.  However, as I read him, he'd simply arguing that we should start looking for better alternatives (with the awareness that there might not _be_ a better alternative to be found).  IF the current approach is as flawed as Korimyr claims it is (and I'm neutral on that), then I think we're justified in mounting a search for a better alternative based on the hope that there is such a better alternative.  That's what epistemically responsible people do when their current paradigm begins to break down.




He may or may not be arguing for the dismantlement of capitalism, but that's neither here nor there. What he _is_ arguing for (as best I can tell) is the dissolution of the current intellectual property regime because it is (in his words) "BROKEN". But the problem in a public policy discussion is that _all_ systems have flaws, so picking at a system's weakness and arguing that it should be replaced is not a particularly meaningful position to take. It is easy to throw hand-grenades from the back bench so to speak.

In a public policy discussion, you have to show that there is a better, viable option that could be used to replace the current model. That is much harder than simply arguing that the current system should be blown up. The key is to avoid putting in place something that is worse than what we have, and thus far Korimyr hasn't shownt that that is possible. To quote Churchill "democracy is the worst form of government there is, except for all the other ones".

A paraphrase for the current debate would be "copyright laws are the worst way to compensate those who create works of authorship, except for the known alternatives."


----------



## Kelleris (Sep 9, 2005)

You're right about capitalism being neither here nor there; my non-sleeping addled brain got confused.

But (as I see it), he's not arguing for any change at all, _per se_.  He's merely claiming that the current IP laws are headed for an untimely demise (an arguably empirical claim) and that we should be looking for a better alternative because the current system is intolerable (again, an arguably empirical claim).  If he were actually arguing that we should, _right now_ change to some other system, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on unless he could provide a demonstrably better alternative.  But he doesn't need to have an alternative in mind to suggest merely inquiring into better alternatives.  If that were the case, deciding to look for and evaluate new systems (for instance, democracy) based on the perceived weaknesses of an old system (like monarchy, say) would be an epistemically bankrupt enterprise right until you discovered the better system.  That just doesn't sound like a plausible case to me.

And, uh, sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth Korimyr.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 9, 2005)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> If that were the case, deciding to look for and evaluate new systems (for instance, democracy) based on the perceived weaknesses of an old system (like monarchy, say) would be an epistemically bankrupt enterprise right until you discovered the better system.  That just doesn't sound like a plausible case to me.




Thank you-- you've stated that far more clearly than I would have managed.



			
				Kelleris said:
			
		

> And, uh, sorry if I'm putting words into your mouth Korimyr.




When the words are better than my own, no offense can be given. 

To refer this back to the argument at-hand, the unfettered spread of information is both natural and right. When books had to be copied by-hand, this didn't cause a conflict with the right of authors to be paid for their works. When books had to be copied on a printing press, it caused only a small conflict-- and the issue of people making unauthorized copies for sale was easily resolved when copyright laws were invented.

When books could be copied via Xerox, it was still a relatively minor problem, since Xerox copies aren't normally as good as hard copies, and the copier still had to use his own resources.

Now that books can be copied for free-- mostly, since scanned copies are still inferior to hard copies-- it has become a more serious issue. The problem arises when people, understandably, try to use the law to protect their business model; in this case, they're doing so by attempting to prevent the free flow of information, which is *wrong*.

The fact that a couple posters have used *espionage* as an example of why information-sharing is wrong only points out just how distorted and out-of-whack things have become, regarding this issue.


----------



## The_Magician (Sep 9, 2005)

"Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?"

Of course not. That's how they make money. By not selling their products.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I haven't either, which is why I asked. I see the assertion made that China has the death penalty for copyright violations, and that this was the result of a U.S. demand, but I haven't ever been able to find anything supporting this. Having looked at the detailed discussion of Chinese copyright law that you provided, I'm wondering if the whole "China has the death penalty for copyright violators" thing is an internet myth.




I was like you - on ENW someone asserted that the death penalty was a US precondition for Chinese WTO membership.  I didn't  find that but I did find a creditable reference to US requiring China to impose death penalty for copyright infringement during I think Most Favoured Nation negotiations early in the Clinton administration ca 1994.  A search just now didn't turn it up, I'm now using a different browser since my copy of IE is F'd up so I can't search bookmarks or History.  If no one else finds anything I can ask Robin Gross of IP Justice, I think I saw it discussed in an interview with her online.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

med stud said:
			
		

> PSS: Can we please leave Chinese copy right laws out of this? I think this board is pretty clear on political content in threads... :-/




Why is Chinese copyright more political than US copyright?   :\


----------



## Numion (Sep 9, 2005)

The_Magician said:
			
		

> "Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?"
> 
> Of course not. That's how they make money. By not selling their products.




W3RD. I wouldn't have bought Barakus if I hadn't pirated it off the net first.


----------



## The_Magician (Sep 9, 2005)

And I like Tomato Ice Cream. They should produce and sell more tomato ice cream, because I like it, so it has to be profitable.


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 9, 2005)

Please discuss the upcoming release: "the Paladin's Guide to Orc and Kobold Babies".

Retailing for $120 USD (Does anyone have a PDF to trade?)

Which begs the question: is 4e why the market is dying?

/perfect storm


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 9, 2005)

C'mon guys, if we're lucky, we can surpass the previous topic which hit 12 pages.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 9, 2005)

> Why not? Everything I need to do on a computer, I can do with open source software-- I even have a handful of entertaining games. And not all fan fiction is creepy erotica.




Okay, you've got a handful, compared ot the tens of thousands of entertaining games that cost money. When are you going to understand that your ludicirious ideals would result in the destruction of information, not the creation of it. Information should not be free, it should never be free without permission of its creator, and information does not want to be free. The best things in life are the things you work for.



> You're also leaving aside the fact that they're not the only possible replacements. We've got shareware (which works for non-software electronic information), ransom, and donation models-- and while all have their drawbacks, so does the current system




Shareware cannot possibly work for anything with any significant d evelopment time. The donation model relies on the goodwill of people and as aptly demonstrated by you, people are greedy people who won't pay if they have a choice not to.



> Now who's dreaming?




It's less of a stretch than your plsnd to destroy all creation of new information.



> But (as I see it), he's not arguing for any change at all




The only reason he's arguing for this is because he's trying to morally justify his thefts. At least I was honest with myself when I pirated. I pirated because I was greedy and I wanted stuff for free.



> To refer this back to the argument at-hand, the unfettered spread of information is both natural and right




Where exactly did you get this crazy idea from? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the last word when it comes to natural rights, only says you have the right to seek information, not that it should be free. You are confusing things.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 9, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Okay, you've got a handful, compared ot the tens of thousands of entertaining games that cost money.




*shrug* Most of those tens of thousands are sequels to older games-- much like open source games being improved as they develop.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> When are you going to understand that your ludicrous ideals would result in the destruction of information, not the creation of it?




Never, since it's not true and you haven't managed to demonstrate it in any meaningful fashion. You're slipping back into _ad nauseum_ argumentation; if it didn't work three pages ago, what makes you think it'll work now?



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Information should not be free, it should never be free without permission of its creator, and information does not want to be free. The best things in life are the things you work for.




The very nature of information proves you wrong on the first two statements; the third is nothing more than a platitude, and a silly one at that.

The best things in life are the ones you enjoy the most-- and hard work is its own reward.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> ... and as aptly demonstrated by you, people are greedy people who won't pay if they have a choice not to.




I *always* have a choice, and I do actually pay for what I can. I put most of my free money into roleplaying products-- even ones that I already have clean, bookmarked, and more-functional copies of. I like having a hard copy.

And it's awfully hypocritical to keep accusing me of greed when your argument is that you should be getting more money.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> The only reason he's arguing for this is because he's trying to morally justify his thefts. At least I was honest with myself when I pirated. I pirated because I was greedy and I wanted stuff for free.




I don't have to justify anything, because I am not stealing anything and what I am doing is *not wrong*. If all I wanted was free stuff, I could've continued downloading it without ever mentioning it in this thread-- because I can get all the free stuff I want without telling anyone about it.

I'm glad you're capable of recognizing that you were morally bankrupt-- but I'm not you and I don't have your motivations. 

Yeah, I'm getting stuff for free. It's stuff I *should* be able to get for free, and it's stuff I help other people to get for free-- even though there's absolutely no profit for me doing so. If I just wanted free stuff, why would I help others? Why would I post here, when I know my position is going to hurt my reputation among people whose opinions I care about?

I'm doing it because it's *right*.

You can call me a thief all you want-- because I know that I'm not.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Where exactly did you get this crazy idea from? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the last word when it comes to natural rights, only says you have the right to seek information, not that it should be free. You are confusing things.




Wait-- are you trying to tell me that a document, written by a *committee*, composed of government officials-- is some kind of objective source of truth? 

What makes you think "natural" rights come from government declarations and pieces of paper?

I think you're a little confused, yourself.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 9, 2005)

> *shrug* Most of those tens of thousands are sequels to older games-- much like open source games being improved as they develop.




You really don't know much about computer games, do you? Most games on the market are not sequels. And I don't see how bringing up non-sequitors helps your argument.



> Never, since it's not true and you haven't managed to demonstrate it in any meaningful fashion. You're slipping back into ad nauseum argumentation; if it didn't work three pages ago, what makes you think it'll work now?




I believe I did demonstrate it quite adequately. There would be no incentive for people to spend any significant amount of money to produce information, since they could expect no compensation for it.

You've admitted it anyway, when you said how the freeware stuff on the internet could replace computer games, for instance. Freeware on the internet is 99% crap, and the remaning 1% doesn't measure up to the stuff you pay for.



> The very nature of information proves you wrong on the first two statements




Information is a product. And like all products, it has a price. Some people are willing to offer their products for free, and that's nice of them. Most aren't willing to offer it for free.



> And it's awfully hypocritical to keep accusing me of greed when your argument is that you should be getting more money.




Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Please point out where I did that.



> I don't have to justify anything, because I am not stealing anything




As was noted earlier in this thread I believe,piracy is considered to be theft by the laws of the land.



> Yeah, I'm getting stuff for free. It's stuff I should be able to get for free




The people who spent their time and their money on producing said stuff disagree, and I think their belief is worth a lot more than yours.



> Wait-- are you trying to tell me that a document, written by a committee, composed of government officials-- is some kind of objective source of truth?




The Universal Declaration is not the source of human rights, it merely enumerates them. It gains its power because nearly every government in the world has agreed to abide by its tenets, though some do it better than others. Where do you get your idea that freedom of information is a right?


----------



## Morrus (Sep 9, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> Wait-- are you trying to tell me that a document, written by a *committee*, composed of government officials-- is some kind of objective source of truth?
> 
> What makes you think "natural" rights come from government declarations and pieces of paper?




The point of such things isn't to grant rights, but to protect them.  Such documents assume that the rights incorporated into them are natural rights.

Essentially, they codify what society as a whole agrees are natural rights.


----------



## tensen (Sep 9, 2005)

JBowtie said:
			
		

> In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.




I just had a weird thought.
Hmm, back in the time of cassette tapes in my car I was known to make multiple copies of a CD in tape format to play.  Mostly I made the multiple copies because my tape player ate them.  Note, 1 backup copy is usually allowed by law.  
Can you imagine the effect in China?

"But my car eats them regularlly.  Really I'm only using them myself."
"Sorry, the law states it quite clearly.  You must die."
"Nooo."
"Your time is up."
"Help help.  I'm being opressed."
"No, just killed."
"Soylent Green is people."
"Yes, sir  Everyone knows that.  Now please come to the processing facility.  Upon execution you get the choic eof becoming either Soylent Blue or Soylent Green."

Dang, where was I going with this?


----------



## med stud (Sep 9, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Why is Chinese copyright more political than US copyright?   :\




Well the situation turned out peaceful so I guess there was nothing to worry about. I guess I'm too used to rpg.net I guess ^^


----------



## jasper (Sep 9, 2005)

Carl Zog….Mind you, when I say "craploads", everything I've collected is still fitting in less than 30 gigs, …
The biggest thing that prevents people from becoming packrats is the cost of acquiring crap and space required to store it. When stuff is free, and occupies no physical space, it's a lot easier to choose to take it instead of leave it….

30 gigs hmm best buy has an 80 gig hard drive for 79.99 so call it $80. That free information costs you $30. It occupies 38% of your hard drive are you tell me your hard drive is not an object?

Korimyr the Rat … I know that you can't own information and that there is nothing wrong with copying it for others…..can I have your real name, address, and mom’s maiden name. After it just some information I will copy and share with my friends. Now legally I could do a lot illegal things with this information. But since this time I agree with your morals I have no problem using this information to my advantage after all it is just another copy of information.
Rat again… You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- 
I said that to my mom years ago when I went to fix my dad’s clock. I remember getting a beating and nothing much about that day. 

Sorry Psionicist while I know this is international site, I also know most international posters know that if their laws make them immune to charge the word (thief or illegal) does not apply to them. In words of my grandma, if you know they not talking about you don’t worry about what they saying. So Jacen while us peasants are shouting thief! And raising our pitchforks, torches, tar and feathers we will bypass your house because you are an exception.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> The point of such things isn't to grant rights, but to protect them.  Such documents assume that the rights incorporated into them are natural rights.
> 
> Essentially, they codify what society as a whole agrees are natural rights.




Except for us Benthamite Utilitarians who know Natural Rights are "nonsense on stilts".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 9, 2005)

> If the system is designed in such a fashion that it's that easy to violate the rules, and that difficult to catch the people who violate the rules-- so that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are violating those rules on a continual basis-- then the system is broken.
> 
> Good boats are designed to stop and contain leaks, and to be able to withstand minor punctures. If the boat's sinking that badly, it either wasn't seaworthy in the first place or you're sailing in the wrong ocean




The system was not designed in such a fashion.  Subsequent technology made it easy to circumvent the rules.

When the first massive earth and stone pallisade was invented, it was pretty effective at stopping attacking forces.  However, subsequent military technology has reduced the pallisade to being pretty landscaping.  This fact does not make using an ICBM to attack someone on the other side of a pallisade to be a good thing.

Or, to return to my boat analogy, placing a torpedo into the keel of a ship does NOT prove the original design unseaworthy.

Those who click away at their keyboards downloading IP willy-nilly while not compensating the IP's creators are firing ICBMS over pallisades; torpedoing a seaworthy ship.



> You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken...




I agree with this 100%.  I know jack-all about cars, but when mine is smoking from under the hood, I'm pretty sure I'm not driving anywhere.



> Falkus: Open source software and fan fiction is not a replacement.
> 
> Korimir: Why not? Everything I need to do on a computer, I can do with open source software-- I even have a handful of entertaining games. And not all fan fiction is creepy erotica.




In economic terms, they are near substitutes, competitors in the market, but they are NOT a replacement.

Example:  A soft-drink, hamburger and fries is a type of meal that some would consider tasty...but it isn't a substitute for a slice of prime rib and potatoes au gratin served with a fine red wine.

Don't get me wrong- I love burgers!  But if I'm looking for prime rib, a hamburger won't cut it.  (I REALLY need to go eat lunch!)

You may be able to play an open-source software 1st person shooter...but you can't (legally) play Unreal Online with your buddies without paying.  You may know of a freeware online RPG, but you won't be competing directly against the guys on Neverwinter Nights or City of Heroes.



> However, I do think you overestimate the uniqueness of artists and writers as well.




No, I really don't think so. 

There are a LOT of people creating IP out there...there always have been and always will be.  However, if you compare the amount of IP created to the amount with actual monetary or cultural value- real, measurable _quality_, you'll find the amount of the latter to be an exceedingly small sample of the former.  Mozart had many contemporaries, but only Salieri's work even holds a candle to his flame.

Or in more modern terms, the guitar is the most popular instrument in the world- hundreds of thousands are sold _annually_ by thousands of companies.  And yet, when discussion of GREAT guitarists start, they don't start with "Ralph, the guy who plays lead in my garage band."

Exceptional performers in any field (art, sports, math, military tactics) are less than 0.001% of the general population, and those are the ones whose contributions advance culture the farthest.

Lastly, for today...the argument that "Information wants to be free."

Before the laws of IP protection were created, the only way to protect new ideas was DIY.  The farther the IP spread, the harder DIY became.  Why does this matter?



> A Story:
> *Blacksmith A* comes up with a new forging process after 20 years in the craft and 5 years of active trial-and-error research.  The research process cost *Blacksmith A* 30% of his income over those 5 years.  The resultant metals are stronger and less brittle than anything else in the region, but they also cost a little more than others, and take a little more time.  Still, the virutues of the new process should pay off to him in a couple of years, and his son (his apprentice) will definitely reap the rewards even if he, himself, does not, barring the unforseen...
> 
> His colleague, *Blacksmith B* lives in a neighboring town and visits *Blacksmith A's* shop regularly to conduct trade.  He has been watching *Blacksmith A's* shop with great interest, and has picked up enough information (combined with his own knowledge) to duplicate *Blacksmith A's* new forging process.  His investment is nil- he gathered the information in the course of regular trade visits.  He also starts using the new process.  His resultant production is indistinguishable from *Blacksmith A's* in quality.
> ...




Clearly, the one who has earned the contract is *Blacksmith A*- he did the research.  He made the investment.  Yet, in this age of free information, his competitor may in fact be the one who is rewarded.

The lesson is the same for_ ANY_ IP.  Sergio Aragones was once chided for the price he charged for a quick sketch done at a convention.  He responded that the price wasn't for the few minutes it took him to do the sketch, but for the 40 years of learning it took him to be able to do that sketch in those few minutes.

IP is like any other personal property- creating it requires an investment in intellect, time, money, effort, or just simple brute force trial and error, and its creators deserve the fruits of their labor as surely as the guy working on an assembly line.

If the IP's creator decides to share his creation with the world, so be it.  But it is NOT up to Joe Pirate to make that decision for him.


----------



## Ace (Sep 9, 2005)

Ace said:
			
		

> In fact a lot of information made just for the fun of sharing or to satify a personal itch or whatever reason.
> The web is full of bad to great fiction, art, music, reviews, computer software and gaming stuff all free and legal for the taking. In some cases they are promos or adds for a sale product, others are released just because computers make it very easy.






			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The difference is that people who decide to release their stuff for free made that decision themselves...copyright infringers are acting contra to the will of the owner/creators of the IP.





I don't disagree.  My feeling about  copyright is that public good trumps individual rights. 

 Stealing entertainment is not forthe most part in the public good.  Stealing some persons (not corporations) livelyhood is wrong.
 OTOH if Brazil decides not to honor big pharmas copyright on a drug the people of Brazil need  and can't afford 
-- I can't really get upset. I think the best way to research medicine is with openess and government funding so that the most humans can benefit. Take 100 Billion USD and X Nillion USD and set the scientists loose without copyright or anything else  and you will probably get just as good ro better results than Pharam Corp can manage.  As an added advantage the knowledge can better more people and the drugs will be cheaper too  




			
				Ace said:
			
		

> In not that many years (IMO) most forms of information will have a low cost of entry. Since Information (as versus hard goods) will have a pretty low cost of entry this means a lot of people contributing and even if they contribute just a spot there will soon be more than anyone can even use.






			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That depends on how you define "low cost of entry." A pharmaceutical formula may take billions to perfect. An artist may spend thousands of dollars and decades of his life honing his craft; a writer may sacrifice his marriage while creating his magnum opus. Some inventors (like Nicola Tesla) were so focused on their creations that they alienated themselves from society.
> 
> Sure, anyone can create a little IP...but the stuff that matters...that takes talent, drive, and luck- which deserves to be rewarded.
> 
> .




Cost of entry is cash and set up time only in my book . The labor you put in is your choice. If you are unhappy with your art than don't work so d--- hard. We do not need to reward people who do not keep their art life in balance with the rest of thier life. Thats a bad choice and while IMO people do have the right to make poor choices we do not need to reward them for it.  .  

As for other things -- new power sources, drugs and the like -- these things are hard goods 
 hard goods with a very high cost of entry. As I mentioned above they really should be done by governments and in many cases open source. 

With apologies for the politcal bit -- 
There are more models than US Capitalism, Communism,and and Tyranny  -- Do a bit of research and you will find that Social Democracy works quite well. There are other models than can be tried too . Granted Tyranny and Communism suck,  True Communism fails the human nature test Facism is bad. Anarcho Syndalism fails the human nature test  but there are others options 

The trick is too make laws that work best for the most people not Corporations

I will say no more about this (I am over the line already)  and close up with 

Please don't swap PDF's from our friends here. You hurt people and the hobby.  These are small one man shops trying to make a living in a tough hobby. While I know that no more than 10% of downloaders are likely buyers this still can mean $300 or more out of someones pocket (calculated at $3 take home, 100 units, 10% would be sales)  -- that can hurt 

Taking crud from WOTC hurts less but it is still a bad thing to do. So don't OK


----------



## S'mon (Sep 9, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Those who click away at their keyboards downloading IP willy-nilly while not compensating the IP's creators are firing ICBMS over pallisades; torpedoing a seaworthy ship.




OMG     I'm not sure whether to laugh, cry, get angry or just shrug.  I guess I'll just shrug.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 9, 2005)

> As for other things -- new power sources, drugs and the like -- these things are hard goods




No they're not. The end product might be, but all the things you mentioned all boil down to being a blueprint or a chemical foruma. Information, intellectual property.



> As I mentioned above they really should be done by governments




Oh please. Governments can't advance technology a tenth as fast as the private sector can.



> n many cases open source.




So basically, take away the incentive for people to invent things?


----------



## Warbringer (Sep 10, 2005)

rant on

When I was about five, may grandmother and I were walking down the isle of a local grocers when she saw a 5 pound note on the floor. She picked up and gave it to the grocer.

The guy looks at her and says "It ain't mine Mrs Toner."

She answers, "I know, but it's not mine either."

It's that's simple. 

Just because you didn't keep a download, or it was more convenient that having to drive 50 miles, or a friend gave it to me, or I think the company was charging too much, or it wouldn't hurt the company, YOU are attempting to obtain access to something, either temporarily or permantently, that you have no right to own, or observe.

Most of the pdf's I've bought are unfrotunately either weak, or crap.

"Let the buyer beware... not let the buyer jack soemone to make sure he wants it..."

Sheesh

rant off


----------



## Warbringer (Sep 10, 2005)

Edited because gasoline is way too expensive to waste on flame...


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 10, 2005)

Warbringer said:
			
		

> When I was about five, may grandmother and I were walking down the isle of a local grocers when she saw a 5 pound note on the floor. She picked up and gave it to the grocer.
> 
> The guy looks at her and says "It ain't mine Mrs Toner."
> 
> She answers, "I know, but it's not mine either."




And your point is? It's not exactly you are either completely good or completely evil, and everyone who download things from the internet are evil un-american commrrorists (I made that up).

I have a similiar story to share:

I found a wallet once - complete with credit cards, a driving license, a house key (!) and about 1500 SEK ($200 USD). I spent a good hour or so to track the owner down and give it back to her.

Yet, I download movies now and then. 

Am I ruthless? No. How about the purest of good? No, not that either. Can I live with myself? Yes. Can the society _I_ live in live with me? Yes. Heck, the local newspaper is pro "piracy"!

We are all different shades of grey. If you want to keep your very old monochrome TV fine, but I enjoy a million colors, and it rocks.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 10, 2005)

Ace said:
			
		

> Stealing entertainment is not forthe most part in the public good.  Stealing some persons (not corporations) livelyhood is wrong.




Corporations are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that a corporation represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that corporations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.



> _OTOH if Brazil decides not to honor big pharmas copyright on a drug the people of Brazil need  and can't afford -- I can't really get upset._





So, you'd rather not have pharmaceutical research? Because that's what you will get if you make it unprofitable.



> _I think the best way to research medicine is with openess and government funding so that the most humans can benefit. Take 100 Billion USD and X Nillion USD and set the scientists loose without copyright or anything else  and you will probably get just as good ro better results than Pharam Corp can manage.  As an added advantage the knowledge can better more people and the drugs will be cheaper too_





Governments have a really poor track record of producing new medicines. There is a reason that the U.S. produces the vast majority of new drugs, and it isn't because we have smarter scientists than everyone else.



> _Cost of entry is cash and set up time only in my book . The labor you put in is your choice. If you are unhappy with your art than don't work so d--- hard. We do not need to reward people who do not keep their art life in balance with the rest of thier life. Thats a bad choice and while IMO people do have the right to make poor choices we do not need to reward them for it._





With the net result that little, if any, new IP will be produced. I suppose if you want to go back to the days where the only art and literature that got put out were politically motivated efforts funded by the superwealthy to aggrandize themselves, then you should be all for abolishing copyright.



> _As for other things -- new power sources, drugs and the like -- these things are hard goods  hard goods with a very high cost of entry. As I mentioned above they really should be done by governments and in many cases open source._





No, ultimately they are ideas. A new power source is an idea. A new drug is an idea. Copyrights and patents encourage the makers of those ideas to put them out to the public. Without them, new power sources would likely be kept a secrets, hoarded in ways that those who invented them could best profit from them without making them public.

That's what IP laws are all about: encouraging people to come up with stuff and _put it out there_. Without IP, information becomes worthy of hoarding. Getting rid of IP laws won't promote the free flow of information, it will promote horading and hiding it.



> _With apologies for the politcal bit --
> There are more models than US Capitalism, Communism,and and Tyranny  -- Do a bit of research and you will find that Social Democracy works quite well. There are other models than can be tried too . Granted Tyranny and Communism suck,  True Communism fails the human nature test Facism is bad. Anarcho Syndalism fails the human nature test  but there are others options_





Social democracy is a nice idea, but it doesn't work all that well. I've done the research. Social democracy usually results in economies crippled and governments adrift. There's a reason why most European countries have higher unemployment and lower growth than the U.S., and its not because we are any more deserving.



> _The trick is too make laws that work best for the most people not Corporations_





Corporations are just groups of people who have pooled their resources to fund a business that no one of them would likely be able to feasibly raise capital for. They are, in point of fact, one of the most egalitarian constructs of the modern era. Without them, only the very wealthy would be able to afford the go into business - corporations are, in many ways, our best defense against the rebirth of feudalism.


----------



## Lazybones (Sep 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Corporations are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that a corporation represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that corporations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.



True. They are also self-interested organizations with very focused goals--maximizing return for their shareholders--which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of society at large. 



> Governments have a really poor track record of producing new medicines. There is a reason that the U.S. produces the vast majority of new drugs, and it isn't because we have smarter scientists than everyone else.



I do not have hard data close at hand (and I'm heading out to dinner, so no time to Google right now), but I've heard that a significant percentage of medical advances come out of public university laboratories (some of which gets funded by private dollars, of course, but the facilities and researchers are public). 



> With the net result that little, if any, new IP will be produced. I suppose if you want to go back to the days where the only art and literature that got put out were politically motivated efforts funded by the superwealthy to aggrandize themselves, then you should be all for abolishing copyright.



You mean back when literacy was extremely limited and distribution of content was extremely difficult? Sorry, I don't buy it. Check out the Story Hour forum on this very site for an example of why you are wrong. 



> No, ultimately they are ideas. A new power source is an idea. A new drug is an idea. Copyrights and patents encourage the makers of those ideas to put them out to the public. Without them, new power sources would likely be kept a secrets, hoarded in ways that those who invented them could best profit from them without making them public.
> 
> That's what IP laws are all about: encouraging people to come up with stuff and _put it out there_. Without IP, information becomes worthy of hoarding. Getting rid of IP laws won't promote the free flow of information, it will promote horading and hiding it.



I'll concede that copyright is useful. It's the _length_ of current copyright I have a problem with (and I know you were responding to another poster with different views).  Let people make their profit (14 years is long enough), and then let _everyone_ benefit from those ideas.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Corporations are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that a corporation represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that corporations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.




Same logic:

Organizations such as Al-Qaeda are people. Not in the sense that they are persons in the eyes of the law. In the sense that an organization represents the investment of hundreds of people who have invested in it. When you decide that organizations are worthy of being screwed, you are saying that little old ladies who have put their money aside for a rainy day are worthy of being screwed. Workers with pension funds are worthy of being screwed. Your neighbor who put some money aside to fund his child's college education is worthy of being screwed.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 10, 2005)

Strawman much? There's a big difference between criminals and white collar workers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 10, 2005)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> True. They are also self-interested organizations with very focused goals--maximizing return for their shareholders--which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of society at large.




But that is exactly what IP law is all about - funneling the action of profit seeking corporations into filling the interests of society at large. In this case, it is being pushed towards producing IP that people need, or simply want.



> _I do not have hard data close at hand (and I'm heading out to dinner, so no time to Google right now), but I've heard that a significant percentage of medical advances come out of public university laboratories (some of which gets funded by private dollars, of course, but the facilities and researchers are public)._





Given that a majority of universities in the United States are private institutions, you'd probably be off the mark. This is coupled with the fact that a large proportion of university research is funded via private grants.



> _You mean back when literacy was extremely limited and distribution of content was extremely difficult? Sorry, I don't buy it. Check out the Story Hour forum on this very site for an example of why you are wrong._





IP isn't all about literature. There are a host of other media out there, sculpture, painting, and other art forms were monopolised by the wealthy until very recently. And if the story hour forum is what we can expect as the pinnacle of literature in a copyrightless world, I'll pass. It can be fun, but most professional authors are miles ahead in the entertaining department. Of course, you'll have to say good bye to a large proportion of visual media too, since that costs money to make, and convincing investors to fund their creation will be difficutl if there isn't any potential profit.



> _I'll concede that copyright is useful. It's the length of current copyright I have a problem with (and I know you were responding to another poster with different views).  Let people make their profit (14 years is long enough), and then let everyone benefit from those ideas._





That may be a good idea. But given that this has almost nothing to do with illegal downloading (since the vast majority of downloads are of material that would still be protected, even if the copyright term was reduced to one or two decades), it isn't a particularly useful one with respect to the topic at hand.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 10, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Same logic:




Not even close.



> _Organizations such as Al-Qaeda are people._





Yes, they are. However, they are people organized for an express criminal purpose. You can be a wild-eyed anarchist all you want and decry corporations as evil, but you will be a silly person when you do. Corporations are put together to engage in legal business, usually to fill significant needs along the way (since that is how you make money).

When you understand the difference between a legal objective and an illegal one, your opinions might hold water.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 10, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Social democracy is a nice idea, but it doesn't work all that well. I've done the research. Social democracy usually results in economies crippled and governments adrift. There's a reason why most European countries have higher unemployment and lower growth than the U.S., and its not because we are any more deserving.



Since 1975, the growth in the U.S. happens for the sole benefit of the top 20% of the households (source: CIA World Factbook) and is accompanied by much more severe poverty (see same source or list of gini coefficients on Wikipedia). There are obviously different ways to look at this, so it's better to refrain from any further political side blows against European economies .

I'm not really sure what this has to do with the piracy discussion, either.


----------



## Ace (Sep 10, 2005)

hey Storm Raven

I like the debate but we are abusing the forum. If you feel it is essential 

to continue pop over to RPG.net and post on tangency -- this kind of thing is 

cool there. Frankly I have broken  the rules enough here so forgive my lack of reply and don't take it as giving in -- I luurve a good argument


----------



## Ace (Sep 10, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Since 1975, the growth in the U.S. happens for the sole benefit of the top 20% of the households (source: CIA World Factbook) and is accompanied by much more severe poverty (see same source or list of gini coefficients on Wikipedia). There are obviously different ways to look at this, so it's better to refrain from any further political side blows against European economies .
> 
> I'm not really sure what this has to do with the piracy discussion, either.




It has nothing to do with piracy (yarr!) or copyright infringement either   -- thanks for the fact though

Oh yeah and just for the record. I don't pirate movies, books, music or anything else -- its not cool 

I want to change laws not break em


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 10, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> You really don't know much about computer games, do you? Most games on the market are not sequels. And I don't see how bringing up non-sequitors helps your argument.




The point is that a large section of the computer game market is simply improving upon last years' game-- which is accomplished automatically by upgrades and revisions of Open Source games. 



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> I believe I did demonstrate it quite adequately. There would be no incentive for people to spend any significant amount of money to produce information, since they could expect no compensation for it.




There is still the sale of the media upon which the information is stored-- and I agree with you that no one else should be allowed to *sell* the material. Some people are always going to prefer the hardcopy-- I know I do.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> You've admitted it anyway, when you said how the freeware stuff on the internet could replace computer games, for instance. Freeware on the internet is 99% crap, and the remaning 1% doesn't measure up to the stuff you pay for.




I don't know where you're getting your numbers or your misguided notions of freeware. As someone else pointed out, the majority of the Internet's software structure is built on Open Source freeware.

There are also numerous freeware products that are simply better than their retail competitors-- such as the web browser I'm using right now. Or my p2p client.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Information is a product. And like all products, it has a price. Some people are willing to offer their products for free, and that's nice of them. Most aren't willing to offer it for free.




I can't make unlimited copies of other products without expending my own resources. This is a very basic, fundamental difference.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Hypocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. Please point out where I did that.




Would it have been better if I'd said "ironic"?

Your argument makes the implied assumption that greed is bad-- when your argument is as much motivated by monetary consideration as mine. Invoking greed is therefore pointless and foolish.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> As was noted earlier in this thread I believe, piracy is considered to be theft by the laws of the land.




And as committed as I am to upholding the laws of the land, in almost every other case, this is simply one of those cases where I believe that the law is completely and utterly wrong.

Also, morality is not determined by national boundaries; it is just as moral for me to allow people to download my files from Russia as it is here, and just as moral for me to download them here as it is in Sweden. The only difference is that American law handles it differently from Sweden and Russian law.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> The people who spent their time and their money on producing said stuff disagree, and I think their belief is worth a lot more than yours.




I think my beliefs are more important than yours. Otherwise, I'd just agree with you. What are you trying to prove here?



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> The Universal Declaration is not the source of human rights, it merely enumerates them. It gains its power because nearly every government in the world has agreed to abide by its tenets, though some do it better than others. Where do you get your idea that freedom of information is a right?




Yes-- every government has agreed to abide by those rights. That does not mean that everything in that document is a right, nor does it mean that there aren't other rights than those covered by that document. 

And, as I have explained before, I got the idea that freedom of information is a right based upon the nature of information, and based on the principle that secrecy is wrong-- and is primarily used to cover up other wrongdoing. The fact that several national governments at least partially support my position helps, though I would hold my views without it.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Oh please. Governments can't advance technology a tenth as fast as the private sector can.




Do you care to demonstrate this? I can think of quite a few cases where governments have developed technologies that private industry would have never bothered with-- or would have taken decades longer.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> So basically, take away the incentive for people to invent things?




You're rather stubborn in this notion that money is the only reason to do anything. Since I'm engaged in several activities that don't hold any monetary compensation for me-- including this argument-- I'm forced to conclude that there are other reasons to do things, even unpleasant things.


----------



## Sammael (Sep 10, 2005)

> Oh please. Governments can't advance technology a tenth as fast as the private sector can.



Please consider that the vast majority of technology we're using today was originally developed by (or for) the U.S. military and/or NASA. Both are government-funded organizations, and government funds an enormous amount of research. Usually, the private sector only improves upon government research, once the government is done with it.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 10, 2005)

jasper said:
			
		

> 30 gigs hmm best buy has an 80 gig hard drive for 79.99 so call it $80. That free information costs you $30. It occupies 38% of your hard drive are you tell me your hard drive is not an object?




Hard Drive costs the same empty, though. Didn't cost anything to acquire the information that fills it.



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Korimyr the Rat … I know that you can't own information and that there is nothing wrong with copying it for others…..can I have your real name, address, and mom’s maiden name. After it just some information I will copy and share with my friends.




Cecil T. Sims
505 Williams St Lot 90
Cheyenne WY 82007

My mother's maiden name is "Cindy Sue Gehrig".



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Now legally I could do a lot illegal things with this information. But since this time I agree with your morals I have no problem using this information to my advantage after all it is just another copy of information.




Actually, you can't legally do anything illegal.

Anything you can *actually* do with that information that I'd actually care about would be both illegal and immoral-- since most of it would involve stealing money from me or fraudulently acquiring credit in my name. In that case, you would be stealing from anyone you paid using your false credit, as well as stealing from me any amount of money I couldn't have expunged from my debt record.

If you use this information for any of those purposes, I will press charges, as well as announce it publically here.

Please note that I have not, at any point in this conversation, admitted to doing anything illegal-- I've merely advocated such. 



			
				jasper said:
			
		

> Sorry Psionicist while I know this is international site, I also know most international posters know that if their laws make them immune to charge the word (thief or illegal) does not apply to them.




I do not think, for an instant, that any of the people in this thread crying "thief!" are excluding, consciously or not, people whose laws do not forbid them from downloading copyrighted material.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 10, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> Since 1975, the growth in the U.S. happens for the sole benefit of the top 20% of the households (source: CIA World Factbook) and is accompanied by much more severe poverty (see same source or list of gini coefficients on Wikipedia). There are obviously different ways to look at this, so it's better to refrain from any further political side blows against European economies ..




I'm currently reading The Bell Curve, looking at the graphs I was amazed to see how poverty declined rapidly in the USA until 1969, then remained static or increased up to the date of publication (1994).  Many other indicators like crime rates and education rates ceased improving (education) or started getting worse (crime) from the mid-60s onwards.  It looked like the US had suffered some kind of huge disaster in the '60s, losing a major war or something.  Uncanny how every indicator started declining within a few years of each other.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 10, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> I found a wallet once - complete with credit cards, a driving license, a house key (!) and about 1500 SEK ($200 USD). I spent a good hour or so to track the owner down and give it back to her.




When I've found a wallet with ID I've gone to considerable effort to return it.  OTOH if I find money with no ID I'm certainly going to keep it rather than give it to the government or whoever.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 10, 2005)

> I don't disagree. My feeling about copyright is that public good trumps individual rights.




So its a public good that someone is not justly compensated for their efforts?


> The trick is too make laws that work best for the most people not Corporations




In addition to other people's points...Corporations are also a wonderful way for Joe Nobody to be involved in the ownership of business.  The corprorate form of organizing a business means that ANYBODY can own a piece of Sony or Microsoft without having to be a family member or personal friend of the company founder.

Are there laws that exist that are too pro-business?  Yes.  But lets not have corporation/business bashing- it isn't the fault of the form of business, its that some have been seduced by money into legislative obsequiousness.



> True. They are also self-interested organizations with very focused goals--maximizing return for their shareholders--which do not necessarily coincide with the interests of society at large.




When have the interests of "society at large" or "maximizing return" ever been the test of whether an IP holder deserves compensation?  Individual IP creators may also have interests contra to the interests of society at large, and many times, wish to maximize their returns (a rational view, IMHO).

There is an Aussie who invented a firearm system he calls Metalstorm, all in his little backyard toolshed.  Its quite impressive, and he now has a US Gov't grant exploring his system in depth.  Did the world really need a better gun?  Probably not, but there you go.  He'll make millions from it.  Does the fact that he is not a corporation make him somhow more deserving of recompense?  Personally, I don't see how.



> Cost of entry is cash and set up time only in my book .




So you place even less value on the input of the worker than even capitalists have been accused of.

Training is one of the biggest costs out there- for an individual, business or government- and when you need someone with training, you're going to have to pay.  That is "salary"...the cost of labor.



> Since 1975, the growth in the U.S. happens for the sole benefit of the top 20% of the households (source: CIA World Factbook) and is accompanied by much more severe poverty (see same source or list of gini coefficients on Wikipedia).




OTOH, some economists have claimed that in order for everyone in the world to have the same standard of living as we do in America (at each level of society), we would need more resources than Earth can provide.

Sure, we still have our greedy capitalists, but even our poor are doing better than the poor of the rest of the world (in some, if not all, regards).



> I'm currently reading The Bell Curve...




Big secret- our public primary school system generally sucks!  If I had kids and I didn't live in one of the few regions that actually have good public schools, I'd put them in private schools.  We don't pay teachers enough to attract good ones, and the ones we get are seldom well-trained enough to pick up that some kids need more attention than others.

How bad is it here?  There was a textbook approved here in TX that actually claimed that the Korean War was ended by dropping the atomic bomb.  Fortunately, that one only got used for a couple of years, but PLEASE!

And if you educate your children poorly...


----------



## Turjan (Sep 10, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sure, we still have our greedy capitalists, but even our poor are doing better than the poor of the rest of the world (in some, if not all, regards).



You truly believe that? You have never been to Europe, have you? Just go to a city like Berlin and spend your day in the poorest district .


----------



## Falkus (Sep 10, 2005)

> The point is that a large section of the computer game market is simply improving upon last years' game-- which is accomplished automatically by upgrades and revisions of Open Source games.




What are you talking about? The only relation this years computer games have to last years is that some of them are built using a licensed engine.



> I don't know where you're getting your numbers or your misguided notions of freeware. As someone else pointed out, the majority of the Internet's software structure is built on Open Source freeware.




And there's a large number of programs that aren't open source.



> There are also numerous freeware products that are simply better than their retail competitors-- such as the web browser I'm using right now. Or my p2p client.




Look at you. You're setting up a strawman argument. You're acting like I said all open source is inferior to the stuff you pay for when I said of the sort.



> I can't make unlimited copies of other products without expending my own resources. This is a very basic, fundamental difference.




That's because all the resources were spent before the product was produced.

[/QUOTE]Your argument makes the implied assumption that greed is bad-- when your argument is as much motivated by monetary consideration as mine. Invoking greed is therefore pointless and foolish.







> My argument operates under the assumption that humans are greedy, which would explain your motivation. I do not believe that when you download some software or file, you are doing it for the express purpose of increasing the amount of information in existence.



Also, morality is not determined by national bounda







> Morality is subjective, and therefore, worthless for setting up the laws. Societal good is the only thing we should look at when setting laws, and I can't imagine how it benefits society in any way to say that it's okay to take intellectual property without compensating the creators.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## ThoughtBubble (Sep 11, 2005)

On a somewhat random note: It's very hard to make a large scale video game in an open-source manner. Most games are pre-paid for by the publisher, who then needs to make sales on individual units to make back the costs of developing the game. 

A game can be made by individuals doing it out of a passion and joy for what they're doing. But it's more likely to simply fall apart. When it's a job to work on this content, it's something that a person is going to do, regardless of their feelings that day. 

So, more skilled people are needed to bring games about. Thus, the need to intice people to work on a single project under someone else's vision. Paying helps, particularly as the demand for high-graphic, content heavy games keeps going up.

The best independant games tend to be simple things made by groups of very talented people. They're also more content light, focusing on multiplayer, or self-differentiating expierences. But the chances of seeing a square-syle RPG out of that arena are pretty rare.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 11, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Big secret- our public primary school system generally sucks!  If I had kids and I didn't live in one of the few regions that actually have good public schools, I'd put them in private schools.  We don't pay teachers enough to attract good ones, and the ones we get are seldom well-trained enough to pick up that some kids need more attention than others.
> 
> How bad is it here?  There was a textbook approved here in TX that actually claimed that the Korean War was ended by dropping the atomic bomb.  Fortunately, that one only got used for a couple of years, but PLEASE!
> 
> And if you educate your children poorly...




Did it suddenly start sucking in the '60s?  That's kind-of what the Bell Curve says (standards declined), but it seems odd that poverty stopped decreasing in 1969 when educational standards & SAT scores had only been declining for a few years.  And crime rates started skyrocketing even earlier.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 11, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You truly believe that? You have never been to Europe, have you? Just go to a city like Berlin and spend your day in the poorest district .




Yeah, certainly our European poor have much better access to health care etc.  European poor are generally much 'comfier', whether that's a good thing or not would be political.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 12, 2005)

> You truly believe that? You have never been to Europe, have you? Just go to a city like Berlin and spend your day in the poorest district .




Yes, I do believe that...and note that I said "in some, if not all, regards."  My apologies if I worded that awkwardly- my meaning was that American poor are better off in some ways, but not in all.

I lived in Europe (specifically, Stuttgart, Germany) for 3 years.  While I lived there (and on 2 subsequent visits), I visited France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Portugal, Greece, Hungary (before the fall of Communism) and Russia- to name just a few.

With my familial and professional (I wasn't ALWAYS an entertainment lawyer) ties to medicine and public health, I got to see some things that most people don't.  Socialized medicine is not a panacea.  While European poor can usually claim to have universal health care coverage, they also must pay for that coverage with long wait times.  A poor person in a socialized medicine regime who needs a particular kind of test may wait months and may have to travel extensively to get it.  An American will usually live within hours of a suitable facility- for example, there are more MRI's PET and CAT scanners in Dallas than in all of Canada.  Hell..there are more PET scanners in Dallas and Houston combined than in the whole of Europe. . The obstacle is purely one of cost, and that may be taken care of by insurance or by our pro bono publico system.

You still pay, its just a question of how.



> You're rather stubborn in this notion that money is the only reason to do anything.




Personally, I'm rather stubborn in the notion that money is what I'm paid for my labor and provides me the means of how I feed myself and my family.

If my boss (OK, I'm self employed, but work with me here) told me tomorrow that my 40 hours of work would be paid for in the psychic good that I receive by doing good things for people, I'd kick his ass because I'd be well short of covering my car note, grocery bill, etc.

If my client told me he wasn't paying me for 40 hours of work on his case, I'd sue him.

If, on the other hand, _* I*_ decided to donate 40 hours of my work to a shelter, it was my decision- not someone else's.

People in the industry of selling games are (here's a shocker)_ trying to make money selling games._  Some of them even go so far as to put a price on the product's final form.  This should be an indicator that the medium of exchange they expect for their labor is....MONEY!

If tomorrow WOTC announced the donation of a complete set of their product to every US Military base and HS in America absolutely gratis, that would be AWESOME.  It would also be _their_ decision, not the decision of 50K Joe Pirates on the Web.



> Did it suddenly start sucking in the '60s?




Well, yes and no.  There was a lot of criticism of the book in the US when it first came out...  Many researchers questioned not only the authors' sources but his conclusions.

On the "No" side, they pointed out that there were many systematic flaws in the data collected pre-1960.  Some crimes were grossly underreported, like child molestation and rape, as well as most white-collar crime.  Some statistical data was collected from homogenous groups- very bad for statistical projections in a heterogeneous group.  In effect, the numbers post 1960 were more accurate than those before hand.

On the "Yes" side- the 1960s also marked a change in the way American kids were educated.  Concepts like "New Math" and "Phonics," while effective teaching methods for certain _subsets_ of students, were applied to whole school systems, including those for whom the systems did not work at all.  Other major problems that show up in various districts:

1)  Schools stopped viewing kids as individuals.

2)  Student/teacher ratios ballooned.

3)  School funding in some places is based on the value of surrounding property...meaning that schools in poor districts have less money.

4)  Teacher salaires stagnated.

And many more.  The problems spawned by integration were just a reflection of the state of society as a whole, so I discount those.  But even so, the 1960s in America were more (internally) tumultuous than other periods of our history bar the Civil War and the Great Depression.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yes, I do believe that...and note that I said "in some, if not all, regards."  My apologies if I worded that awkwardly- my meaning was that American poor are better off in some ways, but not in all.
> 
> I lived in Europe (specifically, Stuttgart, Germany) for 3 years.  While I lived there (and on 2 subsequent visits), I visited France, Spain, Italy, Great Britain, Portugal, Greece, Hungary (before the fall of Communism) and Russia- to name just a few.



If you lived in Stuttgart (I lived there for a year), you should know that this is not the case in Germany. People basically go to the physician whenever they want. There is no cost limit. The long waiting times for transplantations and stuff like that have more to do with the aftermath of the esoteric boom of the 90's than anything else, because many people don't want to donate their organs. I personally know cases where health insurances spent millions on people who had been living on social welfare more or less all their life.

I know about this extensive testing that is performed here when you go to a physician. I was told this has to do with defense insurance .

It's quite different in Britain, though. But their Gini index is more similar to that one of the US, anyway. Plus, they are not really famous for their public health system .

Edit: But not to let it slide, because the details of the health insurance are just one point in a whole picture: If I compare the poor areas of this town where I live now with the poor district of, let's say, Berlin, I know where I want to live . This might of course have to do with the fact that the percentage of poor is generally lower in European countries than in the US (at least in the old EU countries).


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 12, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I'm currently reading The Bell Curve, looking at the graphs I was amazed to see how poverty declined rapidly in the USA until 1969, then remained static or increased up to the date of publication (1994).  Many other indicators like crime rates and education rates ceased improving (education) or started getting worse (crime) from the mid-60s onwards.  It looked like the US had suffered some kind of huge disaster in the '60s, losing a major war or something.  Uncanny how every indicator started declining within a few years of each other.




I suppose that the fact that the U.S. began engaging in government directed social engineering on its grandest scale ever during that time frame could not have anything to do with it?

(Okay, this is drfiting into politics).


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 12, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> You truly believe that? You have never been to Europe, have you? Just go to a city like Berlin and spend your day in the poorest district .




Yes, I do. I've been to Europe, several times. I'd rather be poor in the U.S. than poor in Europe. And while I'm not poor now, I was in the past. I'll take the U.S. system any day.


----------



## Turjan (Sep 12, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, I do. I've been to Europe, several times. I'd rather be poor in the U.S. than poor in Europe. And while I'm not poor now, I was in the past. I'll take the U.S. system any day.



There was a recent BBC article about the general misconception of poverty and the chances you have to get out of poverty in the US compared to other developed countries (old EU, Canada). The numbers show that it's much easier to get out of poverty in any of the EU countries or Canada than in the US. Nevertheless, the nimbus of the "land of unlimited possibilities" stays unbroken. We probably have to live with that .

Edit: Just to avoid any misunderstandings: Please, don't misinterpret what I say as "in the US, everything is bad, and in Europe, everything is good". Far from that. There's a reason why I'm here at the moment .


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 12, 2005)

> The numbers show that it's much easier to get out of poverty in any of the EU countries or Canada than in the US.




I don't really doubt it that much.

We had some TRULY idiotic laws dealing with poverty and government benefits that have only recently been repealed.  Some were actually counterproductive.  It will probably take a generation for the effects of those laws to dissapear.

Example:  We actually had laws limiting the amount of savings you could have in the bank and still recieve government aid.  While this actually makes SOME sense, the limits were set in the 1930's at $1000.  If you exceeded that limit, ALL benefits were cut off completely.  For many people, it was a perfectly rational decision to not save that money and stay on the public dole.

In the early 1980's, a philanthropist conducted an experiment: he had experts calculate the 1980s equivalent value of $1000 in 1930 dollars.  When a family in his experiment reached the goverment's limit and cut them off, he provided the equivalent benefits they lost.  When they reached the COLAd figure, he cut those benefits by 50%.  When they suppased that amount by a figure his experts suggested, he cut off all benefits.

Results:  of all the families in the experiment, only 2 families returned to welfare in the decade after he cut them off.  One woman (a single black mother) even managed to open a business that, according to his reports and a televised interview, grossed $1M+ annually.

That experiment caused a revision in many programs.  They didn't follow all of his recs, but they did adjust some of the limits for savings and no longer cancel all benefits immediately.

So, give us a little time...



> If you lived in Stuttgart (I lived there for a year), you should know that this is not the case in Germany. People basically go to the physician whenever they want.




It isn't a question of going to a physician when you want, its a question of when the test or procedure the physician wants to do can be done.  When I lived in Stuttgart, I might have to wait a week or two for certain tests or procedures that I have had within _minutes_ of having my physician order them since I've been back in the US.

BTW, don't get ME wrong...from what I've seen of the economics, the US is probably OVER-invested in high-tech medical equipment, but sometimes that lag can make a difference.



> I personally know cases where health insurances spent millions on people who had been living on social welfare more or less all their life.




I can say the same thing of people in my family here in the US.

+++++
Query:
Does anyone want to fire another broadside about the REAL topic of this thread, or are we now officially and permanently off on various tangents?


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 12, 2005)

Falkus said:
			
		

> Look at you. You're setting up a strawman argument. You're acting like I said all open source is inferior to the stuff you pay for when I said nothing of the sort.




Your argument was very close; perhaps I exaggerated it a little further. My point remains that Open Source is quite possibly a viable alternative to commerical software-- at the very least, in the creation of applications.

As far as games are concerned, I suspect you're correct that they're less viable. On the other hand, given the amount of money made by the industry, despite the level of free distribution in that area, suggests that piracy is by no means a threat.

Then there is the free distribution of "abandonware" games-- games that are no longer for sale and are typically at least five years old. That is just as illegal as distributing new games, and just as much the acquisition of something-for-nothing-- and generally as undesired by the designers and publishers of newer games. It's hard, however, to claim that this activity harms game publishers.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Morality is subjective, and therefore, worthless for setting up the laws. Societal good is the only thing we should look at when setting laws ...




I actually disagree with your first statement-- at least in the sense that while people may disagree on moral issues, not all moral positions are equal.

Surprisingly, I agree with you wholeheartedly in the second statement; the laws should be written in the form that contributes most to the public good.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> ... and I can't imagine how it  benefits society in any way to say that it's okay to take intellectual property without compensating the creators.




Outside of very limited cases-- the kind originally touched upon in this thread, and the kind that I've already noted that I avoid-- it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that piracy has served to hurt creative-IP industries, and some studies indicate it may even be beneficial due to word-of-mouth.

The copyright laws were drafted in an age where the concern was not about free copies, but about third parties copying and re-selling intellectual property without engaging in any of the development costs-- or compensating the original creator. I agree with you that this is wrong, immoral, and should be illegal; I'm glad that it is in most of the developed world. However, I also believe that this is a separate issue from the free distribution of those copies-- especially since freely-distributed copies are typically inferior to the retail product, and thus provide a way for the creator to still benefit from sales.

At coffee last night, I happened to be speaking with a friend of mine who has a sizable collection of pirated computer software. He never charges for anything he doesn't own-- and he's talked a number of people into buying legitimate copies of a program or paying the registration cost for shareware.

These ideals are not wholly incompatible.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> And here we find the source of your flawed beliefs. The idea that secrecy is wrong is not only idiotic, but insulting as well.




Considering this statement-- and the number of people who've called me a liar, a thief, and a coward in this thread-- I can only suggest that you suck it up and deal with it. 



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> Are you trying to imply that the paratroopers's in my grandfather's regiment were in the wrong when they secretly deployed behind German lines via parachute on D-Day? Are you trying to imply that the allied spies who risked their lives to help bring down the third reich were in the wrong? Secrecy is not wrong like you claim it is, and you are truly being insulting by saying it is.




Let's look at this, shall we? Your grandfather and his comrades-in-arms benefitted from secrecy in their campaign against an enemy that most of us will readily acknowledge was corrupt and dangerous, if not wholly evil. I honor your grandfather's service, and I would be the last to denigrate it.

Allied Intelligence, through use of secrecy, protected our forces from that enemy-- though their main purpose was the breach of that enemy's secrets, I might remind you.

If the keeping of secrets is right-- and the exposure of secrets is wrong, as you say-- then how was the behavior of Allied Intelligence moral? If keeping secrets is right, and exposing enemy secrets is right-- which is a contradiction-- then how was Allied Intelligence more morally correct than Axis Intelligence?

I would also remind you that the war in which your honorable grandfather fought was made possible by the ability of Germany to conceal and deny their military buildup-- in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Their numerous crimes against humanity were only made possible by their utter secrecy-- their ability to conceal these crimes, or at least the true extent of their crimes, from their citizenry.

If it were made possible by the Treaty of Versailles, it was also made *inevitable* by that Treaty, which ended a war built upon a network of secret alliances and triggered by an assassin. 

American involvement in *that* war started in secret, with our smuggling of military equipment to the British-- and civilians paid the price of that secret with the sinking of the _Lusitania_. Though I of course cannot prove it, I suspect that World War I would have ended sooner, with fewer casualties and far less economic costs, if it were not for our secret-- and then not-so-secret-- involvement.

It certainly would have ended on a more even basis, without the Treaty of Versailles that made World War II an inevitability. That war, beyond the horrors of World War II, was also responsible for the creation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics-- the USSR-- another government that used its ability to keep secrets to commit atrocities.

The intelligence struggle-- the war over secrets-- and brinksmanship between our government and theirs was capable of making human life extinct, and it almost did on at least one occasion.

No, the ability to keep secrets has caused far more harm than any amount of judicious secrecy-- whether you find this simple truth insulting or not.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> What is it with you and absolutes? Why are you so insistent that they exist?




I might ask you the same question, since you are claiming that my position is both absolutely wrong and absolutely idiotic. 

Like with the argument about "greed", I think this discussion would be better served if you focused on weaknesses in my argument-- that are not also shared by yours.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 12, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Query:
> Does anyone want to fire another broadside about the REAL topic of this thread, or are we now officially and permanently off on various tangents?




I suspect the original topic is exhausted, and any return to it will be in the form of simple moral judgements that do not take the previous pages of argumentation into account.

I'm rather comfortable with the thread being closed now-- or simply fading into obscurity-- but I wouldn't want this to happen without Falkus, or Storm Raven, or yourself getting the opportunity to address my last post-- if any of you desire to. I think the conversation has reached its natural conclusion.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 12, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> There was a recent BBC article about the general misconception of poverty and the chances you have to get out of poverty in the US compared to other developed countries (old EU, Canada). The numbers show that it's much easier to get out of poverty in any of the EU countries or Canada than in the US. Nevertheless, the nimbus of the "land of unlimited possibilities" stays unbroken. We probably have to live with that .




It also has to do with expectations. In the U.S., we expect a different set of returns than many people living in the EU. Observed behaviour, for example, has shown that Americans, in general, don't value health benefits all that much relative to a lot of other things. Any study performed by an organization based in the EU will necessarily measure those things that they consider to be of significant value, and compare what people from both regions have in those areas.

So, for example, your typical American believes that he will someday own his own house, and in many cases he is correct in that belief. In the EU, real property ownership is less common, and appears to be less valued as a whole. In the U.S., we expect that we will own a car, or even two cars, and multiple personal conveniences (in many cases, duplicative ones at that). In the EU, it seems that this expectation is not so strong.

Take, for example, my sister in law. She and her husband make a decent amount of money, live in a sizeable house, and own not two, but three cars, and have not only a television, but a built home theatre system. Yet they have no health insurance (my brother-in-law is a contractor and his job doesn't provide it as a benefit). They certainly could afford it by, for example, foregoing the completely extraneous third car (they have no kids or other dependents). The could actually afford it and keep the third car. But they don't want to spend the money on health insurance (and there is nothing other than that keeping them from getting it, they haven't been denied coverage for some health problem or anything like that). Other things are, quite simply, more important to them.

Now, the BBC looking at this situation would conclude that something is very wrong: they are _uninsured_! This is a travesty! Even the middle class in America run the risk of being uninsured! But it is simply a choice - they want other things more, because their opinion of what is important is simply different. That is not to say that everyone who is uninsured does so voluntarily, but if you look at the numbers, a large proportion of the uninsured population effectively are.

Since Germany has been brought up, I would point out, for example, that Germany currently has 12% unemployment. If the U.S. had a comparable figure, people would be howling in anger at the government.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 12, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Please consider that the vast majority of technology we're using today was originally developed by (or for) the U.S. military and/or NASA. Both are government-funded organizations, and government funds an enormous amount of research. Usually, the private sector only improves upon government research, once the government is done with it.




Most of the research for DoD and NASA is actually done by private organizations. DoD and NASA give specifications of what they want the end product to _do_, and then private organizations figure out _how_ so they can compete for the contract. The incentive of the private organizations - getting paid.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 12, 2005)

Korimyr the Rat said:
			
		

> I'm rather comfortable with the thread being closed now-- or simply fading into obscurity-- but I wouldn't want this to happen without Falkus, or Storm Raven, or yourself getting the opportunity to address my last post-- if any of you desire to. I think the conversation has reached its natural conclusion.




Why would I bother to respond? Your last post was almost entirely devoid of content, being more in the line of entirely unfounded speculation. For example, your speculation concerning the course of WWI had the U.S. not become involved is, as far as I can tell, based on nothing whatsoever.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 12, 2005)

I've said everything that needs to be said.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 12, 2005)

Turjan said:
			
		

> It's quite different in Britain, though. But their Gini index is more similar to that one of the US, anyway. Plus, they are not really famous for their public health system .




Traditionally we've had mostly bad healthcare, but cheap - around 6% of GDP, where the US spends 14%.  The government has raised spending a lot recently, not much visible improvement yet though.  
Personally I prefer the UK system to US only because in an emergency like a car accident, I will get healthcare, and I won't get billed thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for it.  This is a big worry when my American wife & I go on holiday to USA, we buy travel insurance but hospitals don't "recognise" it, as I found out once when I was hit by crippling back pain in Mississippi.

Edit:  We went to a medical centre.  Receptionist:

"The doctor charges $100 consultation fee".


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 12, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Why would I bother to respond?




How am I to know what you will or will not bother to respond to? I just wanted to make sure you got the chance to reply, if it was your intention to do so-- since I doubted I would have anything further to say.

As for "unfounded speculation", I could have used other examples, but I preferred to stick to the one given to me. I'm not willing to dig up more credible historical speculation about the World Wars in order to justify a position on intellectual property law-- particularly for an argument which I am under no illusion can be settled.



			
				Falkus said:
			
		

> I've said everything that needs to be said.




Well, then, it's been a pleasure; you held your end of the argument well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 13, 2005)

> Then there is the free distribution of "abandonware" games-- games that are no longer for sale and are typically at least five years old. That is just as illegal as distributing new games, and just as much the acquisition of something-for-nothing-- and generally as undesired by the designers and publishers of newer games. It's hard, however, to claim that this activity harms game publisher.




Its not hard at all.

The "abandonware" position assumes that those games are valueless because nobody is planning to bring them back...an utterly unprovable position.  How long had Centipede been commercially unavailable before Ed Logg's classic was reborn as a 3D game on 4 different platforms (largely through the efforts of Richard Rouse III)?

With both tabletop and computer games, I see the same games appear under the same or different names all the time.  For instance, the venerable game "Asteroids" is currently sitting in my games file under a different name (Maelstrom, Hemi-roids), as are versions of Time Pilots (Wingnuts), Tetris, Star Trek and others.  Some of them have taken themes and change the setting- like the Escape Velocity games did with Autoduel or a Christmas/Santa themed version of Defender.  I have even seen an old Apple IIe game called Broadsides (ship vs ship in the era of 3 masted battleships, including boarding parties) that has been copied at least 4 times.  The tabletop games Roborally, Star Fleet Battles, Nuclear War and OGRE/G.E.V. have been out of print at least once if not several times, only to return to publication.  RPG's frequently go out of print only to be republished, pheonix-like.  MechWarrior/Battletech?  Space 1889?  Traveller?  Talisantha?

If nothing else, those newer versions potentially bite into the market for the original games, should the holders of the IP rights decide to re-publish them.

+++

S'mon, you just got caught up in the Great American Insurance War.  Many insurance companies are trying all kinds of tactics to minimize payments for services rendered.  Some randomly choose to deny payments on chronic treatments, like allergy shots.  Others routinely pay less than the treatments cost.  One HMO contract I just reviewed for my father complied with the letter of the law about compliance in processing paperwork...but had no explicit promise to PAY after the paperwork had been processed.

Result- Doctors try to get as much up front as they can or refuse to deal with certain companies.

Oh, and before we get to it...we DO get screwed on pharmaceuticals costs, no questions about it.  Essentially, US citizens are subsidizing lower medicine costs in a lot of the world.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The "abandonware" position assumes that those games are valueless because nobody is planning to bring them back...an utterly unprovable position.  How long had Centipede been commercially unavailable before Ed Logg's classic was reborn as a 3D game on 4 different platforms (largely through the efforts of Richard Rouse III)?




Ah, but do you think that the free distribution of the antique 2d version would, in any conceivable fashion, limit sales of the newer 3d version? The only way I can see it influencing sales one way or another is by exposing people to the original, classic games-- possibly making them curious about the new version.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> With both tabletop and computer games, I see the same games appear under the same or different names all the time.  For instance, the venerable game "Asteroids" is currently sitting in my games file under a different name (Maelstrom, Hemi-roids), as are versions of Time Pilots (Wingnuts), Tetris, Star Trek and others.




How many of them are released by the company that released the original version, however?

If anything, you are describing third parties making commercially parasitic use of existing IP-- without compensating the original creators. What is the difference between an original-but-abandoned title, a freeware play-alike, and a third-party ripoff, from the original creator's point of view?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The tabletop games Roborally, Star Fleet Battles, Nuclear War and OGRE/G.E.V. have been out of print at least once if not several times, only to return to publication.  RPG's frequently go out of print only to be republished, pheonix-like.  MechWarrior/Battletech?  Space 1889?  Traveller?  Talisantha?




Tabletop and roleplaying games are quite another issue-- since age is much less of a detriment to roleplaying games and no detriment whatsoever to board games. A board game can be reprinted in its original format at any time, and roleplaying games do not typically become obsolete until a new and generally incompatible revision is released.

An electronic game is dead property the second its sequel is released, or with a few limited exceptions, after five or six years of its original release. Even if re-released, it is highly unlikely there are going to be any significant sales for free distribution to damage.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 13, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The "abandonware" position assumes that those games are valueless because nobody is planning to bring them back...an utterly unprovable position.  How long had Centipede been commercially unavailable before Ed Logg's classic was reborn as a 3D game on 4 different platforms (largely through the efforts of Richard Rouse III)?




Do you know what you are talking about? Take Quake and GTA (Grand Theft Auto). You can download Quake 1, Quake 2 and the source code for Quake 3 from Id Softwares own webpage. The same thing with GTA 1 and GTA 2, you can download these games from Rockstars own site. Still, Quake 4 will soon be released and GTA: San Andreas sells like crazy. Gamers will certainly don't play GTA 1 _instead_ of San Andreas.

You don't "bring back" really old outdated computer games, you create new versions. And unlike movies and the really crappy remakes that is all the rage nowadays, people prefer the new games over the old ones.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 13, 2005)

> Ah, but do you think that the free distribution of the antique 2d version would, in any conceivable fashion, limit sales of the newer 3d version? The only way I can see it influencing sales one way or another is by exposing people to the original, classic games-- possibly making them curious about the new version.




And yet there is the D&D tribute game, Hackmaster, available from Kenzerco, a subsidiary of WOTC.  Free distribution of 1Ed or 2Ed product is a threat to that product's viability.  The SIZE of the threat is open to debate since Hackmaster isn't merely AD&D renamed, but free TSR product is a close enough substitute that it is an economic competitor.

In fact, its one reason I haven't bought the game.  I see no reason to purchase Hackmaster when I have a nearly complete 1Ed/2Ed library (all legally purchased, BTW).



> How many of them are released by the company that released the original version, however?




Immaterial.  Some are, but others, like Traveller, Space 1889 and Battletech, are released by people who bought the copyright holders rights, have a license, or are working with the original game designer.  In any case, they are released by people who legally have the copyrights to the games they are publishing.



> You can download Quake 1, Quake 2 and the source code for Quake 3 from Id Softwares own webpage.




That is a perfect example of the original IP holder CHOOSING to release their own old IP free of charge.  *They* have set the price at $0.00.  That is _far different_ from OTHERS saying "Aw, they aren't using it anymore...I'll take it."



> An electronic game is dead property the second its sequel is released, or with a few limited exceptions, after five or six years of its original release. Even if re-released, it is highly unlikely there are going to be any significant sales for free distribution to damage.




Personally, I don't stop playing a game just because a new version is out.  New ≠ Better.  I'll be playing Playmaker Football until my machine won't run it.  I'm still playing my old Quake and Unreal games.  Hell, I have games from the 1980s I still run.

Furthermore, the lower the expected sales of the product, the MORE harm illegal distribution does.  See my earlier post about how a Russian pirate site completely devalued the an album by a local Dallas band.



> You don't "bring back" really old outdated computer games, you create new versions.




And yet there are people who buy & modify X-Boxes and other machines, take the time to find & download thousands of old console games from Atari 2600's, Nintendos, etc., and play them.  This involves an expenditure of time and money that is not large, but also isn't insignificant.  In economic terms, these old games are still normal goods, despite their miniscule value.

Those original IP holders (or their rightful subsequent rights-holders) could, if they so chose, sell them online for ¢1 each.  That they don't choose to do so does NOT mean that they are giving you permission to download them freely.  If they wanted to give you permission for that, they could follow the example of ID or Rockstar.

You could argue that the lack of IP holders trying to sue people for downloading "Yar's Revenge" is evidence that they don't care about it.  However, it may just not be good business to enforce that right.

To illustrate: nuisance suits are pretty commonplace in the US, painful though it is for me to say it.  In the most common form of nuisance suit, you sue someone for just enough money to be worth YOUR time, but for little enough money to be worth the defendant doing anything else but settling out of court.

Could Atari go after people downloading their old IP?  Sure...but it would probably be cost prohibitive to do so.  Even so, they (and Nintendo and others) DID go after some of the sites that had been warehousing those games.  Successfully, I might add.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 14, 2005)

IMO a reasonable term of copyright protection for computer software would be 7 years.

Especially if it annoyed Danny.


----------



## Viktyr Gehrig (Sep 14, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Immaterial. ... or are working with the original game designer. ... In any case, they are released by people who legally have the copyrights to the games they are publishing.




It is not immaterial, because the last quoted portion is not correct. If it's a game that plays like (or a lot like) the original but has a different (if similar) name, it is almost guaranteed that it was not released by the original company.

Also, if the original game designer has *sold his rights* to the game, why should he be allowed to take those rights back or to produce an identical game for another company?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't stop playing a game just because a new version is out.  New ≠ Better.  I'll be playing Playmaker Football until my machine won't run it.  I'm still playing my old Quake and Unreal games.  Hell, I have games from the 1980s I still run.
> 
> Furthermore, the lower the expected sales of the product, the MORE harm illegal distribution does.  See my earlier post about how a Russian pirate site completely devalued the an album by a local Dallas band.




No, but other people do stop *buying* them; stores even stop selling them. The fact that you continue to play the games makes no difference to the publishers, whose only concern is that people buy their next game.

As for your latter comment, it's more than just lower expected sales-- it's lower expected sales plus a higher percentage of the company's expected profits deriving from the product. There's a difference between "expected total sales" of 100, and "expected future sales" of 100 after having already sold 10,000.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Those original IP holders (or their rightful subsequent rights-holders) could, if they so chose, sell them online for ¢1 each.  That they don't choose to do so does NOT mean that they are giving you permission to download them freely.  If they wanted to give you permission for that, they could follow the example of ID or Rockstar.




That they don't choose to indicates that they have already made all of the profit off of them that they are going to, and that they're no longer attempting to make more. That means that they have wrung all of the benefit out of copyright protection that they are going to, and that further copyright protection of those properties no longer serves the public good or encourages the production of new IP.

Legally, of course, you're absolutely right-- but I don't think anyone's arguing that abandonware is legal.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2005)

> IMO a reasonable term of copyright protection for computer software would be 7 years.




Sorry, S'mon.  Actually, I don't care a bit about the term of protection...PROVIDED it is sufficient for the IP holder to cover his costs.  In D&D terms, I'm Lawful Neutral on that point.  

For example, I'd see no problem with a variable term IP right (for copyright or patent) that read "Term of protection is from date of issuance until the copyright or patent holder has covered his development costs (as determined by independent auditor), plus 1 year."

However, that "short" protection period would have 2 major results:

*Result 1*: Valuable IP would be quickly disseminated into the public domain, but the garbage could potentially be protected for a century.  *Result 2*: the dissapearance of extraordinary profits from IP would result in a sharp decline in (but not total dissapearance of) investment in the development of IP-  investors go where there are profits to be made.  While innovation would not dissapear, it WOULD slow significantly. 



> Me
> Immaterial. Some are, but others, like Traveller, Space 1889 and Battletech, are released by people who bought the copyright holders rights, have a license, or are working with the original game designer. In any case, they are released by people who legally have the copyrights to the games they are publishing.






> Korimyr
> It is not immaterial, because the last quoted portion is not correct. If it's a game that plays like (or a lot like) the original but has a different (if similar) name, it is almost guaranteed that it was not released by the original company.




Yes it is immaterial who publishes it *if* they have a legal right to do so, regardless of the method of obtaining that right.

Notice, my statement ONLY covered those who DO have a legal right to publication.  Essentially, its a tautology: Someone who has the right to legally publish X (for whatever reason) may legally publish X- it doesn't matter who they are.

In each of the specific cases I mentioned (Traveller, Space 1889, etc), the current publisher has the legal right to publish.



> Also, if the original game designer has sold his rights to the game, why should he be allowed to take those rights back or to produce an identical game for another company?




If the contract doesn't guarantee exclusivity or non-competition, then no exclusivity or non-competition can be expected or enforced.  Caveat Emptor!

In other words, if you buy the *non-exclusive* right to publish Game X, there is NOTHING stopping me from selling the same rights to someone else, or doing so myself.

If the contract we sign doesn't contain a *covenant not to compete*, there is little you can do to keep me from designing similar games.

BTW- such clauses usually have a time limit or an location limit: You are granted exclusive rights in a country or set of countries;  the person cannot compete in the same industry for 5 years or produce a similar product within that industry for the same, etc.



> No, but other people do stop buying them; stores even stop selling them.




Incorrect.  In case you haven't noticed, you can walk into Best Buy and other stores and buy these little game controllers that plug directly into your TV that contain 5-10 classic console or arcade games at about $15-20/controller.  The games are 20+ years old, unchanged in graphic content, and they're bundled with a controller, but they are still the same games that you claim are unsellable.

Are they selling as well as GTA?  No.  Are they selling?  Yes.  People are STILL buying these games.

And there is no reason to expect this trend to end.  In 20 years, people may be buying all of the DOOM games bundled into a controller that plugs directly into a TV for $15-20 a pop.

In other words, the most popular "abandonware" is in all probability not even abandoned.  And the pirate cannot know which is and which isn't.



> That they don't choose to indicates that they have already made all of the profit off of them that they are going to, and that they're no longer attempting to make more.




No.  As I pointed out, it would cost them more to prosecute the infringement cases against individuals than it would to ignore them.

Instead of going after the individuals, they are going after the sites that warehouse the old games.  They have found THAT to be cost effective and actually effective.

And, as I point out above, they ARE trying to make more profit out of their old IP.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 14, 2005)

As a guy who has written a couple of published game books, and has a couple more on the way, I can say that my peg leg has never caused me any problems, but the hook has posed difficulties in writing and the eye-patch means the players can try to sneak up on me but the parrot warns me why they try it. 

And I'll have me revenge on that scurvy devil Ranger Wicket for what he did to me booty.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 14, 2005)

Subtle!


----------



## knightofround (Sep 15, 2005)

I have about 2 gigs of WotC books from p2p networks. I have a difficult time imagining that p2p file sharing hurts small publishers, because I haven't simply been able to find them. Reading the comments by publishers on this topic has been very interesting. It's quite possible that there's dedicated rings of pirates out there that distribute gaming material, but I don't think they are a threat to small publishers because they are too difficult for the average gamer to find. 

Personally, I have stayed away from buying PDFs because I can't leaf through them. There's no "try before you buy". "Sample pages" do not help at all, because how do I know if those sample pages are comparable to the rest of the content in the book? It's like movie commercials on TV. They put all the movie's best moments into the commercial, to encourage you to watch the movie. But you don't get the product that were advertised; instead, you get the filler that connects the snapshots from the commercial.

To be candid with the publishers here, until I could review D20 books in PDF format, I never bought any published material beyond the core books. The price of the book + the risk of getting crap was too high, I'd just as soon go with homebrewed. D20 books are weak complements to the D20 game as a whole. But, thanks to p2p networks I can obtain better information about the products, and I have actually started buying hardcover books from them.

If I saw a lot of DMs substituting pirated books for hardbacked books, I'd agree that pirating is a major problem. But I don't. p2p pirates are simply gobbling up the producer surplus in the gaming community. I know that it hurts publishers to see their products that only sold 30 copies in the open market proliferate 150 copies in the black market, but how do you know if you could actually capture profits from those 150 copies? 

I think the answer can be found in "streaming" software. I'm a happy owner of the music-streaming service Rhapsody. It has a managable subscription fee and a sizable library. Before Rhapsody, I did not listen to music. Mostly I read books from the public library, or I got a few singles that I liked off of p2p. BUT, because there's this service out there, I'm willing to pay for it and I've really become immersed in the music community since then. I don't p2p music anymore, even though Rhapsody doesn't have everything I'm looking for. The record companies have gone from getting $0 from me to $10/month.

Has anyone tried the "streaming" business model in the D20 community? Or the "ransom" business model?


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 15, 2005)

knightofround said:
			
		

> I know that it hurts publishers to see their products that only sold 30 copies in the open market proliferate 150 copies in the black market, but how do you know if you could actually capture profits from those 150 copies?




Of course one could ask, what _right _do those 150 pirates have to access material —aka. labor—they have not paid for (or has not been expressly donated by the author)


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 15, 2005)

knightofround said:
			
		

> I think the answer can be found in "streaming" software.




I think the answer can be found in aggressive prosecution.


----------



## knightofround (Sep 15, 2005)

> I think the answer can be found in aggressive prosecution.



Yeah, because aggressive prosecution has always beaten technological advancement.

How do you know that aggressive prosecution is worth the monetary cost? I highly doubt that prosecution would drive up sales. Look at what's happened to the movie/music industries.


----------



## knightofround (Sep 15, 2005)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Of course one could ask, what _right _do those 150 pirates have to access material —aka. labor—they have not paid for (or has not been expressly donated by the author)




None, really. Same goes for people that share dice and books with their gaming buddies. Same goes for people that play music without headphones. Have you paid for your air today?


----------



## Yair (Sep 15, 2005)

knightofround said:
			
		

> If I saw a lot of DMs substituting pirated books for hardbacked books, I'd agree that pirating is a major problem. But I don't. p2p pirates are simply gobbling up the producer surplus in the gaming community. I know that it hurts publishers to see their products that only sold 30 copies in the open market proliferate 150 copies in the black market, but how do you know if you could actually capture profits from those 150 copies?



I am on the pro-pirate side, but just wanted to comment that I do see such a trend. To be specific, I have, in the two parties I've played in, seen players use downloaded materials instead of buying the content, even when said content was digital. In fact, they don't understand why I insist on buying what we use.
And these include been-through-college and married men, these are not kids.

I personally do not believe people should be able to earn ideas, however lucrative these ideas may be, or restrict the right of another to speak or write what he wants, even if what he says may hurt them financially. In other words, I'm on the pro-pircay side.
But I also think the kind of anecdotal evidence you presented in this paragraph doesn't really mean anything; I've seen differently, and others have too, and none of this evidence shows much at all.


----------



## ayrwind (Sep 15, 2005)

Assume i bought the DMG II hardcopy.  but i want to read it at my workplace, and pdf is easier to hide from my boss.  i wish the pdf to be portable also when i work at a cafe with my laptop.  so, i download an illegal pdf from p2p.

now, i bought the book, so nobody lost any sales.  the pdf isnt available at any online stores.  am i doing something illegal?  yes.  am i wrong though?


----------



## feriblan (Sep 15, 2005)

Fascinating, but I don't really understand why there is a problem.
Someone writes a book and decides "you can use the ideas in my book, if you pay a certain price."
Now if you want to use the book, you pay the price, and if you don't ... you don't. 
It's the same decision everytime you want to have/use/enjoy something you do not have, but someone else has. Either you pay the given price or you don't use/have/enjoy it. It doesn't really matter if it hurts the other person one bit. It also doesn't matter, if you can afford to buy the book. If you can't, than you must live without it. It's that simple.
Or perhaps this example: 
You want to drive with a Porsche. Another person has one. He works from 9.00 to 17.00 h, so he can't use it. Should you be allowed to take his car without his consent during this time(you pay for gas and any possible damages, you even leave some money for the useage - it would not hurt him and he can't use it anyway)?
No. If you use someone elses work or property, you should only do so with his consent. And if he only gives his consent when you pay a certain amount of money, than you should pay it. Or you must go without said work or property.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 15, 2005)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> I think the answer can be found in aggressive prosecution.




Of course, you're a genius! If you sue your customers, only _then_ will they buy your products!

I think it's fascinating the only western country in the world where regular people like yourself actually want kids "aggressively prosecuted" for a misdemeanor is the country with the most lobbying and anti "piracy"-propaganda. In this thread, every single one of the most "profilic" anti-piracy members live in the US. 

Do you feel better after your _two minute hate_? If not, here are two pictures you can scream at:
http://www.drugs.indiana.edu/graphics/photographs/marij2.gif
http://www.pa-aware.org/assets/images/who/C-6.jpg


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 15, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Of course, you're a genius! If you sue your customers, only _then_ will they buy your products!




Thieves are not customers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 15, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I personally do not believe people should be able to earn ideas, however lucrative these ideas may be, or restrict the right of another to speak or write what he wants, even if what he says may hurt them financially.




Copyright holders don't earn ideas, they come up with them. Copyright seeks to promote the creation and publication of new works of authorship. Without a financial incentive to do so, many individuals wouldn't bother making new stuff, and many of those who do wouldn't bother publishing them for public consumption.


----------



## Wayside (Sep 15, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> I think it's fascinating the only western country in the world where regular people like yourself actually want kids "aggressively prosecuted" for a misdemeanor is the country with the most lobbying and anti "piracy"-propaganda. In this thread, every single one of the most "profilic" anti-piracy members live in the US.



Or, hey, maybe it's because most ENWorlders are American period. I probably pirate more than anyone else here and, like most pirates, I'm also American. Little logic please.


----------



## Yair (Sep 15, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Copyright seeks to promote the creation and publication of new works of authorship. Without a financial incentive to do so, many individuals wouldn't bother making new stuff, and many of those who do wouldn't bother publishing them for public consumption.



I agree copyright (and patent, etc.) laws were instituted to promote the creation and elaboration of new ideas. I just don't think people have a basic right to have future possible ideas. I think they have a right of free speech (including copying), though, and that this right should be tempered by other rights, not by commercial or ideaological reasons.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 15, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Thieves are not customers.




What do you mean with "thieves"?

Because If you have actually read this thread, you can clearly see those who download material also buy it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 15, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Thieves are not customers.




Sure they are.  I "steal" music online all the time then go buy the CD.  Really isn't much else to do if you are into underground metal and don't want to waste money on CD's that only have one good song.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 15, 2005)

> I know that it hurts publishers to see their products that only sold 30 copies in the open market proliferate 150 copies in the black market, but how do you know if you could actually capture profits from those 150 copies?




Name another product where you can use that logic and still feel ethical.  "Sure, I took some apples from Farmer Brown's orchard, but he has acres of fruitful trees...do you really think he'd have sold the 20 I took?"  Methinks Farmer Brown may start pulling out "Ol' Bess" and loadin' her with more than buckshot.

Better yet, can you show me an ethics system that would agree with taking someone's work without compensation?  Even Marx wouldn't take property from the IP creator- he'd take control of copyright away from the creator's capitalist _employer_ to _return it _to the IP creator.

(And if you are one of those who must drag out the saw about non-monetary compensation...tell me what non-monetary compensation the victim of piracy recieves.)



> In this thread, every single one of the most "profilic" anti-piracy members live in the US.




It has nothing to do with my country of residence and everything to do with watching my clients not being able to recoup their costs because their work is being sold by a Russian pirate or being "shared" by "fans."

Quite simply, a lot of IP gets produced in the US because we protect it so vigorously.

Believe me, you can show your producer, agent, engineer, editor, session player, fabricator, printer, distributor or whomever evidence that your stuff is being pirated and THEY WON'T CARE- they want to be paid for THEIR work.  So will the guy who rented you the studio, or the credit card company or bank (with a line of credit) you paid them ALL with in order to simplify things.

I attended a meeting hosted by the Dallas Bar Association with one of the guys behind DOOM in which he was discussing a future project.  He talked about investors dumping millions of dollars into the project.  Do you think his investors would listen to a piracy sob story when it came time to pay off their notes?

They might listen, but they wouldn't give a damn.  It would be "Pay up or get sued" time.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Sep 15, 2005)

This is becoming vulgar and nationalistic.


----------



## Lazarous (Sep 15, 2005)

feriblan said:
			
		

> Fascinating, but I don't really understand why there is a problem.
> Someone writes a book and decides "you can use the ideas in my book, if you pay a certain price."
> Now if you want to use the book, you pay the price, and if you don't ... you don't.
> It's the same decision everytime you want to have/use/enjoy something you do not have, but someone else has. Either you pay the given price or you don't use/have/enjoy it. It doesn't really matter if it hurts the other person one bit. It also doesn't matter, if you can afford to buy the book. If you can't, than you must live without it. It's that simple.
> ...





Actually it seems like this sort of reasoning muddles the issue still further.  An example to illustrate - imagine that an rpg book is available for purchase in a bookstore; an rpg player comes along and browses through this book, finding several ideas/mechanics that they like.  Here is the twist - the rpg player has a very very good memory (eidetic for the purposes of discussion),  Instead of buying the book, they simply memorize everything that they wish to use, and leave the book in the store.  The player goes home, types out the relevant rules in a short .txt for his players, and starts using them.  

Has theft occured?

If a publisher is trying to get you to pay for using their _idea_ it seems they're on very shaky ground.  

The above situation is also directly analagous to the debate over whether pdf sharing is theft, since what is being distributed is not a product, but an idea.  

My kneejerk reaction to this is that it seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole - you have a system which actively encourages distribution of ideas to as many people as possible(making them non-scarce), but you're at the same time trying to fit it with an economic system based around scarcity.  I can't think of any quick and easy answers to this issue.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 16, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I agree copyright (and patent, etc.) laws were instituted to promote the creation and elaboration of new ideas. I just don't think people have a basic right to have future possible ideas. I think they have a right of free speech (including copying), though, and that this right should be tempered by other rights, not by commercial or ideaological reasons.




You mean rights like copyrights, which are enshrined by the Constitution?

The problem with your analysis is that without copyright, you don't have the initial product to copy in many cases, so you wouldn't have the "free speech" to copy them.

Also, given your statement concerning "future possible ideas" I don't think you understand copyright (or IP laws in general) _at all_. Copyright protects a certain expression of an idea once it has been fixed in a perceivable form. Until you actually fix it in that form, you don't own it, and you don't own any other ideas.


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 16, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Sure they are.  I "steal" music online all the time then go buy the CD.  Really isn't much else to do if you are into underground metal and don't want to waste money on CD's that only have one good song.




I think you've contradicted yourself here. For every CD you download, decide there is only "one good song" on it and then don't buy, you aren't a customer, you are thief.

And these sorts of anecdotes about how illegal downloaders usually end up buying the IP in question are just that - anecdotes. I know plenty of downloaders who have never bought something after they downloaded it. Which are more numerous, and does it matter?


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 16, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Because If you have actually read this thread, you can clearly see those who download material also buy it.




We see a some people who claim they do. But those people are whiny pro-pirate thieves to begin with, so they don't have much credibility on the subject.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think you've contradicted yourself here. For every CD you download, decide there is only "one good song" on it and then don't buy, you aren't a customer, you are thief.




I wonder what level I'm up to?


----------



## Wayside (Sep 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> I think you've contradicted yourself here. For every CD you download, decide there is only "one good song" on it and then don't buy, you aren't a customer, you are thief.



Fight fire with fire: I surely won't pay full price for an _already overpriced_ cd with one good song on it, especially not with album lengths being as pathetic as they are lately. If you want me to buy your cd stop price-fixing, intentionally padding it with crappy filler, etc. Or are corporations the only ones allowed to break the law?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> We see a some people who claim they do. But those people are whiny pro-pirate thieves to begin with, so they don't have much credibility on the subject.



Heh, this one gave me a good laugh. It's also funny from a rhetorical standpoint, you realize, because any credibility _you_ might have had goes *POOF* after you make this sort of statement. Not because it's right or wrong necessarily, mind you, but because, accordingly, for you "pro-pirate thieves" can have no credibility on the subject of piracy whatever, meaning there's no reason for said thieves to bother discussing the issue with you at all, what with the fingers in the ears and sticking out of the tongue and the NANANANA and all.

For some reason piracy reminds me of the Boston Tea Party. It's a thing..


----------



## Storm Raven (Sep 16, 2005)

Wayside said:
			
		

> Fight fire with fire: I surely won't pay full price for an _already overpriced_ cd with one good song on it, especially not with album lengths being as pathetic as they are lately. If you want me to buy your cd stop price-fixing, intentionally padding it with crappy filler, etc. Or are corporations the only ones allowed to break the law?




"Other people broke the law! I should be able to too!" is not a very persuasive argument.

And, if you had actually read the article, you will note that the practice complained of was discontinued in 2000, and didn't actually benefit the record companies. It was intended to help small chains compete with Wal-Mart and other discount brokers. It might have been bad business (I think it probably was), but it wasn't there to help greedy record companies.



> _Heh, this one gave me a good laugh. It's also funny from a rhetorical standpoint, you realize, because any credibility you might have had goes *POOF* after you make this sort of statement. Not because it's right or wrong necessarily, mind you, but because, accordingly, for you "pro-pirate thieves" can have no credibility on the subject of piracy whatever, meaning there's no reason for said thieves to bother discussing the issue with you at all, what with the fingers in the ears and sticking out of the tongue and the NANANANA and all._





No, they have no credibility on whether or not they buy stuff after they download it as a justification for their piracy. You see, when you engage in illegal behaviour, but then come up with an _post hoc_ and unprovable justification for your actions, you don't get any kind of credibility on the subject. It's a lame justification, and clearly a rationalization by people trying to cover their behinds and persuade themselves that their improper actions are actually proper.



> _For some reason piracy reminds me of the Boston Tea Party. It's a thing.._





Yeah, because getting luxury items for free is somehow on par with being taxed without representation. I'm thinking your credibility just went down the drain on this.


----------



## Mishihari Lord (Sep 16, 2005)

(Sigh)  I went away for a few days and missed the argument.  Oh well, here's my position anyway:

Intellectual property isn't any kind of right, natural or otherwise.  Life liberty and pursuit of happiness are natural rights.  So are freedom of speech and religion.  But freedom to keep others from using my ideas?  Ridiculous.

I have a problem with the concept that an idea can be considered property.  Guy A thinks up an invention.  Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later.  So guy A has the patent rights under the law and guy B is denied the fruits of his labor.  That's certainly not right and for me demolishes the notion that ideas should be considered property.  This isn't a hypothetical example.  RIM payed hundreds of millions of dollars to a patent holder even though they developed the Blackberry independently and without reference to the work of the patent holder.

I support IP laws to the extent that they support the public good.  They provide an incentive to innovate and create.  That's all good.  But at some point they become counterproductive.  The "Steamboat Willie" depiction of Mickey Mouse is still under copyright due to emergency action by congress.  Is Disney going to be creating or innovating using these images?  Unlikely at best.  Then the public good is served by letting the idea go free for others to use.  You can't make any kind of argument that the Blackberry example is for the public good either.  It just served to enrich a group of blood-sucking lawyers (the inventor is dead for crying out loud)

I think the best solution is IP protection specific to the class of idea.  Software patents 5 years.  Drugs 25 years (we do need more incentive to innovate in parmaceuticals, although treaties to reduce free-riding of other countries on US research would also work).  Copyright for author lifetime.

As for piracy, I can't see it as morally wrong - ideas just aren't property.  I won't do it personally, and I support the laws because I want the opportunity to buy more creative product, but saying that pirates or theives or evil is just wrong.  Over the short term, piracy actually serves the public good, since the pirates receive value and no one else loses anything.  As long as creators receive sufficient reward to continue their work, I see no problem with piracy from the public good POV.

(IMHO, IANAL, etc etc etc)


----------



## Wormwood (Sep 16, 2005)

edit: never mind. Loot away, ye scurvy dogs.


----------



## Templetroll (Sep 16, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I agree copyright (and patent, etc.) laws were instituted to promote the creation and elaboration of new ideas. I just don't think people have a basic right to have future possible ideas. I think they have a right of free speech (including copying), though, and that this right should be tempered by other rights, not by commercial or ideaological reasons.




People have the right to the idea they develop, be it a work of art like a book or a technological advance.  As far as I know there is nothing that says "I hold the right to the next beg-selling CCG to be published."  There is, as far as I know, a patent on a CCG mechanic that is a valuable IP.  OTher games develop their own mechanics to provide the gameplay or they make an arrangement to the hold er of the patent to use that specific mechanic.

The right to free speech is the government cannot pass a law to hinder your right to express an opinion.  It does not mean you can copy someone's work and use it without recompense to the person who developed that work.


----------



## Yair (Sep 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You mean rights like copyrights, which are enshrined by the Constitution?



It may shock you, but I don't think the US Constitution is the authrotiy on moral rights.
Perhaps it has to do with me not being an American.
BTW, I fully agree the US Constitution is the authority on legal rights, and I have no dispute over the legalities of the matter.... well, except for some foggy OGL declarations issues.



> The problem with your analysis is that without copyright, you don't have the initial product to copy in many cases, so you wouldn't have the "free speech" to copy them.



I hold this truth to be self-evident, that free speech is a human right, was always a human right [even before copyright laws were instituted], and will always be a human right.
I can't argue about that, if you don't accept this premise than we must part ways. It's... an axiom.



> Also, given your statement concerning "future possible ideas" I don't think you understand copyright (or IP laws in general) _at all_. Copyright protects a certain expression of an idea once it has been fixed in a perceivable form. Until you actually fix it in that form, you don't own it, and you don't own any other ideas.



I am not a lawyer. However, I find the seperation of ideas from their expression artificial. Ideas are not abstract things, they must be expressed to have meaning and they have the meaning expressed. 
This is somewhat tangential; my point is that the right of free speech (and other rights) tramples your rights to crutail my actions for your personal gain whether as an individual or as the state. Such laws are a "dictatoroship of the majority", rather than "liberal democracy".

I would like to add that I am not at all in favor of people downloading and using pdfs instead of buying books. I just think it's their right. There is a difference between what you may do and what you should do, and I think such piracy falls in this border. This has nothing to do with copyrights, it has to do with serving as a patron to things you like and their makers.
I think piracy as a means of browsing, which is how I use it, is perfectly fine [duh, I wouldn't be doing it otherwise].


----------



## Yair (Sep 16, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> People have the right to the idea they develop, be it a work of art like a book or a technological advance....
> The right to free speech is the government cannot pass a law to hinder your right to express an opinion. ....



I disagree on both counts.
People don't have a (moral) right for a monopoly over a technological advance, or any other idea. You can try keeping things a secret, but once it's out you can't keep another person from thinking of and using some idea simply because you had it first. I think the drafters of IP laws realized this too, this is why after a time rights revert to the public. I believe copyright laws were seen at their inception as a necessary evil in the short term to bolster a greater good in the long term (I could be wrong, and would love to be proven wrong with some actual history; I love history).
And free speech isn't any law the government passes or not passes. Free speech is an inherent (moral) right.


----------



## Jacen (Sep 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> We see a some people who claim they do. But those people are whiny pro-pirate thieves to begin with, so they don't have much credibility on the subject.




 Hmmm...  I have said that couple of times already. In Finland there is levy in blank medias due to fact that it is LEGAL to D/L from net. So acording to local law I am not a thief but namecaling me one is a libel - even US law there is a libel suit. Besides US law is not a global law. So would you just stop namecalling people here. 

 And as said before too. I have quite a few copied pdf's, but still my account at RPGnow says Total Cost: $545.66. Well that is for 3 years so not that much annually, but still that is more than 0. And if you think that I am not a DM and play in a campaign that allows only WotC basic products that is quite a lot. And I have bought some pdf's that I have as D/L, but who cares because acording to some ppl I am just a "pro-pirate thief". Hell I even have a bought version of windows and office on my computer. More than 350 DVD's and about 250 CD's. I have ordered new BSG series season 1 DVD and why? I d/l it and loved it. But still didn't break any law when d/l it. So now I have few CDs with burned BSG on them, but still I ordered it. Has my CD sale dropped? Yes and big time, because I stopped buying them after those plastic disks that resambles CD came to sell. Have I d/l mp3s after that... just a few and they all were from mp3 shop. So companies have lost more due to their own actions trying to limit my rights to use bought products than from d/l. 

 But this is far away from thread topic. There has been studies done how much p2p hurts. Just can't be sure can one trust to them because they can be biased to the payers viewpoint. I can just tell my own opinion that is based on my own acts and ppl who I know. Acording to that I would say that it helps to promote products and thus causes more sales than is lost. When markets saturates then it might hurt individual produts sales because if you don't know what you are paying for it might be crap but you know t after you have paid for it. It is almost like one greatly advertised movie that producers excepted to get certain amount of ppl watching it at theathers. Well ppl who saw it send sms's to friend saying "this sucks big time - it is not worth seing". And what happened? Suddenly movie piracy caused that one to lose viewers.  Piracy is easy to claim when rumors start going and causing losses.
 And if we talk about real piracy - the one where one makes copies of CD's, jeans etc and sells them cheaper than original and has organized criminals behind it - then it hurts. Ppl pay for products thus feeling they own them and creatiors doesn't get a cent.


----------



## Jacen (Sep 16, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> I disagree on both counts.
> People don't have a (moral) right for a monopoly over a technological advance, or any other idea. You can try keeping things a secret, but once it's out you can't keep another person from thinking of and using some idea simply because you had it first. I think the drafters of IP laws realized this too, this is why after a time rights revert to the public. I believe copyright laws were seen at their inception as a necessary evil in the short term to bolster a greater good in the long term (I could be wrong, and would love to be proven wrong with some actual history; I love history).
> And free speech isn't any law the government passes or not passes. Free speech is an inherent (moral) right.




Well this reminds me about new Harry Potter. Few books were accidentaly released before schelude. And what happens? Those who bought them were told not to read them. They bought them and own tha books and then they were told not to read. http://www.stallman.org/harry-potter.html.


----------



## S'mon (Sep 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> You mean rights like copyrights, which are enshrined by the Constitution?




(Limited) copyright is permitted, not enshrined.


----------



## feriblan (Sep 16, 2005)

Lazarous said:
			
		

> Actually it seems like this sort of reasoning muddles the issue still further.  An example to illustrate - imagine that an rpg book is available for purchase in a bookstore; an rpg player comes along and browses through this book, finding several ideas/mechanics that they like.  Here is the twist - the rpg player has a very very good memory (eidetic for the purposes of discussion),  Instead of buying the book, they simply memorize everything that they wish to use, and leave the book in the store.  The player goes home, types out the relevant rules in a short .txt for his players, and starts using them.
> 
> Has theft occured?
> 
> ...




I would agree with you that your example is a tricky situation, and I don't have a fast answer to it, but I try.
I would say memorising the whole text and then typing it down is in no way different from, let´s say, borrowing the book from a friend and copying it by hand. If he uses only part off it, you could argue fair use (seems it would depend on the country), but I think copying the whole book is in no different than downloading it as pdf (ok, in one way, it takes a lot more time   )
And my above argument about downloading wasn't about the issue, if it is legal or illegal to do. That is different depending on the country you are living in. I'm only saying it isn't right to take ideas other persons have thought up with the purpose on mind to make a living from selling those ideas to others. 
And it really doesn't matter if they are hurt by it or not. You could otherwise justify a lot of other things with the same argument. For example you'd like to visit the next town, but don't have the money to pay the bus. So you take the bus and hope you're not checked for your ticket. You could argue it isn't wrong, because if you would have had to pay you would have walked and the bus would have driven to your destination anyhow. 
This whole argument seems flawed to me. By downloading you have gained something you were not intended to have by its creator. If everyone would do it this way, there would be no incentive for him to work anymore, because he wouldn't gain anything from his work. 
And no professional author works only for the joy of creating something new. That's surely one of his reasons, but another one is making a living (or a part) of it.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Sep 16, 2005)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, they have no credibility on whether or not they buy stuff after they download it as a justification for their piracy. You see, when you engage in illegal behaviour, but then come up with an _post hoc_ and unprovable justification for your actions, you don't get any kind of credibility on the subject. It's a lame justification, and clearly a rationalization by people trying to cover their behinds and persuade themselves that their improper actions are actually proper.




Nah, I realized long, long ago that me downloading stuff to see if its worth buying is no big deal, if I like it I buy it, if I don't like it I delete it since its a waste of space at that point.  And most of the stuff I download is music from bands that sell 5-10k copies of an album and make 99.9% of thier money from live shows and t-shirts.  Most of the bands at that level aren't worried about downloads since they hope people hearing thier stuff from any source will get them to come to the show next time they are in town and hopefully buy a shirt while they are at the show.  I mean its not like they get any radio play on the corporate radio networks with the need for payola they can't afford if they did have an outlet.  But then again I'm the guy who is at the midnight release of CD's by my favorite bands and loves to study album art and read the lyrics sheet along with the music the first time I listen.  

I don't really download any new D&D stuff or crap for other games.  I don't play 3e I want the books for the one game I do buy.  I did download the OD&D books though to flip through them though. 

Yar!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 16, 2005)

> Fight fire with fire: I surely won't pay full price for an already overpriced cd with one good song on it, especially not with album lengths being as pathetic as they are lately. If you want me to buy your cd stop price-fixing, intentionally padding it with crappy filler, etc. Or are corporations the only ones allowed to break the law?




Orrrrrr instead of pirating the ENTIRE CD,  you could _legally_ download the ONE song you like for under a buck.  Hmmmmmm.



> ...the rpg player has a very very good memory (eidetic for the purposes of discussion), Instead of buying the book, they simply memorize everything that they wish to use, and leave the book in the store...




IMHO, if he fully intends to use the product he has memorized and doesn't pay the creator in some way, he is using the creator's ideas without compensating him for the labor.  It is a form of theft, but one that current law cannot reach, and future law is unlikely to.



> As for piracy, I can't see it as morally wrong - ideas just aren't property.




Its taking someone's work without compensation.  Even if you don't consider IP as property, respect the right of the worker to compensation for his labor- give him his wages earned.

If its morally wrong for me to walk on a check at a restaraunt, or to stiff the guy who cuts my lawn, its wrong to pirate even the crappiest IP.



> Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. So guy A has the patent rights under the law and guy B is denied the fruits of his labor. That's certainly not right and for me demolishes the notion that ideas should be considered property.




Yes- that's problematic, and this situation does crop up from time to time: Issac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both invented Calculus independently of one another, but most only remember or credit Newton.  There have been lots of discussions on how to handle it, none has accumulated any real consensus.

However, it still doesn't help those who are pro piracy.  Let's make a slight addition to your scenario by adding the pirate:

Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. Guy C pirates the idea on day 3 and, because of a technological advantage he has over A & B, C gets rich while they watch helplessly.  Both Guy A and B are denied the fruits of their labor, and only C prospers.

Under the current "ideas as property" regime, at least ONE of the legitimate creators gets compensated for his labors or can take legal action against those who try to use IP without compensating the creator.


----------



## Psionicist (Sep 16, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. Guy C pirates the idea on day 3 and, because of a technological advantage he has over A & B, C gets rich while they watch helplessly.  Both Guy A and B are denied the fruits of their labor, and only C prospers.




This is one of the dumbest things yet in this thread. When was the last time you found a pirate who claimed he himself had actually come up with "Lord of the Rings"? Not even those who manufacture bootlegged copies claim they created the movie/book/CD or whatever it is.

But hey, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer who belive good memory is a kind of theft.


----------



## Falkus (Sep 16, 2005)

> This is one of the dumbest things yet in this thread. When was the last time you found a pirate who claimed he himself had actually come up with "Lord of the Rings"? Not even those who manufacture bootlegged copies claim they created the movie/book/CD or whatever it is.




That's because current IP laws make this impossible. The situation that was described is exactly what would happen if there were no IP laws.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 16, 2005)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yes- that's problematic, and this situation does crop up from time to time: Issac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both invented Calculus independently of one another, but most only remember or credit Newton.  There have been lots of discussions on how to handle it, none has accumulated any real consensus.




Actually, there is a consensus.  It is considered accurate to say that Newton developed the Calculus, and Leibniz is responsible for certain refinements and the notation that is used for most purposes today.  So sayeth my Math History professor, and he'd know.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 16, 2005)

And having shown off my math history knowledge, I'm going to declare this thread closed with one more...

Moderator's Note:  Whether one believes piracy is morally acceptable or not, it is legally not allowed.  Board policy remains that supporting piracy by asking for material will get a thread closed; while supporting piracy by providing material will get the thread closed and earn you at least a temporary banning.

Other than that, let's leave the topic alone for a few days at least, before reopening the discussion, please.  (Although if anyone wants to discuss the history of Mathematics, that could happen in the Off-topic forum.  )


----------

