# File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?



## dreaded_beast (May 10, 2004)

After a quick stop over at Zeropaid.com, a website that deals with news regarding file-sharing and the ramifications of it, I started wondering if file-sharing has any affect on the RPG industry.

Steps have already been taken to crack down on file-sharers by the music industry. The movie industry may follow suit soon enough, although this is just my opinion. According to the music and movie industry, file-sharing has has some affect.

Granted, the RPG industry is probably nowhere near as large as the music or movie industry, but it is probably affected in someway by the file-sharing phenomenon.

Has file-sharing had any significant affect on the RPG industry and how large do you think it is?


----------



## Planesdragon (May 10, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Has file-sharing had any significant affect on the RPG industry and how large do you think it is?



 I do believe that it has.  I would venture to guess that, out of the total number of pirated PDFs out there, one-quarter of them aren't buying the book or PDF because they already have it.

 I won't even hazard a guess as to if the number of sales of anyone's book has actually increased because of piracy, though I do know that record sales rose in a fairly corrolative ammount to Napster's height.

 RPG piracy is especially infuriating because there's a perfectly legal way to trade the crunchy bits of every non-WotC book out there.  *sigh*


----------



## Umbran (May 10, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> According to the music and movie industry, file-sharing has has some affect.




The problem is that the folks reporting that are the ones who are likely losing most of the money.  Especially in the music industry, where only a small amount from each CD goes to the artist.  There's a pretty decent argument that music artists lose very little from pirating, while the middle men lose a lot.

In RPG publishing, the middle men are getting a smaller chunk of the pie, and so one would figure that the loss means more to the folks who actually do the work.


----------



## Henry (May 10, 2004)

First of all, I want to remind EVERYONE who responds to this thread to please be civil, and be mindful of no discussion of politics or religion.

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


That said, there are two beliefs on this issue. One belief is that it does not affect much or at all the RPG industry, and only helps when rare or out-of-print games are made available to the public who wants them. Another is that it is very harmful to an industry that already works on a shoestring budget, and has no beneficial effects at all.

My personal opinion is that the people whom it hurts most are the small-press publisher, and followed closely by the RPG industry as a whole. Here's why:

The small-press people see sales (maximum) of 5000 copies over the lifetime of one product, in rare circumstances going higher than that. PDF publishers will see an average of 100 to 500 sales TOTAL of a product, only slightly more if it's absurdly popular. Whether or not illegal file downloaders would or would not have purchased a copy is irrelevant; if the legal channel is the ONLY venue for it, then they won't have the copy anyway, and the owners will have a sharply accurate picture of the true sales figures and popularity of their products. If it wouldn't matter that downloaders wouldn't pay for it anyway, then it won't matter either if they are denied the product they are after. 

The other problem is WotC's (the industry leaders) skewed sales projections concerning the copied products reflects poorly on their sales figures in Hasbro's eyes; conceptually speaking, if EVERY person who HAD an illegal copy of a given WotC book had at least one LEGAL copy of that book, sales figures would likely be drastically higher, and the producers of the #1 leading RPG would see the RPG line as much more popular than it is currently. In other words, if people actually PAID in a scale reflective of the work's popularity, sales figures would be higher than they really are.

This is not to say I believe electronic copies are inherently a bad thing; personally, I believe if I own at least one copy of a book, I should have access to an electronic version of same. Some vendors offer that at a premium, some do not, but I think it would be more helpful to gamers as a whole if it were offered as such. 

This is my take on it, and goodness knows many other posters here have had different takes on the subject. But realistically looking at the issue, PDF sharing can't help a small publisher who decides whether he eats Ramen Noodles or chicken based on the sales of his 5 most recent books - while the file sharer who's eating his chicken is cozied up to the latest pirated online copies.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 10, 2004)

Planesdragon said:
			
		

> I won't even hazard a guess as to if the number of sales of anyone's book has actually increased because of piracy, though I do know that record sales rose in a fairly corrolative ammount to Napster's height.



Well, I did some filesharing back in the late 90's (I learned of it because it was becoming an issue, then I stopped doing it because the issue was too convoluted).  I will say that during that short bit, I learned of nearly 2 dozen bands that I had _never_ heard of; I learned of them mostly because they had done covers of songs I was looking for.  At any rate, I ended up buying at least one album from many of them, and some of them I became a fan of and bought _all_ of their albums.

Now, is this a "standard"?  Ideally, it would be.  It's presumably a primary defense/justification that many of these programs are put online for.  But to be honest, I don't think it is the standard.  Such a standard would, I believe, paint the world in brighter colors than it really is.

Of course, I've seen this from the other side, as well.  For instance, I've bought several copies of Metallica's _Ride the Lightning_.  Two cassettes, both eaten, one vinyl, destroyed at a batchelor party, and two CDs, one stolen and the other scratched up by my idiot brother.  So here I am, a person that has bought the album 5 times, but without a single copy.  So I download 3-4 of the songs from that album that I _really really really_ liked.  But then I turn on the news and here I've got Lars the Whiney pouting over how Napster deprives him of his due earnings and that everyone using it are thieves.

Sorry, Lars, but I done paid you 5 times for your work.  I've earned it.



> RPG piracy is especially infuriating because there's a perfectly legal way to trade the crunchy bits of every non-WotC book out there. *sigh*



Yeah, but if you paid any attention to the UA-SRD thread, you saw how even _that_ rubs some folks the wrong way, with several people (including Andy Collins) comparing this "perfectly legal way" to filesharing, suggesting that it amounts to the same thing.


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 10, 2004)

I downloaded some RPG-related PDFs, but I can honestly say I purchosed those that I wanted to actually use and then deleted them all.

So the file sharing I've done has not hurt the RPG industry, and in fact might have helped it margionally, since I'm not sure I would have bought those books if I hadn't previewed them first (local RPG shop did not have them).


----------



## pdkoning (May 10, 2004)

Filesharing RPG pdf's is not explicitely bad in my opinion. I think of it as a 'preview' for the real books.
But there are some problems however, if everyone uses these 'free' previews, and do not buy real books, there is a huge problem.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (May 10, 2004)

I suspect that the 'small press' RPG publishers hurt the worst are those who produce PDFs. It is simply too easy to put them out on the web.

World Works Games had a fair amount to say about it a few months back, when the owner found out just how much of his stuff was avaliable.

I am personally against file sharing - a group of my friends put out a folk music CD, and the person who burned the CDs for them also put it out on file sharing... It was available illegaly even before they had the CDs in their hands. I gather he is going to settle out of court, they had his signature on a contract saying he wouldn't distribute the material himself and they tacked it back to him _before_ starting legal action.

On the other hand the recording studios really do treat their 'properties' like dirt, and the laws were created to support the industry, not the artists. If it weren't for the little groups being hurt along with the industry giants it likely wouldn't bother me nearly as much. And as the technology to make your own digital recordings becomes more widespread the little groups will be taking up more and more of the amage. (And I listen to folk music - there are few if any big stars in that field...)

The Auld Grump


----------



## Ashrem Bayle (May 10, 2004)

I've got a PDF copy of almost every book I use in my campaign. I use the PDF copy at work, and the book at home. To me, I pretty much need both. Heck, in many cases, I'd pay for PDF copies of books I already own just for the convenience.

So, just having the PDF doesn't help me. I won't use it if I don't have the book at my gaming table. On the other hand, I like being able to work on my campaign just sitting at my computer at work, with no books.

I'm a strange case I guess.


----------



## TheGodPan (May 10, 2004)

Part of the reason that RPG file sharing has picked up, I believe, is the large amount of material out there.  Back when it was all 2nd edition, you know what was coming out, and you knew whether it was going to be good or not.  OGL has given us some great stuff, but also some crap I wouldn't want to have spent my money on at the store.  Of course, the same goes for WOTC now.  Much of the OGL stuff out there is of much higher quality than normal. 

Really, I don't use PDFs much anyway.  I understand that it's the only way some people publish, but it's not useful, and other than a few products (like the Ultimate Book of Templates) I never look at them other than to see what's in them.  I have in fact purchased a couple of PDFs (Cry Havok and Templates), but I would rather spend 30 bucks for the hardback than stare at my screen all day.


----------



## Mac Callum (May 10, 2004)

Just as a data point, I don't go to game stores much.  I've downloaded books, "thumbed through them", so to speak, and the ones I liked, I bought.  The ones I didn't, I tossed.  No different from looking through books at the FLGS, IMO.

So, how has file sharing affected RPG sales?  From my seat, several books were sold that otherwise would not have been.  I read reviews here at EN World, but I wasn't going to buy the books on that alone.  I don't need more books on my shelf that I never use because they weren't what I thought they would be.

I also have a scanned copy of all the books I own.  Legal?  Probably not under the DMCA, but that law is about as contrary to established Fair Use as you can get.  I carry my laptop around with me at school - I like being able to look up stuff in my PHB or DMG when I left the dead tree versions on the shelf.  Besides, its certainly perfectly legal for me to scan the book in myself for my own use.  How does downloading make a perfectly legal activity illegal?

Whatever, I could go on (my Copyright Law professor wrote the DMCA), but I won't.  

Books are very different from music.  The "experience" of music has more to do with your sound system than whether its being played off of a CD or Mp3.  Most people's speakers aren't good enough to hear the difference.

Books aren't like that.  The "experience" of a book can only really be recreated by paper, ink and a good binding.  For music and movies file sharing may  be a net loss, but for books it can only be good marketing.  See here.  Poster's wife's book was out of print, but selling used at Amazon for $99.  She put posted online for free PDF.  Price at Amazon went up to $105.  If you follow the link there are more links to similar experiences.

Of course, PDF-only publishers who aren't offering anything better than what's available for free will be hurt more than people with both PDF & print versions.  The "paid for" experience is no better than the "free" one.  Only RPG'ers civic virtue (which I'm sure there's plenty of) will keep them in business.

Based on my observations, of course.


----------



## diaglo (May 10, 2004)

i've known people to do it.

i think an issue comes up when the harddrive crashes or you get audited or when your favorite game goes kaploie. and you are left splain' to desi why you don't know.

i prefer not to use computers too much.


----------



## BiggusGeekus (May 10, 2004)

Mac Callum said:
			
		

> See here.  Poster's wife's book was out of print, but selling used at Amazon for $99.  She put posted online for free PDF.  Price at Amazon went up to $105.  If you follow the link there are more links to similar experiences.




Instapundit is a pretty well known guy.  He gets a @#$% of a lot of traffic.  The book in question had a lot of free publicitity just because he links to her stuff.  So I can see how it can help sales as long as you have a lot of advertisement to go with it (as a link from instapundit tends to generate).

I lurk on a certain nutty warez site.  Some of the posters there are quite open about having no interest in purchasing anything.  I'm not sure that giving away product for free will do much of anything in that market.

RPG products are sold at such very low volumes that I'm sometimes surprised the hobby makes money at all.  Ten purchases make or break the viability of a PDF.  Most d20 companies consider themselves fortunate to sell 5,000 copies of a given paper title. 

I'm not really sure your example can carry over to the RPG industry.  The Instawife has a large group of people that she can contact with free advertsing and the RPG industry has lots of small publishers scrape together money for one or two products before they colapse.


----------



## Crothian (May 10, 2004)

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=87750

That is one publisher look into this.  Are there any filesharing messageboards?  Maybe a poll on a place like that might help.  I have no idea if it helps hurt, or does nothing.


----------



## Pramas (May 10, 2004)

This is one of those things (like determining the effectiveness of advertising) that's just very hard to quantify. We can't really know how many sales we may or may not have lost. Publishers don't know how many pirated e-copies of their books are floating around. Now I did have one guy e-mail our customer service account specifically to taunt us ("Got your game for free, screw you!") but that's a thankfully rare occurrence.


----------



## Zappo (May 10, 2004)

I'd like to throw this into the pot:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/30/kazaa_and_co_not_cause/

 It seems that there is some evidence that file sharing isn't as harmful as record companies depict it.

 Now, how does this relate to RPG products? I don't think that file sharing has a big impact on sales of paper products. The problem is different for PDF items, though. In this case, the product you get through Kazaa or whatever is _exactly the same_ as what you would have purchased. It's not a low-quality scan of something that you could be holding in your hands instead; it's the exact same thing. It certainly doesn't push people towards purchasing the product after having seen it.

 Another article I read (unfortunately, it was many months ago, and I can't find the link) noticed that sales in music did decrease from 2002 to 2003, but the _number of new records_ had decreased by even _more_. This lends weight to the hypotesis that the companies are bringing the real damage on themselves by constantly recycling the same old stuff and the same known styles and singers.

 However, this doesn't apply to RPG products at all. The d20 segment itself is too small and too recent to make good statistics, but new stuff is coming out at a very good pace.

 Overall, I think that file sharing may be harming the PDF industry, but not the press industry really.


----------



## Torm (May 10, 2004)

I will admit to having downloaded RPG books, but this doesn't represent lost sales for those companies - I wouldn't have bought them, anyway, because I'm raising two kids on a single somewhat meager income. ("I can buy a new RPG book if I reduce the grocery budget by $20 for two weeks" isn't cool.) Usually these are books that some of the other (single or better paid) members of my group already have, so having the PDF is a matter of convenience in not having to go borrow it from them, which is what I'd be doing otherwise.

Unlike the music industry, when I am able I WILL go buy copies of anything I use and don't own - I don't feel like the RPG companies have "declared war" on me like the music industry has. I've found I prefer to deal with people for whom having people enjoy their work is the primary concern, or at least they're willing to lie and say that's the case.


----------



## Janx (May 10, 2004)

Zappo's on the right track.  There's contradictory info from the RIAA and other independent studies on whether piracy is hurting the music industry or actually helping it.

Certainly, piracy isn't nice, in that it's basic concept is I took your stuff with out paying for it.  But that whole system has so many complexities to it that a blanket statement that piracy is hurting the music industry may not be accurate.

Out of all the pirates of product A:
Z% eventually buy the real product (honest samplers)
Y% only wanted a small piece of the product (wouldn't have paid for it)
X% refuses to pay for product (jerks)

Z is obviously not a problem.  Y is a market you'll never be able to reach, because they could live without it.  These are the folks who only wanted one song, or just wanted to see the product before they bought it, then decided they didn't like it.  X are the guys who usually build all the pirating infrastructure in the first place.  They're the guys you should not like, and be working to stop.  Z & Y aren't a threat, and when you kill X, they'll come through normal channels.  The question is, if you could prevent piracy perfectly (the non-copyable book), would the pirates buy your product?  What percentage of them?  Is the sales from those pirates higher than the cost of the "uncopyable" product.

The fact is, piracy happens.  It costs money to stop it. Pirates put a lot of energy into breaking protection schemes and they always break them.  If the cost of fighting piracy is higher than accepting the "lost" sales.  That's the hard part, is since the sale doesn't happen (ie the customers don't tell you they are NOT buying your book), you can't estimate it easily.

Most real stores accept shrinkage (that's the industry term for shoplifting/loss of product).  They obviously take practical steps to prevent/reduce it, but the accounting department knows it happens, and it is budgetted.  And this is loss of actual product.  Meaning they paid for it, and it vanished.  The fact that there are businesses that take a real loss have learned to accept it and move on suggests that piracy targets also need to expect it and move on.

It may be tricky for some people to see the difference between theft and piracy.  Theft means you paid money for something, and somebody else took it and you have nothing.  Piracy still has somebody "taking" it, but you are left with exactly what you had before the pirate did his work.  The instant before and the instant after are identical.  Now the victim of piracy doesn't feel that way, obviously, they are owed payment for the product that the pirate wouldn't have gotten, if not for their work.  But because the pirate has no relationship to you, if he pirates or just never buys, you'll never know.  And that's the difference that matters.

Janx


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 10, 2004)

I've seen a lot of downloads and I can honestly say that it serves as a way to preview stuff. The stuff that's good, I've bought. The stuff thats bad I haven't. And there's A LOT of bad product out there; stuff that should never have been published and would have died a quick death on the store shelves. Personally, I'm grateful for filesharing b/c it's allowed me to avoid purchasing a lot of crap that I'd regret.

The key to not losing out to filesharing is QUALITY!!! Make it good and people will want the book. Make it bad and they won't (or they'll settle for scans). I bought the Draconomicon b/c it's excellent and I wanted the art. I'd already seen in on filesharing sites but I HAD to have the book b/c it was so good.

The same holds true for music. Artists who invest some creativity and effort into making their physical CD more attractive likely have higher sales.


----------



## Djeta Thernadier (May 10, 2004)

I tend to think that most gamers who can afford it, are more likely to want to own hard copies of books when possible. And most of us want to support the companies who put out the books / pdfs we like. I know I'm the same way with music. If I like an artist, I'll buy their cd. File sharing has not stopped that, at least not for me. I think what music file sharing has done is cut down on the number of people buying cds for one single, or buying single tracks. CDs they wouldn't buy anyway. I think RPG books are the same way. If you want it, and like it, you'll buy it. I also wonder if people who download a PDF , maybe preview it and then buy the real copy. I know a lot of people do that with music, though it isn't widely reported. Statistics can be spun anyway the person putting them out wants to put them so while I'm not saying the numbers are necessarily false, you have to look at who is putting them out there.

I think it's still early to tell if file sharing has hurt the RPG world. PDFs are so cheap anyway, I really can't see anyone who really wants the PDF not putting forth the $4 or whatever it is. Maybe I'm just clueless.


----------



## Emiricol (May 10, 2004)

I have a PDF of every product I've purchased.  I keep them on an old laptop and then I don't have to lug around a library when I go somewhere.

 I've also previewed a number of products, most of which I didn't like and deleted.  The ones I liked, I bought the product within 90 days.  That's my operating standard - 90 days or I delete it.  If I don't want it badly enough to pay for it in 90 days, clearly I just don't want it badly enough 

 I don't know enough to say whether filesharing hurts or helps the RPG industry overall, but I can say I personally have purchased about $300 worth of products I wouldn't have looked twice at had I not previewed them electronically.  RPG Objects for example owes every sale I've ever given them (which is to say, nearly everything Modern and Darwin's World they ever did) to filesharing.


----------



## wocky (May 10, 2004)

I only bought "Cry Havoc" and "Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe" after I downloaded them illegally from the web and was able to confirm that I would be able to print them (in a black and white inkjet printer, without wasting too much ink in big areas of pure black). At the time that information either wasn't stated clear enough in the web site, or I couldn't be sure that any existing previews were faithful to the actual product.

I also downloaded the "Moonshaes" book (AD&D 2nd Edition) from a P2P server and was bummed to see it was impossible to print, as every page had a dark beige background color, with text in brown. Printing it would not only waste ink, but also be completely unreadable. Eventually (months later) I found the way to edit the PDF and make the text black and the background white... when I did, I went over to rpgnow and bought it.

Similar to many times I bought CDs I first listened to in MP3.

BTW, I think you should keep this things in mind when discussing how P2P affects the RPG industry:

- At least in Argentina the usual practice (since... always) has been to photocopy RPG books. Even now, I know more people using photocopies than PDF printouts, since they either assume photocopies are cheaper, or don't have PDFs with printable quality.

- Some book scans in PDF are great, with OCRed text and images with good resolution. Many more simply stink... text is barely readable even on the screen, pages are skewed, dark scans... missing pages. The weird part is, it's unusual to find a good version of books with poor scans. People just keep sharing the bad version, and nobody makes a new one. I've seen the same thing happen with MP3s... 

- I think I've yet to see someone actually use a PDF product downloaded illegally. Many people have gigabites of this stuff, but don't actually like reading books off the screen   

- Most of the people I game with have access to illegal PDFs (or actually have them), but still buy real books for gaming. Some of them have a couple of photocopied products, but no printouts.

- I know of people who play using freely available versions of the SRDs in PDF format.

- If you ever search for RPG stuff in a P2P engine you'll see that while every single WotC book is easily downloadable, small publisher books are mostly nowhere to be found. I don't think PDF publishers (except for Malhavoc, maybe) loose any money to P2P.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves (May 10, 2004)

My flatmate has dozens of illegal copies of various PDFs and yes I have nosed through about half. Whether he gets hold of stuff or not, I know that he wouldn't pay a cent.

I have little inclination to buy most suppliments, I use my core books + SRD. (Wow Wocky, those are the two books I want to buy too.) Anyway, I approach my campaign with a minimalist view to rules used, i.e. no prestige classes, core rules + ad hoc feat admissions. 

Books in hand are a lot better I find in actual play, but I wouldn't want a book that is only being used for 3 pages of stuff.

PDFs are only of use between play because I don't have a laptop.

Another issue I have found for PDFs is the necessity for a credit card, which I refuse to get. I wish there was some other way.


----------



## Solauren (May 10, 2004)

I can honestly say that the PDF's I have are limited to:

One's have have legally purchased
One's I own a hard copy of the book of to avoid scanning them in and damaging them (and spending so much time on it) to use on my laptop.

I lost alot of RPG books and boxed sets from over-use, so yes, I'm going to download PDF's of anything I own so I can perserve the books as long as possible


----------



## Lazybones (May 10, 2004)

I've DLed books before to skim the content, but any book I've actually USED at the table I've always bought in hard copy.  I am much more motivated to pay for RPG material because I know more of my $ is actually going to the author/artist, especially for a smaller company.  With music, on the other hand, I find myself repelled by the actions of the "industry" and the way that they treat both their talent and their customers.  I know that's a flimsy excuse for file-sharing songs, so instead I try to channel my purchases toward independent bands that we hear locally in my area, or whom are recommended to me by friends.  I have gone from buying 20-30 CDs/year from RIAA labels to maybe 1-2/year.  And I haven't had Kazaa on my HD for almost a year now, so it's not like I'm downloading songs instead.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (May 10, 2004)

I downloaded only the books that I bought and burned them to CD so I could take them with me when I was sent to Saudi Arabia a couple years ago.  The Saudi govt has some pretty draconian customs laws and I didn't want to worry about them taking my books and not giving them back to me.  I figured if they take the CD, no big deal, I've got my books back home.
Personally I prefer books at the gaming table.  I can flip to whichever page I need much quicker than searching through a PDF since most PDFs are simply image scans and aren't searchable by text.


----------



## JDWiker (May 10, 2004)

*Piracy, PDFs, and TGM*

Wow, great discussion!

When Rich Redman, Marc Schmalz, Stan!, and I formed The Game Mechanics, since our goal was to sell PDFs (initially, followed by print versions later), this question weighed heavily on our minds. After some debate, we decided that file-sharing wasn't likely to affect our sales overmuch.

And, so far, it hasn't. Logically, the small companies--such as The Game Mechanics--would feel the most pressure from file-sharing, and a company that produces PDFs of all its products would seem to be a prime target. But it just doesn't seem to be making an impact on our sales.

From some research I did (including talking to some pretty hardcore Internet "pirates"), the philosophy is mainly "Screw the big companies!", so it's not surprising that smaller companies don't get targeted as much. Now, obviously, some of those folks are just rationalizing, and some couldn't tell the difference between a big company and a small one. (The distinction almost seems to be "Have I heard of this company?") And the list of products I've seen ripped and converted to PDFs is heavily tilted toward the big guys (TSR/Wizards in particular)--though that could simply be because they've been around longer, and therefore produced more material.

If you're interested in this topic, and you plan to be at Gen Con Indy this year, The Game Mechanics is hosting a debate on this very subject at Gen Con, on Saturday afternoon ("Internet Piracy: Impact vs. Ethics" at 3 pm). It's our intention to present the basic arguments for and against file-sharing, then open up the floor to comments from the audience. If you've got an hour to spare, we'd appreciate getting your insights!


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (May 10, 2004)

Personally I don't think it is a "Screw the big company" mindset that causes people to download some PDFs illegally and yet buy PDFs from smaller companies.  The paper books from the big company is often in many people's opinion WAY overpriced and they would be perfectly willing to buy a PDF copy from the company if one were provided for download.  This is why those same people have no problem paying $5 to download a legal copy of something from RPGnow.  If WOTC were to make their *new* books available in either format I think there would be fewer illegal downloads.  Heck, I for one would probably buy the same book in both formats just so that I'd have an easy way to cut-and-paste parts of the PDF into my own reference sheets prior to running a game.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 10, 2004)

Well I'll freely admit I download material from time to time, altho not lately as I've been really busy. Do I enjoy reading pdfs of gaming material? No I use it to browse really and check out in a bit more detail than my wife will allow me to have at Barnes & Noble or Hobby Corner. DO I much prefer to have teh gaming books in my hot little hands? Heck yes! 

 On the otehr side of this is teh monetary issue. I've been so broke for the last year and a half that the only game books I've bought were AU and The DIamond Throne...and a few issues of Dragon and Dungeon. That's IT. I finally started a new job that will help us catch up pretty well and I might finally be able to buy things I want again, but we'll have to wait and see on that.

 So people who want to call me names, like has been previously done in threads like this, for downloading and not buying can bite me *grin* I know why I'm doing it and I know that as soon as I have the funds to rectify said situation I will.

 editosted before finishing teh thread and everyone's civil which is a nice change.  If you decide to NOT be civil, THEN pay attention to the 3rd paragraph.  heh.

  Unrepentant
  Hagen


----------



## dreaded_beast (May 10, 2004)

Great responses everyone!

For myself, I prefer books over PDFs. It is an entirely different feeling, at least for me, reading an actual book instead of reading from a monitor.

My concern is that it would be a shame for the smaller RPG companies to be affected by the file-sharing phenomenon. From what I have read on these boards and elsewhere, the RPG industry is not a "strong" industry to begin with. I can imagine the great risk involved in attempting to start a fledgling RPG company.

Personally, I am not against file-sharing, but the discussion of the "ethics/morality" of file-sharing in general is better discussed elsewhere. 

I just hope that file-sharing is not having a negative impact on the RPG industry.


----------



## just__al (May 10, 2004)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> I've got a PDF copy of almost every book I use in my campaign. I use the PDF copy at work, and the book at home. To me, I pretty much need both. Heck, in many cases, I'd pay for PDF copies of books I already own just for the convenience.
> 
> So, just having the PDF doesn't help me. I won't use it if I don't have the book at my gaming table. On the other hand, I like being able to work on my campaign just sitting at my computer at work, with no books.
> 
> I'm a strange case I guess.



Not a strange case.  As soon as I own a gaming book, I go looking for a PDF of it.  I do all my gaming prep on my laptop and it's easier to switch over to Adobe than to have 5 books open on my computer desk and it's limited space.


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 10, 2004)

I also prefer physical books for actual use because they're much easier to read. I've worked in the scanning/archiving business and I can tell you that most scanned RPG books aren't done very well. It takes a lot of time and dedication to do a quality scanning job. They're a pain to read on a screen, and printouts, while legible, are often barely so. You can't zoom in to see detail in the art (a major issue with scanned maps) because the resolution is usually so low it gets pixelated.

I really don't think I could use pdfs instead of books even if I wanted to. If I did want a pdf archive of books, I'd do it myself from books I've already purchased so I can be sure it's being done right.


----------



## Thanee (May 10, 2004)

I absolutely prefer real books over e-books. It's just so much better to read and browse.

So I always buy the books I want to have, anyways. 

That's also the reason, why I havn't purchased a single downloadable e-book so far.
I just prefer books that you can actually hold in your hands and flip through. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Turanil (May 10, 2004)

> Has file-sharing had any significant affect on the RPG industry and how large do you think it is?




The only persons I share files with are my players (I am the DM). In fact, where all of us buy books (although I am the one who buy the greatest amount of rpg books), they never buy any PDF and are not interested in doing so. When I give them a PDF it is mostly for practical reasons, so they know about the new rules that will be used, etc.  However, even like that they are not really interested by the PDFs.

On the other hand I do not practice file sharing over the Internet. What I think anyway, is that it would hurt more d20 authors (who do a very meager living from their creations), than it would hurt stars like Michael Jackson who's flooded under millions of dollars.


----------



## Hemlock Stones (May 10, 2004)

GREETINGS!

What a fascinating topic. I agree with several points about the whole nature of legal PDF vs. pirated ones. First, its so damned difficult to determine if something is valuable to what you are doing, ie. character development, templates to modify creatures, etc. If all of the gaming content creators would take the time to post the table of contents so we can at least get a feel for what is in the book to determine its value to the gamer. I'm on a budget, I can't buy every damned book.

If something is valuable to when I game, I buy it. A good example is the people outside of WOTC that posted the details about the Expanded Psionics Book. I learned far more about the book than what WOTC released. I am more than willing to buy the product provided I have a means to arrive at an educated decision.

One of the most useful things is having the core book information printable from some form of electronic format. That allows me to print the important pages I use all the time and leave the books at home. In the past I have been known to drag around at least ten books with me. Heck the D&D campaign I am in right now the DM brings easily 15-20 different books with him.

Paper and pencil gaming is one thing. Dragging a set of encyclopedias with you to the game gets to be damned tedious!  

So Sayeth The Bone Daddy!


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (May 10, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> But realistically looking at the issue, PDF sharing can't help a small publisher who decides whether he eats Ramen Noodles or chicken based on the sales of his 5 most recent books - while the file sharer who's eating his chicken is cozied up to the latest pirated online copies.




_I eats more chicken/Than any man's seen_ - Howlin' Wolf, "Back Door Man"

Behemoth3 is a small publisher, and we're betting our entire yearly Top Ramen budget on the proposition that file sharing is the best thing that can possibly happen to us. 

From our website:


> Behemoth3 will be contributing the complete open game content of our own Horde Books--all the monsters, plus a wealth of feats, spells, magic items, traps, and treasures--to the SwoRD Project. We are proud to be in the forefront of the SwoRD Project; as both businessmen and gamers, we believe that making open content truly free is in the best interests of the roleplaying community and the gaming industry.




The SwoRD Project is intended to encourage publishers to freely share the content that, under the Open Gaming License, is already community property. Its innovation is to maintain a link from the open content back to the source it comes from, so that if you like what you see you're only a click away from buying the book and getting more good stuff like it. For publishers releasing SwoRD hypertexts, file sharing is an ally instead of an enemy because everyone who's introduced to your work becomes a potential customer.

Behemoth3's business model is like the neighborhood drug pusher's: the first taste is free, because we're betting that you'll quickly get hooked. The open content in our SwoRD hypertext is linked to product identity that helps it come to life in your imagination as well as at your gaming table--illustrations, fiction, character histories and motivations, all the rich details that make roleplaying more than a game. Becoming a registered owner of a Masters and Minions product also gives you access to our Vorpal suite of online gaming tools that are custom designed to work with our new material. You don't need either the product identity or the Vorpal enhancements to use the free open content in our SwoRD releases, but we're betting that access to these extras will make it worth your while to buy the Horde Book (in either its print or PDF incarnations) to take the content you're already enjoying to the next level.

The greatest strength of d20 is that it is an enterprise open to the entire community, and the same is true of the SwoRD Project. We think that SwoRD hypertext releases are a good idea, so we want to give that idea away for free and get as many people using it as possible! If you're a publisher with open content you'd like to release as a SwoRD hypertext, or if you're a gamer who wants to help our industry embrace the full possibilities of the Open Gaming movement instead of trying to put the genie back in the bottle, our forum is intended to serve as a meeting point for discussion and collaboration.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 10, 2004)

I think RPG piracy is perhaps closer to DVD piracy than music piracy.

I mean, it's relatively easy and cheap to download a song and burn it to a cd. The end result is exactly like a store bought cd in functionality, and many cd players nowdays support mp3s directly, you can just burn the mp3s to a cd. There is some quality loss, but almost no one can tell the difference. Conversely, music cds are fairly cheap, usually $10-15, or $1 a song for a legal download

RPG piracy, on the other hand, it's hard to use a PDF. They're not easy to read from a screen. And if you print them out, it could conceivably cost you more than buying it used on ebay (if it costs 5 cents a page, a 200 page book would cost $10 to print out, which is more than a used copy in some cases), and you'd have a lousier looking product. 

OTOH, new prices are fairly high, $40-50 in some cases, so there is probably a large temptation. And some people have strange eyes, and have no problems reading a PDF. That's for pen & paper books, anyway

I do think file sharing hurts PDF sellers. I mean, if you get the exactly same PDF for free that it would cost you $5-10 to buy, then most people will take the free one, and punch their conscience in the gut.

And I think Michael Jackson actually needs money, being in debt. Apparently his only real source of income is from Beatles songs he owns the rights to. That's a lot of income a year, but apparently it costs a lot to run Neverland...


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 10, 2004)

I'd just like to mention that I've purchased several RPGnow pdfs from different publishers and they are much better quality than scanned books. Don't share them. 

I once had an idea for a PDF publishing company that offered all products for free, but they would be laced with advertising like magazines. The idea was to make profit solely on advertising, and to actively encourage sharing of the files becuase the advertising would reach a larger market and the advertisers would be willing to pay more for spots in the product.


----------



## Liquidsabre (May 10, 2004)

I think the vast majority of gamers want to have Book-in-Hand, making PDFs for the most part an accessory/reference-at-home material at best. From the responses there are quite a few (myslef included) who use the DLs as on-screen previews and then buy the products they wish to have. Plus the added benefit of having on-screen easy access to your home library virtually wherever you go is pure gravy.

For gamers it's a matter of BiH being of the most value, sure a PDF also has some worth to a gamer but it will never quite compare to the easy-to-leaf-through-and-bring-to-the-game-table book version. I'm not worried about DLs being a problem, I don't think publishers need to either.


----------



## Janx (May 11, 2004)

In theory, whats to stop a publisher from flooding a pirate site/p2p system with crappy scans of their product...

That's just a crazy enough, it just might work.

Think about it. WotC makes the PH.  They then make a crappy PDF out of it (missing pages, poor legibility).  They then hit every pirate site they can and upload it anonymously.  Now, pirates will have to work hard to tell the difference between the good one, and the bad one.  And as on person mentioned, the bad ones seem to proliferate such that people are too lazy to find a good version.

Janx


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (May 11, 2004)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> Heck, I for one would probably buy the same book in both formats just so that I'd have an easy way to cut-and-paste parts of the PDF into my own reference sheets prior to running a game.




Looking back over the posts that appeared while I was composing mine (yes I'm slow!), I realize I forgot to mention part of Behemoth3's publishing strategy: when you buy the print version of any of our first three books, you'll get its PDF version for free. If you got your book in a store, it'll have a sticker with a registration code (just like a software manual) that you can enter at our website to unlock the PDF download and the Vorpal tools for the book. If you buy your book from our website, we'll send you the PDF right away so you can use it while you're waiting for us to sign your book and ship it to you!

Print is by far the best format for many uses and many users. But there are cool things you can only do with electronic text, like cutting and pasting to make your own character sheets or putting together a compilation of the material you use from 15 different books with hyperlinks that seamlessly index them with the core SRD. It's your right to do all the cool things you can think of using the Open Gaming License, and Behemoth3 feels strongly that you shouldn't have to do your own scanning or risk a file-sharing lawsuit in order to exercise your rights as a gamer.

The print and PDF versions of Masters and Minions will be available following GenCon.

*******************************************
Now available: the ashmalkin, an example of SwoRD Project OGC from the Masters and Minions series


----------



## Halivar (May 11, 2004)

I'd like to know how much more or less money is lost through pirated third party additions than through downloading the SRD. In my case, I bought all the 3.0 SRD books, a long time before I knew there was an "SRD" out there for free. When 3.5 came out, I simply couldn't justify the $90 expenditure on three new core books to myself when the content is at wizards.com for free, sans pantheon (which is still in my 3.0 edition books).


----------



## Mixmaster (May 11, 2004)

Janx said:
			
		

> In theory, whats to stop a publisher from flooding a pirate site/p2p system with crappy scans of their product...
> 
> That's just a crazy enough, it just might work.
> 
> ...




That's what movie studios are doing. They're u/ling "blank" copies of movies to disuade d/ling.

I have some p2p files. The reasons I have them are:

Certain books are OOP or just impossible to get without having to mortgage the house. Example: Older RPGA modules (the R series). They are going on ebay for $200+. For a module?? The collectors can collect. I have it for running.

I need a map or some pictures from a book. Example the KoK modules. They have pictures to display during the adventure. I have the module. To make copies? about 1 -2 dollars. Scanned pages printed to printer?? Cost of toner (pennies)


----------



## Ssyleia (May 11, 2004)

Take a look at the recent press release from Interplay regarding "Baldur's Gate 3" and further "Icewind Dale" Titles from April 28, 2004

http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EplFElpEuVQNpuvSeb.php

Ever since that release, all mentions of PC D&D (such as Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale) titles have disappeared form the Interplay website...

For those who don't like to read between the lines of legal text it says something like "We'd rather produce XBOX and PS2 titles (since they are harder to copy) than PC games"

Maybe after reading this all you file sharers out there should realize you're killing whole industries. Killing industries means you not only won't have new songs/movies/games/software but also you potentially won't have a job in times to come!

edited for clarity:

Fortunately for the RPG industry scanned JPEG-PDF's are just too unwieldy to use right now but as OCR will likely improve in the future the death blow due to filesharing is IMHO a serious threat to the pen & paper RPG industry.

After all pen & paper RPG is a niche industry with a comparatively low revenue, every $30 missed due to file sharing is like a nail in the coffin...


----------



## med stud (May 11, 2004)

I dont think piracy really hurts the RPG industry. As many other people I think RPG publishers need the support they can get and if it is a game or supplement that I like I will buy it so I can contribute to the publisher being able to produce more of that game in the future. I suspect that a lot of role players work like that.

I think the music industry as we know it today will go down because of P2P- sharing because of how easy mp3:s are to use, how they only market certain kinds of music and because of how bloated the companies have become. When you pay for a music CD you pay like 10 % of the price to the artist, 2 % for the physical CD and the rest to the record companies. In essence by buying that CD you are feeding the middle hand that thanks you by producing and marketing Britney Spears albums.

The RPG industry doesnt have quite this problem. When you buy a RPG book you know that a) you got what you payed for (I consider 30 $ a reasonable price for a book of any cathegory) and b) you dont pay 90 % of the cost to the gaming store (or I hope not but I would be really surprised if that was the case; you dont see game store owners driving limos after all   ) that is the middle hand in this case.

For me it's a case of whatever I feel cheated by the salesman or not. It doesnt feel wrong to DL music because I feel that the record companies are screwing me but it would feel very wrong to DL (and not buy afterwards) a product that is fairly priced by someone struggling to live on that product.

Sometimes though I have DL:d products that I'm curious to see what they look like but would never buy. I read them through and then I delete them. But it's really like someone above said that it's like reading the product in a game store but in my apartment.


----------



## The Sigil (May 11, 2004)

Ssyleia said:
			
		

> Maybe after reading this all you file sharers out there should realize you're killing whole industries. Killing industries means you not only won't have new songs/movies/games/software but also you potentially won't have a job in times to come!



As a small-time publisher myself, I have to say, that yes, copyright infringement hurts.  HOWEVER, the file-sharing phenomenon is, IMO, a symptom of the disease, not the disease itself.  I've quoted it before, but here it is again... http://yarchive.net/macaulay/copyright.html



			
				Thomas Babington Macauley said:
			
		

> ...if {copyright is extended to a long duration}, and should produce one-tenth part of the evil which it is calculated to produce, and which I fully expect it to produce, *there will soon be a remedy, though of a very objectionable kind*. Just as the absurd acts which prohibited the sale of game were virtually repealed by the poacher, just as many absurd revenue acts have been virtually repealed by the smuggler, so will this law be virtually repealed by piratical booksellers. *At present* {Sigil's Note: With Copyright terms of 28 years at the time of this speech} *the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men*. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. ... Pass this law {extending copyright to very long terms, more than a human lifetime}: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot. *On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book ... shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?*
> 
> Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. *And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.*



Without waxing too political here, I fear that - though infringers themselves probably don't understand why they feel the way that they do - this hideously long copyright terms are the problem.  Hideously long copyright terms are the result of the "content publishing" industry.  In other words, the destruction of industry you speak of is the _direct result of the actions taken by the industry itself_ - by extending copyright terms to unreasonable durations, they have, in effect, killed the golden goose that is the public's goodwill and readiness to tolerate copyright in exchange for the promise of the flow of ideas and entertainment to the masses.

This probably goes a little into the political spectrum, but it's a good philosophical look at why "pirates" want to "sock it to big companies."  They know that joe schmoe little guy is just trying to scrape along and isn't trying to bleed the intellectual commons dry with excessive copyright terms and draconian punishments... but they do recognize that this is EXACTLY what media conglomerates are trying to do.  They probably can't articulate their distaste as well as Macauley, but I think he provided a perfect diagnosis of the "mentality of file sharing" - and he did so 150 years ago.

In other words, it's not the technology (P2P) that is killing media companies.  It is the greed of media companies, trying to push the public "too hard" with copyright terms, that is killing media companies because people don't respect their ridiculous laws.  The technology - the P2P stuff - is just an "enabler" - a tool that allows that frustration to be vented.

Note: I'm not saying I encourage copyright infringement - or that it should be legal.  I'm also not saying I encourage long copyright terms - or that THEY should be legal (I happen to think 28 years is too LONG, myself, but that's neither here nor there).  The point I'm trying to make here is that to blame the file sharers exclusively for the collapse of an industry is like trying to point the blame at the kid who finally throws a punch and bloodies the nose of one of the bullies who's been bloodying him for decades.  Yes, he shouldn't punch them, but can you blame him?  And are we going to call the bullies who have been beating on him for decades blameless now?

Two wrongs don't make a right... but one wrong (infringing) does not make a wrong (draconian copyright) a right either.

I'm not thrilled about file sharing, but I really doubt I have lost any "sales" to it.  Those who download my books off P2P I think probably fall into one of three categories:

a.) The "jerk" who infringes just to "thumb his nose" and truly, honestly doesn't care that it's food off my table.  He wasn't going to pay me anyway, so I can't count him as a lost sale.

b.) The "poor man" who wouldn't buy my product because he hasn't the money.  He wasn't going to pay me anyway, so I can't count him as a lost sale.

c.) The "cheapskate" who wouldn't pay for my product - not because he hasn't the money, but because he's cheap.  He wasn't going to pay me anyway, so I can't count him as a lost sale.

There might be the guy (d) who is going to buy my product, but then sees it on KaZaA and changes his mind since free is better than cheap.  He's just another version of (c.) above.

*Shrugs* If my stuff gets pirated, I really don't blame the pirates... I blame the media conglomerates who, by extending copyright terms unreasonably, have taken away the "shame" of piracy - instead of nice short copyright terms where people feel bad if they use my stuff, knowing that I worked hard on it and deserve some recompense, instead the media congolomerates have gone and caused the public to feel ill will towards creative artists because the public *knows* copyright is ripping the public off.  

Again, it's not because of the public hating me in particular, but as mentioned above, because the public has a hard time drawing the line... does it hurt if the guy is 50 years dead? 40 years dead?  30?  20? 10? Still alive?  Published 50 years ago?  40?  30? 20? 10? Yesterday?  Where's the line.  When copyright crosses the magic threshold where at the "tail end" of 70 years after the author's death, there's no perceived hurt to the author, it's a very short slippery slope to "5 seconds after publication" I'm afraid.

At the end of the day, I think it's totally unreasonable for me to expect that I will be unable to use works published by my GREAT GRANDFATHER'S contemporaries without paying royalties and that it's unreasonable for me to expect that someone will have to pay my GREAT GRANDCHILDREN royalties to use stuff I write.  I shouldn't be able to turn around and use something as soon as I hear it, but I think it's reasonable that I should be able to make use of something that I see published new DURING MY OWN LIFETIME (i.e., if it was published during my early lifetime, say, my childhood, I should reasonably expect to be able to use it at some point in my life)!  Of course, with current copyright laws, that's not the case, and I think that robbing people of the ability to use the language, idioms, and expressions germaine to THEIR OWN DAY, forbidding them to re-use THEIR OWN CULTURE, thereby robbing them of their Free Speech by taking from them their natural voice, is a crime many orders of magnitudes worse than someone taking $5 off my table for a PDF.

Bottom line:  On an individual level, "pirates" are responsible for the demise of industries.  On an institutional level, the industries themselves are MUCH MORE responsible for their own demise - by killing the golden goose.

Sorry, but I just get really irritated when people place all the blame on one group and absolve the other of responsibility. It's not always so black and white - the reason piracy exists is more that a simple "pirates are jerks."    In this case, blame is like manure... there's always plenty to spread around, and everyone winds up stinky to some degree or other.

--The Sigil


----------



## Acid_crash (May 11, 2004)

My .02

Consider me one of those poor folks out there who lives in a location that is painfully difficult to get a job.  Hence, I lack the money to purchase the books I really want to get.  So, I can admit that I do have a few books from p2p that I would rather have a hardback copy of.  Also, I'm not going to print these books out because, in the long run, it would cost just as much to print (depending on the book) than it would be to just buy.  Plus, I would rather have a really cool collection of books on my book shelf than some vapor copies on my hard drive, but until I get the $$$ to get them, I'm going to have them this way.

By viewing some books in this manor, I can honestly say that there are books I will buy that I never heard of, and others that I won't buy at all.  I feel guilty doing it this way, but because of my circumstances it's my only way, for now, to have a copy of the book.  

But consider me one of those gamers who would rather show off a cool collection of real books than to say that I have some books, but they are the computer, and I for one, don't really intend to lose my eyesight by reading much of them on the computer screen.  I lack the money to get my eyes checked also.

If this makes me a bad person, then I guess I am a bad person.  But, for many of you publishers, consider me a belated customer in purchasing many of your books.


----------



## SSquirrel (May 11, 2004)

Ssyleia said:
			
		

> Take a look at the recent press release from Interplay regarding "Baldur's Gate 3" and further "Icewind Dale" Titles from April 28, 2004
> 
> http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/static/EplFElpEuVQNpuvSeb.php
> 
> ...



Actually this is not entirely accurate. Yes there is a rampant problem in software copying, but it's been a big problem for years. It has increased due to the internet in general and you will still find sites hosting copies of stuff. It used to be smaller scale (ie someone buying a game and copying it for their 6 friends), but now can be burning an ISO and putting the ISO in their PSP folder. 

You ALSO have the problem that, increasingly, there is less interest in PC titles and more interest in console titles. For years PCs were the definitive take on beauty in gaming, but these days there are plenty of games that look just fine on PS2 or XBOX (or even the less popular Cube). These same games are ALWAYS better looking on the PC (witness KOTOR and GTA:VC for good recent examples as well as Halo), but not so much that most folks will buy a very expensive computer vs a $200 or less console. 

The mounting interest in and sheer power of consoles has, IMO, done mroe to the PC gaming industry than piracy in the last 2 years, but piracy is also pretty bad for them. Somehow tho, companies still put out games with none or very minor piracy protection. There's always someone who will crack teh protection pretty quickly, but many still ship where you can just do a straight up disc copy and have something that will run.

edit:More importantly for why you se nothing about them on their website anymore...they gave up the rights to the D&D license which means they have no more right to have information about it on their site.  

Hagen


----------



## Gez (May 11, 2004)

Planesdragon said:
			
		

> RPG piracy is especially infuriating because there's a perfectly legal way to trade the crunchy bits of every non-WotC book out there.  *sigh*




Actually, no. There's no perfectly legal way to trade the crunchy bits of Exalted, or GURPS, or other non-OGC games.



			
				Janx said:
			
		

> Out of all the pirates of product A:
> Z% eventually buy the real product (honest samplers)
> Y% only wanted a small piece of the product (wouldn't have paid for it)
> X% refuses to pay for product (jerks)




You are forgetting a category that was recently added thanks to the considerable brain-storming efforts of antipirates.

T% have bought the real product, but can't use it (unreadable thanks to antipiracy measures).

It's something that we're seeing now in the music industry, but that was seen before in the videogame industry. Back in the time of floppies, games usually had boring antipiracy protections that required you to flip through the game's manual before (or while) playing. I remembered hunting for cracked versions of games I owned because I wanted to skip that part. Now, the current trend is to have the game requires the presence of the CD in the drive. And you can find a lot of no-CD patchs. I use them, too -- my DVD drive is fast, but its access time is crappy, and having to wait 3-4 second for the disk to spin fast enough before it can be read is an unwelcome addition to long loading times.

Fortunately, the RPG industry seems unaffected by this. It can be either because they're clever enough to know that antipiracy protections only harm legit buyers and merely amuse pirates; or it can be because they haven't devised yet ways to prevent the scanning of books (although, I've heard people saying that the brown lines in the D&D core books were supposed to hamper OCR) or the sharing of PDFs. Let's hope they won't.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (May 11, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> ...snip everything...
> 
> 
> --The Sigil





Wow. So that's why I hate Mickey Mouse.



That was a perfect summary of my feelings concerning the subject.
.
.
.
These guys are pirates:

SUNCHIPS (R) HARVEST CHEDDAR (R)

Open a bag and see why SUNCHIPS (R) are LUNCH CHIPS (TM)

--Frito Lay (R)


----------



## Aezoc (May 11, 2004)

My illegal PDF downloads fall into two categories: previewing a book I'm considering buying, or downloading a book that has no PDF version for sale that I'm not going to use enough of to justify paying for a print copy.

I live in an area with no FLGS; the closest is an hour or so away, the F part of this FLGS is questionable, and it is more of a comic shop than anything. More often than not I have to order the book from them because they don't stock much RPG stuff, which means that I don't get to flip through it and make sure its what I want first. Consequently, I wind up downloading copies of some books to skim them and make sure I consider it worth buying. I consider this to be the online equivalent of thumbing through the book at the store, as other posters have said.

What I consider to be worth buying depends heavily on how much of it I intend to use. This seems fairly obvious, but if I only intend to use a small portion of your $30 full-cover hardback, then I will either choose to ignore the book completely, or download an illegal PDF version. Either way, you aren't making any money off me.

Last is a factor that I haven't seen mentioned as much - the convenience of PDFs. If I'm going to be compiling my campaign from a lot of different sources, the value of "book in hand" is essentially zero to me. Yes, it looks nice on the shelf, and if I actually flip through it, there may be beautiful artwork, but if I'm only using a portion of the book, I'd much prefer to compile my own documents and use those at the table, instead of lugging around a huge pile of books so that I can reference a few pages from each. PDFs (at least ones with OCR) are awesome for this. Click, drag, ctrl-c, ctrl-v, and a few modifications, and it's done. Much faster and less painful than typing the entire thing up from a book or hauling said book around all the time. Thus, even if your work was offered in print and as a PDF and the prices were the same, I would likely choose the PDF version unless I intended to use a lot of the book.

Overall, I really have no idea how much of my views are shared by the rest of the RPG community. I don't at all consider myself to be thumbing my nose at any company, even the big guys, when I download a PDF. I've been playing RPGs since I was about 9 or 10, and the decline of the industry is the last thing I want to see. That said, I'm not willing to pay money for poorly written content or content that is uninteresting to me. The thing is that for books that I download instead of buying, the parts that I use are almost invariably OGC, there's just no way to get them without paying for the parts that I don't want. Hell, I would happily shell out a few bucks for just the OGC portions of a lot of books. Seems like a great deal for the publisher to me - a little copy/pasting and some formatting, and they make money on stuff that I could use (legally, if not ethically) for free!

Unfortunately, I doubt many if any publishers will release their compiled OGC, but if more publishers just released PDF versions of their work, or even better, subdivided PDF versions (like Malhavoc did with AU), I'd be a VERY happy camper.


----------



## Li Shenron (May 11, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Has file-sharing had any significant affect on the RPG industry and how large do you think it is?




Well, after having read all the comments in this thread, I believe that file-sharing must have had only a very limited impact on the RPG industry   . 

Perhaps it is because the typical RPG product is not fully subject to piracy - as mentioned by many, a scanned PDF is not nearly a match for the real book - or perhaps because us or the typical RPG consumers percieve our market differently compared to how music/movie consumers percieve their own... At least me and all of my players want our books to stay, we are proud of our small collections of RPG books on the shelf even if we don't use all of them, while maybe music and movies are considered more wastable (how many times you watch the same DVD?). 
Of all the RPG gamers I know personally, only one used to download lots and lots of stuff, going crazy to get them all but never using any at the end (he is the one who even plays least often); I don't think that nowadays he is still doing that, rumours are that he got a nervous breakdown when WotC released the D&D Miniatures line and he could not find them anywhere on peer-to-peer to download  .

However I have to say that I am not a voracious purchaser. I am lucky because some of my friends are, and I always get to borrow the latest RPG books from them, which I read but then buy only if I want to keep them. It's not illegal but somehow it might have decreased the sales   , if it wasn't for my friends I would have probably bought more books, only to later find that I didn't like them.
But the same thing happens to me with music. I am again very lucky to live in a country where music is considered culture, and culture is considered to be freely available, therefore every library has thousands of CDs to borrow. The point being that no one needs to make copies of them, because when you want to listen to something you just go to the library and take it.

Anyway, definitely internet file sharing has had a much larger impact on the music/movie/software industry. It is always a controversial subject, and sometimes I think that even governments don't really want to address it. For example, I believe that in Italy the most popular reason for a PC owner to get a fast internet access such as ADSL or with optic fibers is exactly the possibility to download music, movies and games for free. I have no idea how much effect it has on the music industry for example (still in the past 15 years the price of a CD here has risen from about 9$ to 21$), but I do have an idea how much benefit it had on the internet services industry, since many of my friends ended up working in that field. At the end I wonder if the overall result on the general economy is that bad or even good, it would be very interesting to know...


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (May 11, 2004)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> I realize I forgot to mention part of Behemoth3's publishing strategy: when you buy the print version of any of our first three books, you'll get its PDF version for free.




Too cool!  When I get a bit of time I'll head over to the website and check it out.


----------



## Celtavian (May 11, 2004)

*re*

I think it depends on the book. A book like _Unearthed Arcana_ is a high target for piracy because you really only want bits and pieces of the book. Kind of like the analogy that was made with wanting only one or two singles off an artists CD. 

For books like the PHB, DMG, _Complete Fighters_ and the like, having the actual book for reference is preferable. File sharing probably won't affect the sales of WotC books all that much unless they continue to print books like _Unearthed Arcana_ filled with rules that you pick and choose.

The small presses will probably be positively impacted by file sharing. They don't get alot of exposure for their products in the RPG community. There products might receive more exposure if some internet pirate downloads a product they like and then tells their friends about it or downloads a product they like and decides to buy the hardcopy. Alot of internet pirates wouldn't buy the products they steal anyway, at the very least they can provide free word-of-mouth marketing for some of the products they download that they like.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (May 11, 2004)

Some time ago, after the release of Crimson Contracts, I came up with a little idea after seeing copies of my book on KaZaA and Gnutella.

I took Adobe, took a select few pages of CC:AM, messed with the settings for awhile, put an advertisement in the back, and tagged in a lovely little piece of coding (formerly from a virus) that hit a counter on an HTML page I put up specifically for this whenever the PDF was opened.

I then made sure that the PDF size was correct when compared to the actual version, and dropped it into the various filesharing areas, just to see how many "unique IP hits" and "repeat IP hits" that the page recieved.

I also let the other PDF publishers I knew in on this idea, but it generated lukewarm response.

So, I did it with any PDF I could lay my hands on that was already on the file-sharing groups.
Roughly, each book (which had 3-6 pages of OGC in it) generated over 1900 unique IP's that also in the repeat IP hits.
Each book generated roughly 3000 unique IP hits.

You decide if it's hurting anyone, while I try to figure out how to pay the damn electric bill.

While my experiment was somewhat unethical, splicing a section of virus code into a PDF (a virus specifically designed to target PDF documents in order to do a DOS attack on Adobe, redesigned to only send a SINGLE ping to the web-page when opened) and then dumping these fake PDF's onto the filesharing systems, but, my questions were answered.

A PDF supplement _*IS*_ pirated, often quite a bit. Ask Chris Johansen, of TRS, just how many hits he has seen from someone trying to use a hack of his software, and how much money each day he loses.

It hurts small-time publishers, and can hurt them bad. All moral flag waving aside, and all excuses aside...

Every time you pirate a 3rd party PDF product, you are STEALING money from them.

In my case, you're walking up and taking one of my kids dinner.


----------



## Belen (May 11, 2004)

I always buy the book first.  In some cases, this means that I bought crappy books, so now I buy from the publishers who gave me good books.  Personally, I  dislike the sheer number of small publishers.  Everything is too bloated.

Now, I would like to have PDFs of the books that I already own.  I do not see that as taking money from anyone as I have already bought their book.

However, I agree with the argument regarding copyright.  If I write a novel, then I write it.  My grandkids should go out and find a real job rather than living off my accomplishments.  And a company sure as heck should not still own my work after my death.

28 years is fine for me. Although I believe the author should retain derivative rights for their lifetime.  It would stink to have written a popular book, then have Hollywood wait until the copyright ended and do a movie without paying me a dime.

However, once I and my wife have passed away, then even derivative works should be fair game.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (May 11, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> It hurts small-time publishers, and can hurt them bad. All moral flag waving aside, and all excuses aside...
> Every time you pirate a 3rd party PDF product, you are STEALING money from them.
> In my case, you're walking up and taking one of my kids dinner.




I'm going to respond to this and I really hope you don't take any offense to it as none is intended.

Is writing these PDF role-playing supplements your only source of income?  Did you honestly come into the business hoping to become the next Gygax and actually make a decent living off of writing role-playing supplements in such a easy to steal format?

I've kicked around the idea of publishing an RPG supplement of my own but I'd never dream of quitting my day job.  I'd be happy if people pirated my material, I'd be happy that it was just being read and appreciated.  I like your little idea of putting out a coded PDF... I'd probably do the same just to see how many people thought it was worth downloading.  If I make a little money doing it then great but the main reason I'd do it is for the love of the game, not to make money on it.  I always thought that the majority of PDF publishers went into their project understanding that their work WILL be pirated... there is no way around it and that because they understood it that they were doing it because it was something that they always wanted to do rather than becoming a full time career choice.


----------



## DungeonmasterCal (May 11, 2004)

I have several gaming books on .pdf from file sharing.  Do I use any of them?  No.  I downloaded them, looked at them, and decided whether or not they were worth my hard-scrabbled coins.  Thanks to file-sharing, I actually helped some publishers by buying books from them I might never have considered.


----------



## cybermonkey (May 11, 2004)

I view the whole thing like checking out a book at the local library.

If I like, I buy. If I don't, I'm happy that I didn't.


----------



## Lazybones (May 11, 2004)

Great post above, Sigil.  I always appreciate your thoughtful comments on this subject. 

I think that the old models of distribution of intellectual property (songs, movies, text) are doomed.  Already we see it in music, where the technology for copying and disseminating information have advanced to the point where it's very difficult to stop it.  RIAA's campaign against pirates is rapidly alienating consumers, and is driving a campaign to rewrite laws to enforce strict DRMs that restrict the ability of consumers to use the product.  This too will fail, IMO; if I've seen anything in the last ten years it's the ability of the motivated public to stay one step ahead of such schemes.  

I think Sigil hit it on the head, in that the actions of the industry have essentially legitimized piracy in the minds of many (and especially among the young, who are the key demographic in this debate).  The more that the industry is associated with faceless corporations that are motivated primarily by greed, the easier it is for people to rationalize their actions (thus the greater sympathy toward RPG producers, as opposed to movie/music producers, that we see in this thread). 

Direct distribution of content from producer to consumer is coming, inevitably in my view.  A few changes will drive this:

1) Continued expansion of storage capacity and internet transmission speeds, and the dissemination of broadband (and later fiber networks) across the country. 
2) Improvement in viewing technology, such as ultra-thin tablet PCs, that make looking at PDFs (and whatever next-generation format that will follow) and other document formats easier and more user-friendly.  I think a big increase in battery technology (or decrease in power consumption) will likely have to happen to ultimately push this technology "over the top" in terms of widespread public acceptance.  Already, though, I have 50 novels in Microsoft Reader format on my PDF, which are easily readable (provided by the Baen Free Library).  
3) Widespread public acceptance of a technology/method to make small payments (i.e. a few cents to a few dollars) quickly and easily online.  This exists today but is not yet "mainstream" IMO. 

It will be interesting to see how the big conglomerates (RIAA, MPAA, etc... or more specifically, their member corporations) fight to keep their dominance over the distribution of intellectual material in an age where the copying, transmission, and viewing of digital material is easy and nearly instantaneous.  Imagine in ten years: when your hard drive can hold 1000 DVD-quality movies, and it takes 6 minutes to download one, which scenario will exist: a comprehensive distribution system that allows you to access ANY content you wish from a vast library for a minor fee, or a heavily regulated, restrictive DRM system that maintains high cost and limited flexibility for consumers?  Let me ask you: which model is more likely to be associated with heavy piracy? 

The ONLY chance for the IP industries is to be on the cutting edge of this new distribution model, and win back the respect and allegiance of its public.  This public will have an alternative: free content achieved through nominally illegal channels.  There will always be those who will refuse to pay if they can get it for free, but they aren't the people that the companies need to be worried about.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (May 11, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I think a big increase in battery technology (or decrease in power consumption) will likely have to happen to ultimately push this technology "over the top" in terms of widespread public acceptance.




Great post Lazybones!  I just thought you might be interested that I read an article in Scientific American yesterday that brought up the idea of using Hydrogen Fuel Cell technology in consumer electronic devices such as laptops.  Perhaps we'll get away from batteries altogether.


----------



## Umbran (May 11, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Without waxing too political here, I fear that - though infringers themselves probably don't understand why they feel the way that they do - this hideously long copyright terms are the problem.  Hideously long copyright terms are the result of the "content publishing" industry.  In other words, the destruction of industry you speak of is the _direct result of the actions taken by the industry itself_ - by extending copyright terms to unreasonable durations, they have, in effect, killed the golden goose that is the public's goodwill and readiness to tolerate copyright in exchange for the promise of the flow of ideas and entertainment to the masses.




I dont' think this is a very storong argument, for a couple of reasons...

First and foremost, I doubt that the majority of Americans even know how long a copyright lasts.  If I'm correct, they cannot really be resentful about it, now can they?  They can't go seeking revenge for that which they don't recognize as a wrong done unto them.  While some activists may think this way, the general public really isn't that knowlegeable or long-sighted on the subject.

Next, the logic doesn't hold for new releases.  Surely, the original author deserves some length of time in which their work is protected from theft, so that they can make at least some money from it.  Any work that is still under what folks would call a copyright of reasonable length shoudl still be reasonably clear of piracy.  If what you say is correct, we should see more copyright infringement of older works.

Simply put - folks ticked off at how long copyrights are should not be stealling stuff released this very year.  But, oddly, I expect it is the newest stuff that gets stolen.  

I severely doubt that the pervasiveness of copyright infringement is based upon such high ideology as this.  It's basic greed - everyone likes getting something for nothing.


----------



## Lazybones (May 11, 2004)

I think more people are willing to pirate because they view the _corporations_ as greedy, immoral organizations.  For example, the popular perception (whether or not it's true) is that the media companies screw their "talent" (i.e. the producers of content) as much as they do the consumers.  I don't have stats to back this up but I believe I've read that most musicians signed with labels get about 8 cents for every dollar in sales.  From what I've heard even many big bands recoup little on their record deals and make most of their money off of concerts and touring.  I don't know what it is for authors; I'll check and see if I can find more info.  

This is why I think direct distribution is a good alternative, as it would allow producers to keep more of what their product earns.  I know that the _number_ of sales would be less without the huge distribution machines pushing content, but I'd rather see more content choices available out there, rather than having a few cookie-cutter musicians and authors shoved aggressively at me by the media industries.  Plus it would make it easier for more producers to get into the distribution stream and at least have a shot at selling something.  I don't think anyone would dispute that having Clear Channel dominate the nation's radio, for instance, has greatly reduced the amount of variety in playlists in the last five years or so.  

Note that I offer none of this as a justification of copyright infringement (let's call it by its real name, shall we, instead of the colorful "piracy" and the misleading "theft").  But many people do feel that current copyright law is out of hand and counter to the initial purpose of such legislation (to promote science and the general knowledge of society while giving authors a chance to recoup some benefit from their work).


----------



## JingJang (May 11, 2004)

This is a good thread - I'm usually a lurker but this one "brought me out of my shell".

I am involved in three different games, and we play faily regularly.  There is SO much stuff (much of it good and some not so good), that even playing three times a week for several hours - it would take years to wade through all of the material out there.  (BTW I don't play three times a week for several hours, although I might if I had the time  ) I have a TON of PDF's and honestly, I'm sure I'll never use all of them.  Of the newer "illegal" copies, ALL of the PDF's I have downloaded _and used _ I have bought.  I do have a bunch of newer PDF's that I have not bought, but I have not yet had occansion to use them so I "hoard" them on my hard drive until they might prove useful. (Then, if they do, they get bought).  
  Most of the PDF's I have downloaded are older out of print modules and accesories.  These, due to their size and the difficulty in finding them, I tend to print locally if I am going to use them.  

  I do not know if it applies to the RGP industry, but I know in cartographic publishing when a map goes out of print, it is no longer under copyright.  You can make all of the legal copies of out of print maps you want.  (I worked for a good sized map publisher and sold copyrights for several years).  It would seem to make sense in the world of RPG's but I do not know if that is the case.  

  So I guess I am in the group of people that would say that filesharing has _helped _ the industry - at least from the standpoint of the 11 people in the three groups of which I am a part of.  We all have downloaded material and honestly, almost everything we have used, each of us also have hardcopies which we bought.  Furthermore, we have ended up with books I know we would not have bought if we didn't have the PDF for previews.  

As for PDF products to begin with:  As far as I am concerned, if I downloaded it via filesharing first and ended up using it, I went ahead and paid for it legitimately.  However, that said, I don't think I'm the norm in this regard.   Also, to repeat what many have said here, I love the "feel" of the _book _ in my hands.  Even though I know there are many great PDF products out there I only have 5 that I have paid for because I have only _used _ those.  (I have other "illegal" copies but I have not yet used them so I am not counting those - and again, if I use them, I'll go out there and pay for them).

Finally, for the record I agree with those here suggesting a more direct method of distribution.  (In fact, I believe this is the heart of this issue, in all of the mediums in which filesharing is effecting.)  With the access their consumers have to the internet, corperations that are in the business of distrubution realize they can be very easily replaced.  There is no need for corperate "middle-men/distributors" because word-of-mouth is now more powerful than ever (and growing more so).  I don't mind my local gaming store getting a cut, but otherwise, I want the rest of the profit going to the those who produced the product.  I know this means my local shop may not have everything out there, but I'm willing to get on message boards and websites to see what products I _have _ to have because everyone is talking about it. (And then go back to my local shop and have them get those products).

That's my two-cents


----------



## drakhe (May 11, 2004)

*Interesting point and then my 2 bits...*

First of all an interesting point I noticed in this thread: If you could stop piracy instantly, the large majority of pirates would not buy the product anyway. This certainly questions the sanity of working against piracy. 



It also forces you to start make distinctions! The above statement makes sense when talking about people who frequent sharing sites and download without giving anything in return.



But what about true sharers? Those that actually buy a book, maybe even a second copy they can cut up to make scanning easier, then spend hours OCR'ing and checking the file, create the PDF and then share it, with sole intent of being able to receive same from other sharers.



Then there is the true pirate (and to me the only class of person worth this name), those that will mass reproduce a book/cd/software/... and sell to unsuspecting (or not so unsuspecting) customers.



The first 2 categories don't account for much of the damage in my view, as these are the people who either won't ever buy or those in some way inhibited of buying a lot, but still have other resources that allow them to share. The latter (true pirate) are a double threat since not only do they make (some sort of) a profit the original writers/artists/... miss, but they also dump generally inferior product on the public (although, you could say most people buying a pirated copy would probably know the real price of a product, and therefore buy the pirated copy knowing they risk inferior quality)



Me, I buy my RPG books (I simply love books, I'll buy doubles of those books I actually use at the table so I can use and abuse them and still have a pristine copy in my library). I have downloaded PDF's, but only because the material was out-of-print (and could not be located at a CON or in a second-hand shop) or because I have the book and want to use it in electronic form (mostly to create handouts for players) and don't want to go through the scanning/cleanup process. I rarely "share" my material (actually, in a sense I [and basically all DM's] do by using material in my gaming sessions), because I believe everybody should at least go through the effort of acquiring something and I leave it to each individual’s discretion to buy or download.



So, my point: people's mentality will have to be changed. Some people will simply never put up the effort of actually buying (or at least looking for the item and downloading themselves), but to me, the worst are those that simply say: "I can't afford the book/cd/film/software, so I have a right to make a copy", and sadly I do know a couple. 



Just a thought that might also have something to do with mentality (or rather an observation): When I was a kid (I'm 38 now) I saved up (sometimes for months) to get one book or one game and I felt good about getting it. And whatever I got to buy was treasured because of the effort needed to acquire it. Because I had to save for this one thing, I had to select very carefully, because if after some months of saving it turns out to be no good, it meant having to save up all over again. Nowadays, kids demand to have this or that and if you don't provide they make trouble. I've seen kids throw a tantrum over having to wait one day to have a book/cd/film/... and parents giving in to those tantrums. Even worse: kids nowadays seem to have ever shorter attention spans. Some time ago, while being over at a friends house for DnD, I noticed one of his kids: 5 minutes zapping in front of the TV, 6 minutes chatting on MSN, 9 minutes reading some book, some more zapping, playing with the cat for a couple of minutes... and this went on and on in that fashion. And when finally she wanted to go up to her room to listen to some music and needing some batteries for her radio, her father said he hadn't any and hey presto: tantrum time....


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 11, 2004)

I agree with drakhe. Most pirates would not spend money on what they pirated in the first place. Statistics which measure the number of pirated copies of a work and then multiply that by the purchase price for the item in order to determine damage to a company are in error. 

There are some people who know what they want, have the resources to purchase it, and instead make the decision to pirate it. This is pretty nasty behavior. But I believe quite strongly that these sorts of people are a tiny minority of people who pirate copyrighted material.

And, as drakhe says, the worst pirates are the ones who attempt to mass-produce and resell the product at a bargain price, undercutting the original company. This, by the way, is a good way of getting the Feds after you, and is the most damaging form of piracy.

There's also an increasing mentality among people who can't afford to purchase an item: "Why should I be denied the entertainment value of this item just because I lack the ability to pay for it? If I could pay for it I would, but I can't. My neighbor has more money and has this item, but I'm just as good a person as they are, so I deserve to enjoy this item too." People are measuring what entertainment they should have not on a basis of what they can afford, but on the basis of what they believe they _deserve_. Taken on a small scale this behavior is harmless - they couldn't afford the product in the first place, why does it matter to anybody if they get an illegal copy? But on a large scale it can become problematic. The reason we have low and high paying jobs is a matter of incentive. The basic concept is that people who work harder get payed more and deserve to have nicer stuff (arguing this point could quickly bring this thread into off-limits territory, so tread softly). If we can all have access to whatever luxuries we wish without paying for them, this particular incentive to work harder is removed.

There is a population of people who use pdfs who cannot afford to pay for them who subscribe to the philosophy in the first half of the preceeding paragraph. To them I say: When you make enough money to afford the books you have acquired illegally, will you then purchase them legally? Most of them would say yes, but when it comes down to it, they generally don't do so. By the time they can afford the books, they've already read them, used what ideas they wanted, and moved on to other things. Paying for them now feels like paying for a movie they snuck into months ago. Why bother, it's in the past?


----------



## Henry (May 11, 2004)

drakhe said:
			
		

> First of all an interesting point I noticed in this thread: If you could stop piracy instantly, the large majority of pirates would not buy the product anyway. This certainly questions the sanity of working against piracy.




The Sigil brought this same point up as well, and I still have to admit, that as logic goes, this one is still escaping me. I must have a mental wall against this point, because it still doesn't make sense to me.

Here's my train of thought: If most people who download illegal copies wouldn't pay for it anyway if they couldn't download it, then _they wouldn't have the product in possession._ And that's perfectly OK.

Yet here they are, in possession of a copy. That's the part that doesn't add up if it's not a lost sale.

Why do they own the copy, if they do not wish to own it? It's not analogous to someone mailing it to them without their knowledge; it does take conscious and willing searching and acquisition. Therefore, if someone wouldn't want (and by extension, purchase) a copy if they were denied it otherwise, then why are they expending the effort in the first place?

I get on a dirt-basic level that the vendor won't be getting the money either way, but there's more to the picture than that. If one desires an item enough, one will obtain it, somehow, legally or illegally is up to the person. If one doesn't desire it enough, then one won't bother to obtain it, legally or otherwise. And the latter is OK - it's a founding law of commerce.

To want something, and NOT pay fair market value for it, and get it anyway? It does not to me add up to say that's not a "lost sale." It's kind of like leaving the equals sign, and still calling it an equation.


----------



## drnuncheon (May 11, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Here's my train of thought: If most people who download illegal copies wouldn't pay for it anyway if they couldn't download it, then _they wouldn't have the product in possession._ And that's perfectly OK.
> 
> Yet here they are, in possession of a copy. That's the part that doesn't add up if it's not a lost sale.
> 
> Why do they own the copy, if they do not wish to own it?



 I think that the part you're missing is they do not wish to own it _at the price asked for it_ - but when they saw it sitting there for free, they took it because hey, why not? It doesn't cost them anything.

 J


----------



## Crothian (May 11, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Therefore, if someone wouldn't want (and by extension, purchase) a copy if they were denied it otherwise, then why are they expending the effort in the first place?




I think many people want it, but don't want to pay for it.  And wouldn't pay for it.  They might just download it for the sake of downloading it.  I have friends with gigs of illegally gotten things that never use them, but the fact that it isn't that hard to aquire them makes them get them.  It really is not that much of an effort.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (May 11, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> The reason we have low and high paying jobs is a matter of incentive. The basic concept is that people who work harder get payed more and deserve to have nicer stuff (arguing this point could quickly bring this thread into off-limits territory, so tread softly).




(Treading softly.)

I think that is the point about copyrights and big businesses. People see these corporation CEOs and copyright owners that make obscene amounts of money, not because of hard work, but because somebody 50 years dead had a neat idea.

Makes those same people ask, "Well why the heck am I working so hard at $9 an hour when Cheesehead CEO has billions in stock options?

I can never be Cheesehead..."


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 11, 2004)

Yeah, it's a sort of mental block Henry. But some people have far more illegal copies of things than they could ever have afforded to legitimately purchase, so it can't be said that they would have bought them if they couldn't have gotten them illegally. There's also the small matter of physicality. They don't view it as stealing becuase nobody out there is missing a product. Shoplifting is stealing, they recken, because after you shoplift an item, the store has been denied to ability to sell it. Pirating digital stuff doesn't carry that same moral weight.


----------



## James Heard (May 11, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Yet here they are, in possession of a copy. That's the part that doesn't add up if it's not a lost sale.
> 
> Why do they own the copy, if they do not wish to own it? It's not analogous to someone mailing it to them without their knowledge; it does take conscious and willing searching and acquisition. Therefore, if someone wouldn't want (and by extension, purchase) a copy if they were denied it otherwise, then why are they expending the effort in the first place?




If I pick up a book in a store, flip all the way through it, sit down with it and read it in depth, and then put it back on the shelf - did I just steal something? What if I wait till the library gets the book, and then only read it from the library? Listen to a song solely on the radio? Wait for the movie to come onto cable? There's a lot of ways consumers engage in activities that basically amount to 'owning' the essentials of an IP product without paying for it, even if it's as simple as borrowing the book from a friend or watching your friend's movie at his house. Saying that the vast majority of 'pirates' are somehow consuming your product without payment waves a finger at other 'consumers' without really coming up to plate and confronting the fact that this isn't really a new behavior. The only new thing here is the saturation and ease possible. 

For pdf publishers I have sympathy, because they're basically in a similar boat with shareware creators and have a strong reliance on consumer good will and guilt without a distinctly different 'tangible' to peddle on a shelf. On the other hand, I've quite a few friends who've done well with shareware over the years so I think a big element of a successful PDF line might be in following the shareware principles of constant updates, support, and praying that someone with more money than you will like you enough to distribute your product in some fashion. I think I've already seen a few 'value pack' bundles for some pdfs, I think that sort of branding is right on target. 

Dead tree books though, unless you're sponging off your corporate printing capabilities it's usually more expensive and drastically poorer quality to print something of any length anyways. Then, to get a similar product you have to bind it and hardcover a lot of them...it's just not worth it. I've seen one or two notebooks meticulously printed and plastic-sleeved as "easier to lug around than 20 books" sorts of things 10 years ago, but I don't know anyone who's gone to the trouble of the sort of mass 'piracy' that goes on with music. Books are still intrinsically different and superior to their digital counterparts to the average consumer. The RPG market has more to fear from a low cost, easy to use and operate handheld Ebook reader than anything else; if such a thing ever really caught on I think we could start comparing apples with apples re: music. Till then I think the vast majority of people downloading pdfs illegally are probably 'browsers' for lack of a better term and good for your publishing in the long run because they lead to awareness of the products. If someone likes to think of them as 'stealing from their children's dinner" then so be it, but it's just as likely that they might be "stealing from their children's dinner so that they'll pay for their college tuition" later on. It doesn't matter how you get people aware of your product in the long run, even the Rolling Stones probably did shows for free or at least far below the cost of a ticket now.

On the other hand, if people come across as abusive to their customers (even 'browsers') then they really HAVE lost sales. Maybe that's because we've all be spoiled by radio, MTV, cable television, libraries, and BooksAMillions where we can 'get something for nothing' but like it or not it's out there.


----------



## Rel (May 11, 2004)

I think all this "stick it to the corporate MAN" stuff is total BS and is simply a rationalization.  If it works for you, fine, but I've got no respect for it.  Besides, the 3rd party publishers of d20 products are about as far away from "The Man" as you can get.  The analogy is more like this:

Say there's an off-Broadway play being put on.  The people involved don't anticipate that they'll make a killing at it, but they're willing to work hard at it and make it a good production because they like putting on plays and they WILL make a bit of money at it.  So they put in all the work, they put on the show and some people buy tickets.  But one of these people who bought a ticket goes around to the back door and starts letting in people who didn't buy tickets and pretty soon, half the audience is made up of people who didn't pay.

Does that seem fair to the people who are putting on the play?  The people who snuck in the back door can say all day long that they wouldn't have paid full price to see the play anyway and so no money is lost by the actors.  But it is still a slap in the face to the folks who are already being paid a pittance for their work.  They spent time that they could have spent with family or friends or working or gaming and instead they spent it making this product.  And what you're saying is that that time is worth *nothing*.

People who do that are jerks, pure and simple.


----------



## der_kluge (May 11, 2004)

I admit that I didn't read this entire thread, but I'll plop down my own thoughts (it's the *in* thing to do, right?).

Last I checked, I probably have 800 megabytes of downloaded .pdfs in my Bearshare folder.  Which, is probably in actuality a lot less than you might think it is, since a big WoTC book can be about 75 megs.  I've got probably 40 files or so.  And, I also keep my BearShare folder available for sharing all the time.

The number #1 thing that is downloaded from my PC are my nude Drew Barrymore pictures, and the Paris Hilton video.  So, folks just aren't flocking to my machine to download D&D .pdfs.  

I'm going to blow the whole jerk/cheapskate, etc., theory, and add myself to a brand new category - the collector.  I just collect these things.  Sort of like, my downloaded collection of SchoolHouse Rock videos, and Ambiguously Gay Duo videos (which are free, anyway) that I have.  

My computer is a toy to me.  I work on a computer all day at work (well, except when reading ENWorld), so when I get home, sometimes I crank up my 80s music jukebox, and play MAME games and Atari games on Stella (combined, I have over 1000 roms).  

To be honest, I've downloaded things that I've never even read.  It's highly possible that I have downloaded things that I've never even *opened*.  I just have them.  There's really not enough time in the day to read through all these things.  But, if I'm working on something, and someone says, "check out such and such book", I can, because it's sitting in my /downloads/documents directory.  

And yes, at least one of my downloads resulted in a purchase - Complete Warrior.  I was impressed enough with Complete Warrior that I purchased it after reading through the .pdf I have of it.

Another argument for downloading D&D .pdfs is that some things are out of print.  My friend asked me to download Death in Freeport (I think that's it) - the 1st module in that series, because it was out of print, and he wanted to look at it.  We found it on Ebay, but the guy wanted $100 for it.  (seriously).  So, I downloaded it, and gave it to him (he owns the others in the series).  I don't know if he'll ever run it or not.  Time will tell.

And for the record, I've never seen Sigil's stuff out on Bearshare.  I also have purchased .pdfs from RPGNow.  I own all of Sigil's stuff (I think), and a few other .pdfs that have interested me (including some older WoTC titles, and Book of Templates).

I would also contend that, at least from the perspective of Bearshare, some of them are hard to find.  Some are fairly common (like some of the major WoTC titles), but some of the obscure d20 stuff is really hard to find.  Lots of things aren't out there at all.  Someone has to sit down and scan it all in, after all.  So, whoever is doing that really needs to respond to this thread.


----------



## Rel (May 11, 2004)

die_kluge said:
			
		

> Someone has to sit down and scan it all in, after all.  So, whoever is doing that really needs to respond to this thread.




Am I to understand that one of the points of your argument is, "Well, somebody went to all the trouble of violating the copyright and making it available for download, so the least I could do is download a copy in honor of their hard work."?

Just bizarre.


----------



## med stud (May 12, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I don't have stats to back this up but I believe I've read that most musicians signed with labels get about 8 cents for every dollar in sales.  From what I've heard even many big bands recoup little on their record deals and make most of their money off of concerts and touring.




That is correct. I read in a paper somewhere that the music records are mainly commercials for the artist. Selling t-shirts and doing concerts is what makes them rich. It's logical; if you sell 1 000 000 CDs for 1,6 $ profit per CD will give you 1 600 000 dollars. It's much but it wont let you live like a rock star.

So when buying music records you are in effect paying for the CEOs of the company to live like rock stars. You might think this is good or not but most people want to support the musician, hence why so very few thinks it morally wrong to download mp3s.

But I think people's attitude about the RPG industry is different. At least I have bought the books that I downloaded and liked; not because I like the book feeling but because I think the producer deserves my support. I dont think Im alone and not even in minority with this attitude.


----------



## Slife (May 12, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Does that seem fair to the people who are putting on the play?  The people who snuck in the back door can say all day long that they wouldn't have paid full price to see the play anyway and so no money is lost by the actors.  But it is still a slap in the face to the folks who are already being paid a pittance for their work.  They spent time that they could have spent with family or friends or working or gaming and instead they spent it making this product.  And what you're saying is that that time is worth *nothing*.




Yes - to anyone who didn't want it.  Lets say I offer someone who doesn't like pickles some pickles, or give you some turtle-food (assuming, of course, you don't have a turtle).  Value is relative.  To some, the concert isn't worth the $25 dollar ticket price, so they won't pay it.  Besides, your metaphor is inherently flawed - a better example would be someone who bought a ticket giving away free videotapes of the preformance.


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Here's my train of thought: If most people who download illegal copies wouldn't pay for it anyway if they couldn't download it, then _they wouldn't have the product in possession._ And that's perfectly OK.
> 
> Yet here they are, in possession of a copy. That's the part that doesn't add up if it's not a lost sale.




The flaw in your train of thought, Henry, is that you are assuming that "want" is digital.  In your scheme, there are two states - "I don't want it" and "I want it in full".  But desire is analog 

Let us say the product costs $20.  You look at it and say, "I like some bits, but I don't think this is worth the full price.  If it were priced at $10 I might, but as it is, I will not buy the product."

If this person pirates the book, it is not a full lost sale, because if piracy were not available, they'd not pay the price. The company never could have gotten the sale, and so didn't lose it to piracy.


----------



## Rel (May 12, 2004)

Slife said:
			
		

> Yes - to anyone who didn't want it.  Lets say I offer someone who doesn't like pickles some pickles, or give you some turtle-food (assuming, of course, you don't have a turtle).  Value is relative.




Of course it is.  I never tried to suggest otherwise.  But if it is worth nothing to you then *don't download the file in the first place*.

I notice that when I go to the box office to buy the ticket that they don't just let me pay what I think the performance will be worth to me (down to and including $0).  Instead, the producer of the product sets the price and I decide that I either will or will not pay that price for the product offered.  Stealing the product because I'm not willing to pay full price does not fit into my moral code.


----------



## Henry (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The flaw in your train of thought, Henry, is that you are assuming that "want" is digital.  In your scheme, there are two states - "I don't want it" and "I want it in full".  But desire is analog
> ...If this person pirates the book, it is not a full lost sale, because if piracy were not available, they'd not pay the price. The company never could have gotten the sale, and so didn't lose it to piracy.




My thought is that the sale is still a loss, at least in part, and therefore still breaks the old law of supply and demand. To use the old adage, "calling it as one sees it," if it's a loss, it's a loss, whether in whole or in part. 

Reading a book in a library, or thumbing it in a bookstore, is both legal and permissible by all three parties concerned - vendor, reseller, and consumer. In other words, when the reseller buys the book from the vendor, it's theirs to sell or give away - or even return, by the funky laws that govern book sales. That copy and that license has been transacted, and the only contract to worry about then is between reseller and consumer. Now, if you make a copy of said work, there's a NEW contract to deal with - between you and the vendor, and it's been breached.

Again, this is what I'm seeing by my reasoning, and it still breaks the basic law of supply and demand to say one doesn't want a thing - and then still take it anyway. I'm not trying to comment on ethics of it, because that's an issue that alone could bring entirely new laws to alter the way things are done about it. But just given the basic social and economic contracts that govern the situation as-is, I still have to just call it as I see it, and agree to disagree that "there is no loss if someone supposedly wouldn't buy it if they couldn't get a copy through illegal download."

Oh, and in answer to the question that "if I read the book in the store, is it illegal copying?" If I had eidetic memory, it could be.


----------



## Henry (May 12, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Instead, the producer of the product sets the price and I decide that I either will or will not pay that price for the product offered.  Stealing the product because I'm not willing to pay full price does not fit into my moral code.




Here's another issue that, while relatively trivial, falls in the same vein - discount coupon counterfeiting. If I had a bookstore who had limited run of coupons for $10.00 off every purchase, but the coupon was ridiculously easy to counterfeit, and I printed up, say, 50 copies or so, is the store taking a loss from the book purchases I make?

In reality, coupon counterfeiting is actually with the advent of color lasers and high-quality paper stock becoming more common - I heard something in a new report on this about six months ago. While it's not grand theft, it's still something of a concern to vendors, whose retailers (the stores themselves) are getting shafted when the vendors don't honor the bogus coupons. A report on the CIC website estimated somewhere between 300 million to 600 million dollars loss annually. Interesting stuff!


----------



## ToddSchumacher (May 12, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> Here's another issue that, while relatively trivial, falls in the same vein - discount coupon counterfeiting. If I had a bookstore who had limited run of coupons for $10.00 off every purchase, but the coupon was ridiculously easy to counterfeit, and I printed up, say, 50 copies or so, is the store taking a loss from the book purchases I make?
> 
> In reality, coupon counterfeiting is actually with the advent of color lasers and high-quality paper stock becoming more common - I heard something in a new report on this about six months ago. While it's not grand theft, it's still something of a concern to vendors, whose retailers (the stores themselves) are getting shafted when the vendors don't honor the bogus coupons. A report on the CIC website estimated somewhere between 300 million to 600 million dollars loss annually. Interesting stuff!




Just a side note.

I work in a grocery store and right now there is a picture posted of a man who counterfiets coupons for _baby formula_, warning them to get the manager if they see him.


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 12, 2004)

Henry, here's another example of deciding to own something but not wanting to put out the money for it that you might find easier to understand:

Say there's a RPG book you've thumbed through at the store and it's kind of OK. You don't think it's worth $20, though, so you somewhat reluctantly put it back on the shelf and decide not to buy it.

A month later your friend buys you the book for your birthday.

If you really wanted it, you would have bought it at the store, right? So since you didn't really want it you'll return the gift or get rid of it. If you didn't like it well enough to buy, _surely_ it's not worth getting for free.

That's how pirates view their downloads. It wasn't worth purchasing, but if I can get it for _free_ I guess I'll get it. Sometimes the item in question fails to be worth the download time. "It'll take 2 hours to download? Forget it." Even the _time_ it would take to get it for no money is sometimes too much of a cost.


----------



## Estlor (May 12, 2004)

I think that copyright infringement in the RPG industry is a somewhat different creature than it is in the music and movie industries.

 Part of what drives modern copyright infringement is the perception of an imbalance between cost and worth.  When a commodity (such as a CD or tickets to a movie) becomes prohibitively expensive, individuals who enjoy consuming that commodity will take great pains to find a lower cost alternative that allows them to continue to consume the item.  In this case, downloading MP3s with the rationale that, "I only want one or two songs, why should I pay $15-$18 for the whole album?" or downloading movies with the rationale that, "There is no way a movie is worth $9 when it will be free on cable in a year."  Connected to this mindset is the idea of enforced quality control.  The infringer begins to think, "My downloading this will force the record companies to only book artists that can put out an entire CD of good music at a time."  The idea is the current state of an industry promotes a commodity at a price out of line with what it is worth, and that somehow by obtaining that commodity through a 3rd party broker you force the industry to adapt to your demands or suffer.

 Now, with the RPG industry, the cost of the product is hardly out of line with its worth.  There may be some instances when an individual is hesitant to buy a product (such as Complete Warrior if they dislike proliferation of prestige classes).  In those cases, the idea of cost/worth inequity comes into play.  But it seems RPG infringement falls into the "try before you buy" camp or the "I steal for fun" camp.  In this case, the habitual thieves have no intention of buying the item in question anyway, and there is nothing the RPG company can do to gain their sale.  The trial runers are likely to buy the product if they find value in it, and their downloading of a PDF is comparable to leafing through the book in the store.

 Now, myself, I'll state some personal views.

 I have previously downloaded MP3s through various file sharing programs.  The RIAA crackdown forced me to go "legit" (I pay for Rhapsody and am content with streaming audio), but I had no qualms beforehand because I felt the only person I was "hurting" was a record label that was guilty of price fixing in the first place.  In truth, many times I bought the CD of a new up-and-coming artist because I listened to MP3s of it and liked what I heard.  90% of the CDs I bought between the years of 1999 and 2002 were the result of file sharing discoveries or the residuals.

 I don't download movies.  The prices of DVDs have become so reasonable and the availability of movies for rent at Blockbuster and local libraries makes it a waste of time to do that.  However, I will not bat an eye at downloading episodes of the current season of the Sopranos.  I refuse to pay for digital cable and HBO for one show (a nearly $80 expense in my area) when I plan to buy the season later on DVD (a $60 expense that is permanent).  Because I don't want to wait, I download, watch, then delete the episode.  I'll own it soon enough, I just hate not being able to discuss the show with people who have HBO and are currently watching it.

 I don't download RPG PDFs.  I hate the PDF format as a document replacement.  Nothing beats the good old dead tree version in my book.  As a result, I won't buy a PDF product if that's the only way you can get a book.  The only PDF products I own are out of print TSR material and print books of formerly PDF only products (specifically several Malhavoc books).  Yes, I may be missing out on some high-quality work, but if they really want my money they'd work out a print deal with another publisher.


----------



## Henry (May 12, 2004)

MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> Henry, here's another example of deciding to own something but not wanting to put out the money for it that you might find easier to understand:
> 
> ...A month later your friend buys you the book for your birthday.
> 
> If you really wanted it, you would have bought it at the store, right? So since you didn't really want it you'll return the gift or get rid of it. If you didn't like it well enough to buy, _surely_ it's not worth getting for free.




To me, it's a different circumstance because it was still purchased under the social contract between consumer and reseller, and the consumer did something that falls under the same contract (giving it away). Then, there's also the issue of not disrespecting a friend who gives you the book, so even if you don't use it, you keep it out of courtesy. If the friend said, _"Here's the sales receipt, just in case you find something you like better,"_ (happens all the time in my family and friends circle) then I'd take it back in a heartbeat for something I DID desire, but either couldn't justify or couldn't afford.

In other words, still within the whole seller/buyer paradigm. But then, my view is stubborn that way. 

I'm no economist or sociologist by any means, but to me, if you want something, but aren't willing to undertake one of the mechanisms to get it, it's technically theft, or at best loss of a sale under that social and economic contract. 

Anyone else have any thoughts on the whole counterfeit coupoon thing?


----------



## drnuncheon (May 12, 2004)

ToddSchumacher said:
			
		

> I work in a grocery store and right now there is a picture posted of a man who counterfiets coupons for _baby formula_, warning them to get the manager if they see him.



 Considering that all the new parents I talk to have things to say about how expensive baby formula is (let's put it this way - the wife and I spend less on groceries for two full-grown adults), I'm a little confused why you seem to think that's any worse than counterfeiting coupons for other kinds of food.

 Er, to get back on track, I bought Bastion's _Alchemy and Herbalists_ after downloading it.  In fact, I had skipped it in the store when it first came out, so in this case at least it was unquestionably a gained sale...

 J


----------



## Rel (May 12, 2004)

Estlor said:
			
		

> I think that copyright infringement in the RPG industry is a somewhat different creature than it is in the music and movie industries...




I think that's a pretty good analysis, Estlor.

I'd like to make it clear that I hardly think that "file sharing" (what a polite name for it, eh?) is hardly the largest problem plaguing our times.  And I understand why many people think it is ok to do:  They think that there is no victim because they would not have paid for the product in the first place and therefore no money is theoritically lost.  But I say that money is being lost.

You're over at a friend's house gaming and you've brought your laptop.  Friend A and Friend B are chatting and A mentions that he's heard about a new PDF called "The Complete Jester" that has the "Guy in the Silly Hat" prestige class that would be perfect for his PC.  He's been thinking about buying it.  "Me too," says B, "I've heard that the Weapon Juggling feat is pretty neat, and besides, that PDF only costs $5 and it's put out Chartreuse Samurai and their products are always good."

"Wait just a moment, Gentlemen!  No need to go pay for that product.  I've got it right here.  Now...there and...there.  I've burned you each a copy! *hands A and B discs*."

And Chartreuse Samurai loses revenue that would have cost each of the players less than the cost of the Grilled Chicken Combo #6 they picked up on the way to the session.  But no harm done, right?

*laments the loss of the rolleyes smiley*


----------



## Umbran (May 12, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> I'm no economist or sociologist by any means, but to me, if you want something, but aren't willing to undertake one of the mechanisms to get it, it's technically theft, or at best loss of a sale under that social and economic contract.




Ah, okay.  I think I see the source of the disconnect here...

You're talking about contracts.  Under the contract, if you don't undertake one of the allowed mechanisms for acquiring the product, yes, you are committing theft.

But "loss of sale" has nothing to do with the contract.  It has to do with _bookkeeping_.  

We, as a society, are still trying to figure out how to deal with the issue.  So, memebers of an industry (like the RIAA), poke around.  They get some estimates, and they go to Washington DC...

"We estimate that X songs were copied without a sale.  If we had sold all those songs instead we would have made $Y more this year.  Therefore, we have lost $Y in sales to this copying.  Please pass a bill that will stop us from losing so much money."

However, the "if" in "If we had sold all those.." is a big one.  As noted - not all those who copy would have bought if copying were not available.  If we could turn back the clock and run the universe without this copying, the companies would get something notably less than $Y more in revenue.

I don't think anyone is saying that no sales are lost to copying.  However, equating 1 copy to 1 sale lost is a naive estimate.  It is a tool used by industried to over-represent their economic losses.


----------



## James Heard (May 12, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is a tool used by industried to over-represent their economic losses.



Yeah, it's like saying that everyone who picked up a book and flipped through it at the store without buying it is lost revenue. I don't know how many times I flip through things at a store and later come back to buy them, in my case a lot of times the major 'lost sale' is in not keeping a product available to catch up with my budget allocation. Worse, when the products go off the shelves and turn up on Ebay at a 500% markup because they're OOP. That's probably the best thing the PDF market has going for it. OOP means a completely different animal in a digital market. How much does 'shelf space' cost as a PDF distributor? Shipping? And you don't have to worry about shoplifting ACTUALLY ripping off your investment, unless someone breaks in and starts stealing you archive disks.*


*If someone has their home broken into for the sole purpose of stealing their pdf disks, let me know. I think the phrase will be, "Gentlemen, we have _arrived_." Talk about pure gaming gold...


----------



## MerakSpielman (May 12, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> To me, it's a different circumstance because it was still purchased under the social contract between consumer and reseller, and the consumer did something that falls under the same contract (giving it away). Then, there's also the issue of not disrespecting a friend who gives you the book, so even if you don't use it, you keep it out of courtesy. If the friend said, _"Here's the sales receipt, just in case you find something you like better,"_ (happens all the time in my family and friends circle) then I'd take it back in a heartbeat for something I DID desire, but either couldn't justify or couldn't afford.
> 
> In other words, still within the whole seller/buyer paradigm. But then, my view is stubborn that way.



I suspect you and I are in some ways just different creatures, then. I have tons of things on my "I would never buy it, but if somebody gifted me with it I'd use it and keep it" list. 



> I'm no economist or sociologist by any means, but to me, if you want something, but aren't willing to undertake one of the mechanisms to get it, it's technically theft, or at best loss of a sale under that social and economic contract.



I hinted at this earlier, but this paradigm breaks down pretty easily. I personally know people who have multiple thousands of dollars worth of pirated material on their computers. This can't all be counted as "loss of sale" because the people in question would never have been able to afford to purchase such an incredible quantity of stuff. At least some percentage of their downloads, then, qualifies as stuff they wouldn't have legally purchased had they been unable to download it. 



> Anyone else have any thoughts on the whole counterfeit coupoon thing?



This is hard to measure. I can only assume that when a store publishes X number of coupons, they expect to have X number of customers use the coupons to get a discount. The loss of profit due to this discount should be expected.

However, not all coupons are used. The vast majority of coupons published in the Sunday paper are just thrown away, since the person who purchased the paper, even if they are a coupon-clipper, will only find a handful of coupons for products they personally buy.

At this point in my thought process I'm leaning towards counterfeit coupons being no big deal, since they probably don't come close to making up for the number of coupons thrown away.

Then my train of thought continues. Marketing people are pretty savvy. They probably know what to expect from publishing X number of coupons. The know the number of coupons from X that can be expected to be redeemed, and plan their marketing strategies around this. They do not expect or intend for all of the coupons they publish to be redeemed - this might in fact be very bad for business. 

Now my thought process is leaning against counterfeiting coupons. I guess I'm undecided, and don't know enough about the industry to make an informed opinion.


----------



## woodelf (May 12, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> After a quick stop over at Zeropaid.com, a website that deals with news regarding file-sharing and the ramifications of it, I started wondering if file-sharing has any affect on the RPG industry.
> 
> Steps have already been taken to crack down on file-sharers by the music industry. The movie industry may follow suit soon enough, although this is just my opinion. According to the music and movie industry, file-sharing has has some affect.
> 
> ...




First, some actual research on the matter, to perhaps give a basis to this discussion: http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf .  Other than the RIAA's claims, there's still no evidence that filesharing ever hurt music sales--all we know for certain is that file sharing went up and CD sales went down in the same period--a period when lots of other relevant changes occurred. Actually, IIRC, wasn't it not that CD sales declined, but that they grew at a slower rate than anticipated?


----------



## woodelf (May 13, 2004)

Henry said:
			
		

> That said, there are two beliefs on this issue. One belief is that it does not affect much or at all the RPG industry, and only helps when rare or out-of-print games are made available to the public who wants them. Another is that it is very harmful to an industry that already works on a shoestring budget, and has no beneficial effects at all.
> 
> My personal opinion is that the people whom it hurts most are the small-press publisher, and followed closely by the RPG industry as a whole. Here's why:
> 
> ...




Well, if we want sales to accurately reflect popularity, shouldn't we let people pay what they think something is worth? Maybe all those people with illegal copies of the Draconomicon would gladly buy it for $20, but not for $35 [is that what it costs?]. But they are instead faced with a binary choice between buy it for $35, or not buy it at all. So they seek to make a third way. 

Of course, i'm not so idealistic as to believe that every person with an illegal copy of a book would pay what they thought it was worth even if they could. Lots of people have a logical disconnect between value and money--i still remember a discussion on a similar topic where someone said that one was being a fool to pay "cover price" for an RPG book rather than get it at discount. Not because she thought the books were overpriced, given the value of their content to her, but simply because they could be bought cheaper. There is certainly a very strong cultural trait, in the US at least, that cheaper is better (assuming equal quality), and that is rapidly eclipsing (or already has eclipsed) the notion of "fair recompense" for something. Of course, this is in large part a response to most goods these days being mass-produced in distant markets with lower costs, with profits going disproportionately to corporate entities and the high muckity-mucks in charge of them rather than the people doing the raw labor, so that what exactly is "fair recompense" is much less obvious than it once was. Sorry, bit of a tangent there.

Anyway, what if the current sales _do_ reflect the works' popularity? If illegal [digital] copies of books were simply unavailable, those who currently have them would be faced with two possibilities: pay for them, or do without. Period. How do we _know_ that they would all choose to pay for them? Do we even know that the majority would choose to pay for them? Especially given we're talking about optional add-ons for a luxury-good leisure activity, i wouldn't be one bit surprised if most would simply do without. Back before the web (much less filesharing programs), nobody i knew had an illegal copy of an RPG book, despite many having relatively easy access to free (or at least un-monitored) photocopying priveleges. Wait, no, there was one guy who showed up with a photocopied something once (MMII?). We all thought he was being at least a weirdo, if not a jerk, and if he got any other illegal RPG books, he never showed us, so they weren't actually being used for gaming. And this was among a group of people who had pretty meager incomes, and simply keeping up with the AD&D1 hardcover release schedule (without buying any other RPG stuff) was a bit of a financial burden, so it's not like we had all the RPG stuff we wanted. Ironically, he was the only one of the RPers i knew who was relatively well-off, and could have easily bought all the RPG stuff he wanted. 

Both producers and consumers have an acceptable price for a good--actually, usually a range. When the consumer's [maximum] acceptable price falls below the producers [minimum] acceptable price, the consumer simply doesn't make the purchase. That's how it's always worked. That doesn't mean the consumer thinks that the product is without value, just that the value is less than the product is sold for. In that circumstance, the product will never be bought. Period. [And by "minimum acceptable price", i'm including sale prices.] But the consumer might still be sufficiently interested in the product to acquire it if it were to fall into their price range. Thus, frex, the secondary-book market. Which, i hasten to point out, does not benefit the producer. 

How does filesharing play into all this? By providing the product for free, those who find *any* value in the book will consider it worth the "price". That is not the same as cutting into sales, however. If people behave morally, filesharing will do no harm. If they behave immorally, it won't take filesharing for them to do harm. I don't think it is necessary to never have an illegal copy of an RPG book to not be harming the RPG industry, or individual producers. But it is necessary to be honest with yourself, and pay for those works you think are worth paying for, or do without. 

Let me give you a specific example to tear apart. I don't like D&D3E. The more i play it, and thus the better i get to know it, the less i like it. The D&D3E game i was involved in has long since switched systems, and then fallen apart due to scheduling concerns. The person in the group that was the initial impetus for using D&D3E for the game his since moved out of town, so even if we started a new game it's unlikely that anyone would be pushing for that system. For that matter, it was only unusual extenuating circumstances that even got me by my prejudices to be in the game to start with.* So, it is safe to say that i will not ever play in a D&D3[.5]E game again. However, there are still reasons for referencing the D&D3E PH from time to time, such as discussions on the nature of the RPG industry, or whether or not D&D engenders a particular playstyle. So, while i won't be using it in a game, i might still have use for it, in a scholarly vein. I'm not sure of an exact number, but looking at opportunity costs, i'd say it has a value to me of somewhere in the $1-$3 range--it's more than zero, but not by much. It's certainly not worth $10, because i've passed on it in used stores at that price a couple of times. And that seems to be as cheap as it gets. Thus, the question becomes, should i acquire a copy? Am i hurting the industry, the hobby, or WotC in any way if i download a copy for that once-a-month (or less) reference question (i currently use my roommate's copy, or email a friend who has a copy, or ask online), because i can't find a copy anywhere near the price i think it's worth? Or is the only moral thing to do to wait until i happen to find a used copy somewhere for $3? Because i can answer with perfect confidence that i will *never* break down and spend $10 for a copy (unless inflation has reduced $10 to the price of a McCheeseburger, i suppose). 

To my mind, it's simply the flipside of the situation i'd be in had i bought a copy of the D&D3E PH: should i now sell it, knowing that the value of owning it to me is near-zero, and therefore pretty much any price i can get would put me ahead?



> This is not to say I believe electronic copies are inherently a bad thing; personally, I believe if I own at least one copy of a book, I should have access to an electronic version of same. Some vendors offer that at a premium, some do not, but I think it would be more helpful to gamers as a whole if it were offered as such.




Why? I still havent' decided where i fall on this issue, so what's your take? Why is getting a 2nd copy of a work a "right" so long as that 2nd copy is digital, rather than physical? 



> This is my take on it, and goodness knows many other posters here have had different takes on the subject. But realistically looking at the issue, PDF sharing can't help a small publisher who decides whether he eats Ramen Noodles or chicken based on the sales of his 5 most recent books - while the file sharer who's eating his chicken is cozied up to the latest pirated online copies.




Oh, I definitely agree. Don't take any of this as defense of that activity. Anyone who is stealing a book directly from someone, especially at the ridiculously-low prices of PDFs, had better have a pretty good idea of what they're doing, and recognize that it's likely doing a fair bit of direct harm. I understand the desire for preview. But reading the whole thing through, thinking about it (or using it in a game) for a few months, and then filing it away on a CD--or even deleting it--isn't "previewing." If your usage of a pirated copy of an RPG book is no different from a purchased one (or only as different as the medium dictates), then you're lying to yourself. And, for the record, i have mixed feelings about doing the same legally: spending a week of Sundays at Borders (or the FLGS) reading a book you never had any intention of purchasing. Especially if it's a likely-one-read book to begin with. From the standpoint of the social contract between producers and society, libraries are different in that they tend not to cut into first-release sales: the books take a little while to get into libraries.

* And i'm glad they did. Many of my prejudices regarding D&D3E were ill-founded. But I discovered a whole bunch of things that _are_ true about the system that i can't stand. And i'm very glad my prejudices against D20 System were shattered, or i might've missed some really great games out there.


----------



## woodelf (May 13, 2004)

Ashrem Bayle said:
			
		

> I've got a PDF copy of almost every book I use in my campaign. I use the PDF copy at work, and the book at home. To me, I pretty much need both. Heck, in many cases, I'd pay for PDF copies of books I already own just for the convenience.




So, do you send an extra, say, $5 to the publisher for each PDF that you have? Or at least those fall into the "many cases" you'd be will to pay for a PDF of?

I suspect that most producers would be OK with filesharing if they saw *something* from it, in the way of profits. If they got a buck for every digital copy of an RPG book out there, it might not be such a big deal that those people weren't spending $25 for the official copy.


----------



## Aezoc (May 13, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> and I understand why many people think it is ok to do: They think that there is no victim because they would not have paid for the product in the first place and therefore no money is theoritically lost. But I say that money is being lost.
> 
> You're over at a friend's house gaming and you've brought your laptop.  Friend A and Friend B are chatting and A mentions that he's heard about a new PDF called "The Complete Jester" that has the "Guy in the Silly Hat" prestige class that would be perfect for his PC.  He's been thinking about buying it.  "Me too," says B, "I've heard that the Weapon Juggling feat is pretty neat, and besides, that PDF only costs $5 and it's put out Chartreuse Samurai and their products are always good."
> 
> ...




Well, you're right, money is obviously being lost there, since friends A and B would have otherwise bought the product. I don't think anyone has disputed that point, however. What has been said is that if someone is not willing to pay the price of a book and instead chooses to download it illegally, no money is lost, since they would not have purchased the product if the illegal version was not available. This is, as far as I can tell, absolutely correct. I don't claim that this is the end of the ethical ramifications of it (I don't think it is by a long shot, but that subject strays far from the original purpose of the thread), but I have yet to see evidence that refutes that specific point.

My response to (part of) the original question - I think illegal file sharing certainly has the potential to hurt the PDF publishing industry in particular, since its much less work on the part of the pirate to redistribute something already in an electronic form, and the legal version has no inherent value beyond that of the illegal copy (no "book in hand" value, etc). Judging from the responses so far in this thread, however, it seems to have had a small effect thus far, since most people that illegally download PDFs seem to preview the work and then either buy or delete it. Of course, that's all contingent on the responses in this thread being representative of the RPG community as a whole. I'm going to go out on a limb though, and say that I believe that gamers interested in third-party PDF publications and gamers who frequent RPG-related message boards both fall into what I would term "hardcore gamers," (or at least "not beer & pretzel gamers") and thus membership in the two groups probably has quite a bit of overlap. I have absolutely no factual basis for that statement, it's just a guess on my part.


----------



## Rel (May 13, 2004)

Aezoc said:
			
		

> Judging from the responses so far in this thread, however, it seems to have had a small effect thus far, since most people that illegally download PDFs seem to preview the work and then either buy or delete it. Of course, that's all contingent on the responses in this thread being representative of the RPG community as a whole.




As has been maintained on many an occasion, ENWorld is not a meaningful cross-section of gamerdom.  And I also don't have a lot of faith that the responses in this thread who say "I may download it illegally but only to preview and then I buy it or delete it" are representative of illegal downloaders in general.  In other words, I think incidences of people who would say, "Yep, I download everything illegally, never pay for any of it and it doesn't bother me a bit" go vastly under-reported because that's a great way to get ripped a new one on a forum like this where the people who they are stealing from visit the site and are friends with many other posters.

Many people keep pointing to the instances where folks wouldn't have paid full price anyway so them downloading the file for free is not a loss of revenue on the part of the vendor.  I think that this ignores the fact that, while if there were no illegal avenue to obtain the PDF for free the person might be willing to pay $5 instead of the $10 listed price, given the option to purchase it for $5 or download it illegally for free, they'll take the free option.  I guess I'm saying that once you've opened the door and begun to download stuff illegally then you're probably going to ask yourself at some point, "Why should I ever pay for another PDF when I can just get it for free?"

I have a hard time not believing that a significant portion, if not a majority of the pirates out there just decide that there is absolutely no reason for them to pay for any of the stuff they can obtain for free.  While they may have the money and may genuinely enjoy many of the products they steal, enough to be willing to pay full price for them, there is no incentive to do so and there is no meaningful deterrent not to do so.  So, at that point, they have artificially lowered what they consider to be a reasonable price for a product to almost nothing because they KNOW they can just go steal it for free.  And since they have artificially lowered that price then they can claim, in one of the flimsiest of rationalizations I've ever heard, that they wouldn't have been willing to pay full price anyway so no loss of revenue is attributable to the vendor.


----------



## Umbran (May 13, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Many people keep pointing to the instances where folks wouldn't have paid full price anyway so them downloading the file for free is not a loss of revenue on the part of the vendor.  I think that this ignores the fact that, while if there were no illegal avenue to obtain the PDF for free the person might be willing to pay $5 instead of the $10 listed price, given the option to purchase it for $5 or download it illegally for free, they'll take the free option.




I don't ignore that point at all.  There are some folks who would pay the lower price if it were available.  There are some who would not.  

Unfortunately, the pdf business is small.  I would not be surprised if the occasional cut-rate sale would improve things for the vendors, but there's no good way to publicize.  Even EN World only reaches a small fraction of the market.  

The point about lost sales is not that there are no thieves.  It is merely that pdfs are not televisions.  If one takes a television out of a warehouse, there's a clear loss to the company who built that TV.  But for electronic media, without the warehouse and the physical objects, we must be a little more careful about how we calculate the economic losses involved in theft.  

This is not to say that there is not loss, and bad habits formed.  But in considering what we should do about it, we have to be fairly careful in our deliberations.



> I guess I'm saying that once you've opened the door and begun to download stuff illegally then you're probably going to ask yourself at some point, "Why should I ever pay for another PDF when I can just get it for free?"




Yep, if one is a bit weak in the ethics, and/or a bit short sighted, that is likely to happen.  

However, I should note that the door was opened back when the floppy disk was invented, and it isn't going to get closed unless we suffer catastrophy that knocks us back into pre-computer technology.  For purposes of this discussion, there's no such thing as unbreakable copy-protection.


----------



## Scotley (May 13, 2004)

dreaded_beast said:
			
		

> Has file-sharing had any significant affect on the RPG industry and how large do you think it is?




I remember reading a question and answer type article on the web where Gary Gygax noted that the odnd rules were frequently photocopied and passed around. This helped the initial growth of the game. In that sense at least file sharing has had a positive impact on gaming. I don't have link to the article, but I believe it was German or Italian in origin. 

Scotley


----------



## WizarDru (May 13, 2004)

med stud said:
			
		

> That is correct. I read in a paper somewhere that the music records are mainly commercials for the artist. Selling t-shirts and doing concerts is what makes them rich. It's logical; if you sell 1 000 000 CDs for 1,6 $ profit per CD will give you 1 600 000 dollars. It's much but it wont let you live like a rock star.



 The waters are, unfortunately, considerably muddier than this.  Different artists have different circumstances.  One reason Metallica was so vocal about Napster was that they own the rights to their work, and merely distribute the music: they reap a much higher portion of the profits of their work than, say, Prince, who was almost legendary for how badly he was abused by the record industry.  Contrast this with the Grateful Dead, who made (and in parts, still make) the lion's share of their quite formiddable profits from the proceeds of their touring schedule, not their music sales.  In fact, they received precious little of the proceeds, afaik, one reason for their famous attitude toward recordings and bootlegs (though personal philsophy was surely equally or more influential).

 Further, many stars might have made considerable salaries from their work in the past, if not for unethical treatment at the hands of their labels.  Issues such as charging exoribatant fees when recording the album _to the artist_, and then collecting those fess from their proceeds, was a farily famous and standard example.  An artist could have a hugely succesful record and actually end up owing the company money.

 These days, the merchandise may make the artist as much money as their work, but this really only applies to a certain tier of artists.  Further, contemporary contracts are much better (thanks to the efforts of many artists over the past few decades) than they once were.

 As for how piracy effects RPGs, I tend to think it has a small impact, inversely proportional to the publisher's size.  Fifty people pirating 'Elements of Magic' is far more damaging than 1000 people pirating Unearthed Arcana.

 I also agree with what Henry's saying, in that clearly, the material is desired, at some level.  That they're not willing to pay the requested price doesn't invalidate the laws of supply and demand, merely indicates that the ease of acquisition of those items has changed the negotiating price.  If those books were available no other way, I'm sure some of these pirates would buy them, if they were inexpensive enough, or they would purchase just one or two that were the most valuable to them.  Are there some who wouldn't buy any?  Quite likely....but I suspect the majority would, if the price point were low enough, purchase some of them.

 That said, I just can't see my way clear to illegally acquiring any RPG products.  EVER.


----------



## Lazybones (May 13, 2004)

I agree with everything that's been said about the ethics of filesharing.  I view copyright infringement as ethically wrong, in that it deprives the author of renumeration that he/she has earned by the intellectual labors involved in creating new IP.  I admit I have fileshared files of various sorts, and offer no justification/excuse for this behavior.  The fact remains in this debate, however, that some 60 million Americans have engaged in filesharing. 

That said, I think that the companies are in fact contributing to the overall acceptance by a large percentage of the population (leaving aside the die-hard "I want it free, gimme" folks who would probably do whatever they could get away with in any case) of filesharing as a legitimate practice.  While I agree that many people are just jerks who will stiff creators/authors/distributors whenever they can for their own selfish benefit, I also think that there are many people (I won't estimate whether this percentage is larger than the former group, but I would like to think that it is) who WANT to see creators get their due.  Unfortunately, the actions of content companies are pushing more people from Column B (people who generally want to play by the rules) into Column A (screw 'em).  

My reasoning behind this statement:

1) A point I asserted earlier in the discussion: a perception among the population that enjoys media of various sorts that the companies that control distribution of product screw the creators of said product out of an overwhelming majority of the revenues earned by sales; 

2) An aggressive campaign by content-controlling groups/companies (not so much in RPGs, but definitely in music and movies) to discourage copyright infringement by the pursuit of aggressive legal campaigns against often sympathetic targets (like college students), including filing lawsuits against infringers for millions of dollars with an obvious intent to pressure cash settlements from them; 

3) Pursuit by said groups of legislation that is perceived (rightly or wrongly) by the content-consuming public as unfair or unethical; for example the DMCA and other laws that erode widely-accepted principles of "fair use", and copyright extensions that have the practical effect of indefinitely withholding material from the public domain; 

4) Reluctance to accept or pursue new means of distribution that better suit the changing needs/wants of consumers.  The RPG industry is actually bucking this trend, I think, but accepting the PDF method of distribution of content.  In music, we are seeing iTunes and like models appear, which are great, but consumers are still unhappy about a) DRM, format, and copying restrictions that limit their ability to enjoy the product, and b) pricing models that do not reflect consumer desires.  Furthermore, there has been discussion of including even more restrictions in the next generation of media players (both computer software and hardware devices like TVs and DVD players) that has the potential of further alienating consumers.  


I'm not saying that content producers should just passively accept filesharing, but I do believe that these massive media companies are unwilling to accept what I see as the inevitable future model: a distribution model where more profits end up directly in the hands of content creators and the middlemen are increasingly removed from the picture.  Thus they are driven to even more aggressive campaigns to protect their monopolies and current profits.  History would suggest that these attempts will only drive consumers away to the alternatives.


----------



## Rel (May 13, 2004)

First up, Umbran, I just wanted to say that I consider you to be one of the people who really makes ENWorld a great place.  Just about every time I see one of your posts, I look forward to reading something thoughtful and insightful.  I've been meaning to tell you that and now is as good a time as any.  Kudos!



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> The point about lost sales is not that there are no thieves.  It is merely that pdfs are not televisions.  If one takes a television out of a warehouse, there's a clear loss to the company who built that TV.  But for electronic media, without the warehouse and the physical objects, we must be a little more careful about how we calculate the economic losses involved in theft.




Agreed.  Without the "brick and mortar" concerns, I'd suppose that their only real costs by the point at which they are selling the PDF would be the costs for maintaining their website and perhaps a bit of advertising.  But I don't think we should ignore (and I don't think YOU are, Umbran) the costs associated with producing the work in the first place.  I'm sure that in many cases the product produced is a "labor of love" but it is a "labor" nonetheless.  The pirates are gaining the benefit of that labor without paying for it and that is morally wrong.



> However, I should note that the door was opened back when the floppy disk was invented, and it isn't going to get closed unless we suffer catastrophy that knocks us back into pre-computer technology.  For purposes of this discussion, there's no such thing as unbreakable copy-protection.




You are absolutely correct and I don't want my point to be misunderstood.  I can foresee no real solution to this problem and there is probably no cost-effective way to implement one.  But I do maintain that the people who are stealing the PDF's are doing a wrong and they are doing it to the same people who they share their hobby with.  The people who are getting screwed in this whole situation are not some fat-cat corporate bigwigs who fly around in private jets.  PDF gaming products are produced, almost without exception, by people who play and love the game and are making a fairly small amount of money in the process.  To proclaim that they are not entitled to that little bit of cash for their efforts is a slap in the face to those who labor to increase your fun.

Therefore I don't see any point in using the same sorts of arguments about gaming PDF's that one would about mp3's and the music industry.


----------



## The Sigil (May 13, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> I think all this "stick it to the corporate MAN" stuff is total BS and is simply a rationalization.  If it works for you, fine, but I've got no respect for it.  Besides, the 3rd party publishers of d20 products are about as far away from "The Man" as you can get.
> (snip)
> They spent time that they could have spent with family or friends or working or gaming and instead they spent it making this product.  And what you're saying is that that time is worth *nothing*.



It's not a matter of d20 publishers being as far away from "the Man" as you can get.  I suggest you look at some of the stuff I quoted from Thomas Babington MacAulay again... the guy has a keen insight into human nature.


> At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains.
> ...
> On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
> ...
> ...



Look at that carefully.  It basically says once you set up "The MAN" against whom someone can rationalize their actions, it's just a quick trip down the slippery slope to screwing the "little guy" - because there's no convenient stopping point (do you stop at a company that has at least 30 employees? how do you know how many employees the company has? etc.) - I'm not saying it's RIGHT, just that it IS.  

Agree with the stance of "sticking it to the MAN" or not, I think there can be a legitimate argument made that corporations that have lobbied (and won) copyright extensions have defrauded and stolen from the populace.  They entered into an agreement when they created the work in the first place that they would receive a copyright term of X in exchange for creating the work and contributing it to the public consciousness.  That they have now lobbied for a copyright term of X+Y, coupled with more onerous DRM laws, _without offereing anything in consideration_ means the deal "smells bad."  IANAL, but if I am not mistaken, a contract (which is essentially what copyright is - a contract between the public and the writer/artist/etc.) is considered invalid without "grant and consideration" - meaning that *both* parties must receive something they did not have in return for what is given for an exchange to be binding.  The public, through the government, agreed to give Y years of copyright protection and onerous DRM laws and received nothing in exchange.  One could argue that this is a breach of the "Grant and Consideration" principle and therefore the contract is invalid and copyright term extensions are invalid (in the same way that I could have you sign a contract saying that I promise nothing and in return you will give me $100 - the legal system will not look on this as a valid contract because you received nothing in return -- you giving me $100 might be a gift, but it's not a valid contract).

Simply put, there are reasonable, rational arguments out there against current copyright laws... and these taint with "guilt by association" all copyright holders in the eyes of those who subscribe to those arguments.  Because the most prominent copyright holders (RIAA, MPAA, Disney) are the ones foisting these "bad deals," the less prominent copyright holders (RPG Publishers) just get lumped in under the "bad" umbrella - in the same way that "some black kid in South Central LA" is automatically presumed to be a gang member - or at least dangerous, or the way that the "white male is the root of all of society's problems" or that "feminists are loud, obnoxious jerks" or that "hispanics aren't interested in learning English" or that "middle easterners are all terrorists" etc.  These are horrible, stupid, stereotypes that exist only because the "most newsworthy" members of the group get the press, and so we assign to all members of the group the same attributes.  

As a small-fry copyright holder, I am pissed that the RIAA/Disney, et al put me in a bad light and poison the view people hold of the value of my work... in a similar way that I'm pissed that loud obnoxious American tourists have poisoned the view the world in general holds of Americans (and having lived abroad for a couple of years, it's true - you can usually spot the loud, obnoxious, "think-they-own-the-joint" American tourists a mile away - that doesn't mean ALL of us are like that).  Because of THEIR actions, I'm on the receiving end of ill will and copyright infringement.  Thanks, guys. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 13, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Therefore I don't see any point in using the same sorts of arguments about gaming PDF's that one would about mp3's and the music industry.



Aside from the "want to see before I buy" stance, I agree with this.

One question I do have for the "preview" file-sharers: Do any of you find yourselves "backed-up" in your planned purchases?  How many have found yourselves in possession of _so much_ material that you _want_ to buy that you can't possibly do so in a reasonable amount of time?  Or, more possibly in my mind, at such an expense that you can't feasibly afford it all?

I'm not looking to rip on anyone for this; I'm just curious how often the desires of the "previewer" aren't possible due to the facts of the sitaution.  This thread does have me considering doing so (I'd most certainly be able to see _a lot_ faster via fileshare than waiting for enough reviews to be written or for someone I know to have gotten the product), but with so much material out there, I'd be worried about this happening to me, and happening _quickly_.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 13, 2004)

There's some ground I want to cover with this response...

1.)JingJang, maps by Rand-McNally and WotC are two very different things. Street maps, world atlases and the like are essentially purely factual historical documents and technically shouldn't be covered under copyright law on that very basis. On the other hand, a map in a game is very often a work of fiction that does not present a historical representation of any place in the real world, so they are covered under copyright law the same as any other work of fiction.

2.) What counts as a lost sale? An individual having the product and not paying for it. That's it, end of discussion. Just because they claim they would not have bought it doesn't mean you've heard the gospel of truth uttered from their lips. The fact is they have it and they didn't pay for it. Thier possession means the publisher lost money.

3.) Justification is nothing but lip service. They say they never would have bought it to begin with? To that I say why is it still sitting on their systems? If it was so worthless to them, I'd think they'd get rid of it to make it easier to manage their illegal collection of "useful things". They can't afford it? Why are they wasting time gaming instead of working a second job if they're that broke? Besides, now is not forever. You steal the book now, which means when you can afford it, you won't be buying it. Downloaded it for a preview? if you didn't like it, you should have deleted it. If you did like it, you should have deleted it until you bought it. 

But in the end, none of these justifications explains away putting the files out there to share off your own computer. Once you've done that, you've made yourself an accomplice to the ongoing crimes of copyright infringement and counterfeiting.

I think the real truth is that regardless the justification offered, in the end it is all a matter of greed. In the end, a desire to have the product without spending money on it, for whatever reason, generates a sense of greed that overrides their understanding that we authors have earned the money they would have spent on it.

4.) having a hardcopy of the book in its print edition does not entitle you to the right to produce backups. About 10 years ago, a law firm started "saving" money by photcopying pages of books in their legal library. They were sued by numerous publishers over this action and the publishers won on the ground that there was nothing stopping the law firm from buying multiple copies of the books for decimation down to individual pages to serve the same purpose as the photocopies.

5.) They only thing I see as justifiable is status of a book with a publisher. A book going out of print is like waving a huge flag and screaming "this book isn't worth selling anymore". If copyright were structured more like trademark with the "use it or lose it" model, OOP items wouldn't even be considered pirated. However, moving an OOP product to the PDF market does counter this entire outlook, so publishers should strongly consider moving an OOP product into PDF status ASAP after deciding to not reprint.

6.) As far as the PDF industry is concerned, P2P applications usually do not represent the bulk the piracy. It is usenet and IRC that are the problems.

7.) My own little "report" on piracy over a 13 month period is based on tracking down unique sources from which the files can be downloaded, unlike Warlord Ralts, who put together a means to track end users (his numbers suggest there could be as many as 5 end users for each source). Think about this. the average pdf can expect 100-500 sales in its lifespan. I uncovered over 700 sources for downloading my PDFs for free. Ralts identified 3000 end users who downloaded a pay product for free.


----------



## Prest0 (May 13, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> It's not a matter of d20 publishers being as far away from "the Man" as you can get. (snip)
> 
> Agree with the stance of "sticking it to the MAN" or not, I think there can be a legitimate argument made that corporations that have lobbied (and won) copyright extensions have defrauded and stolen from the populace.  (snip)
> 
> ...




Or maybe people just like free stuff. 

I strongly suspect that even if copyright only extended 10 years, people would still download PDFs without paying for them.


----------



## The Sigil (May 13, 2004)

Prest0 said:
			
		

> Or maybe people just like free stuff.
> 
> I strongly suspect that even if copyright only extended 10 years, people would still download PDFs without paying for them.



The "if it's free, there will be a line" theory is definitely true, however...

My theory, however, goes like this... if copyright only extended 10 years _in the first place_ there would not be scores of people posting files to the web, P2P networks, etc. because the "critical mass" of ill wil and justification needed to launch sufficient piracy in the first place would never emerge.  

But because we have essentially unlimited copyrights, we have passed the critical mass of ill will and justification.  If copyright were reduced to 10 years starting today, I think we'd still see filesharing for the next 60 years or so until the current generation of people - who grew up with strangling copyright - dies off.

Basically, the damage is already done... shortening copyright now won't undo it... but I think had copyright not been lengthened so much in the first place, we might not be in this spot now.

This is all speculative, but I really think that if people had a reasonable expectation to legally obtain things for free in their own lifetimes, we wouldn't see piracy the way it is today.  And of course, if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle. 

--The Sigil


----------



## Lazybones (May 14, 2004)

I agree, 10 years is sufficient (I'd have gone with 14 for the sake of symmetry with the original term of copyright, but I'm easily convinced to go down to 10). 

Again, no stats ready at hand, but I'd wager that the lion's share of profits on most media are earned in the 1st 10 years following publication.  I know there are some exceptions; some authors, for example, aren't "discovered" for a while after their first few books are out. 

I don't know why we have this idea that people (or more frequently, companies that absorb the rights of the copyright) are entitled to benefit for 50, 70, or 90 years after the product is made anyway.  Sure, writing a book, or a song, takes effort, and it should be renumerated.  But why the heck does that entitle your descendants to benefit from that in perpetuity?  Or even yourself; hey, here's an idea, if you want more benefits after a decade... *write another book*.  Plus there's a benefit for the author: I would think that your later work, if it's good, would sell more, since your earlier work would be disseminated more among the population, being freely available to all. 

This garbage where girl scouts are forced to pay a fee for singing "happy birthday" at their camps is ridiculous and stupid. IMHO and YMMV. 

Heck, I'll even recant and allow copyright for life... but with one caveat: that copyrights can only be held by individuals, not by a corporation.  And all material immediately goes into the public domain upon the death of the creator.  Free Mickey!


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (May 14, 2004)

I'd like to point something out here...

All of the moralistic points of view, and arguing, still ignored one fact, even to the point of suggesting that I was borderline retarded and thought I could be the next Gygax...

THREE THOUSAND DOWNLOADS!

TWELVE HUNDRED OF THEM OPEN THE DOCUMENT MORE THAN FIVE TIMES!

ONE THOUSAND OPENED IT FOR AT LEAST 6 MONTHS, AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH!

SEVEN HUNDRED OPENED IT AT LEAST TWICE A WEEK FOR OVER SIX MONTHS!

That means, that each of the companies, each of the authors, lost $700 because of the few "preview" pages of the document that was attatched to the several pages of advertisements.

Tell me now that money wasn't stolen from the authors and publishers.

Justify that.

I'll be around, I'm currently working on another PDF product for people to rip off and justify with "Stickin' it to the man!" or the ever popular "RPG Products by 3rd party people should be free, man!"

Yeah, this is irritating to me. Those are the numbers, and that probably didn't even TOUCH those that pass them around through the "Six degrees of seperation" theory, the guys who deleted it because of the ads, and wanted the whole book.

And to answer the question: No, I didn't plan on being the next Gary Gygax. Yes, my family does have another source of income.
Could I have used the $1200?
Yup. That's basically a months pay in my household. So I basically had a month's pay stolen from my household.

How would you feel if I walked up to you on Payday, stuck a pistol in your face, took the money out of your wallet, and walked off? All you lost was the money, I even let you keep the wallet. And it's not like you had it.

Did you expect to get paid for your work?


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I agree, 10 years is sufficient (I'd have gone with 14 for the sake of symmetry with the original term of copyright, but I'm easily convinced to go down to 10).
> 
> Again, no stats ready at hand, but I'd wager that the lion's share of profits on most media are earned in the 1st 10 years following publication. I know there are some exceptions; some authors, for example, aren't "discovered" for a while after their first few books are out.
> 
> ...



I'd disagree that the lion's share is in the first 10 years. Clearly, that wasn't the case for Tolkien, for example, and at that rate, authors like J.K. Rowling, Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin would be putting out books in a series whose first editions had already been released to the public domain. I didn't get into Harry Potter until the third book had come out, and just prior to the fourth book.

I'm not sure that I see it as some great evil if the Tolkien family is able to pass their fathers work on as a legacy and a way to take care of his children, or that J.K. Rowling shouldn't be able to benefit from her works.

None of this, of course, deals with works that are 'evergreen'. My early views of "I, Robot" make it look pretty bad...but even if it isn't much good, it will probably still result in some curious readers purchasing some of his work. I'm of two minds as to how long such things should be protected, really. 

Should such works be eventually released to the public domain without fail? I can see reasons for either answer.

Why, for example, should Mickey be 'free'?  Disney's still making money off of him.  On the other hand, more than half of Disney's movies are retelling of public domain tales...so I have no idea.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 14, 2004)

Just to clarify something:

The Piracy of OD&D didn't go very far.  In those same interviews, Gary actually either had volunteers or paid people who would go to the conventions, and would actually find the bootleg copies, wrest them from the people and destroy them.

If the piracy became rampant back then, we wouldn't have the hobby we have today.


----------



## Prest0 (May 14, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> This is all speculative, but I really think that if people had a reasonable expectation to legally obtain things for free in their own lifetimes, we wouldn't see piracy the way it is today.  And of course, if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle.




Precisely. We can speculate as to the deep societal causes until we're all blue in the face, but in the end it doesn't matter a hill of beans. As Warlord Ralts has demonstrated, people can use whatever justification they want but it still comes down to money out of the pockets of small publishers like us. Period.


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 14, 2004)

I do agree with Sigil about Copyright law, it has become bloated and a little too overbearing.  In some ways, I think the Internet and Filesharing helped bring reforms.  Music was overpriced.  Use of electronic communication was overpriced--remember when message boards cost 3-12 bucks an hour of use?  The new technology always brings some economic chaos, etc.

However--studying sociology, I've seen evidence that unless is violates an extreme moral point of view--murder--if you remove the consequences for stealing or theft, more people will do it.  I think if piracy becomes too easy, people will copy stuff for free and not bother to pay for it--I think there are upstanding moral people who either buy the product or delete it, but I think unless there is the fear of punishment, more people will do it.

There's a software developer I like, the guy who created HomeSite and TopStyle.  He presented his own case here--he actually setup the software to report how many people used it--he found out more people used the pirated version than legitimately subscribed to it--and that's only from his pseudo-crack, not people who actually hacked it as well.   I've also seen companies copy software left and right--and this is a guy who charges a very reasonable price.

http://nick.typepad.com/blog/2004/01/on_piracy.html 

I am also concerned about the new memetic warfare going on, mostly started by radical thinkers like Richard M. Stallman.  While I accept a few things the Free Software Foundation want, there are some bothersome things involved.   The whole copyright is not theft argument is a bit suspicious--at the very least, it is akin to shoplifiting--just because it can be physically copied doesn't mean it should be.

The cartoonist Sergio Aragones (sp?) once had somebody indignatly say why he should pay $100 for a sketch that took him 1/2 hour to draw.  He put it this way--"You're not paying for the half-hour it took me to do the drawing.  You're paying for the forty-one years it took me to learn how to do that."  I see many people forgetting about that part of the equation.

What will eventually happen is one of two things:

1)  DRM will become a reality--eventually hardware and software will be implemented.  The only reason it hasn't worked now is because it's still in the infancy.  Most people will accept this, as long as they don't become exploitive.  I don't want to see fair use become eliminated, but I also don't want the current unprotected status quo to remain the same.

2)  Piracy becomes overly rampant and all of industries suffer for it.  The western countries end up going into economic chaos.  This will be slow to start but it will be an eventual certainty unless we can stem the flow of piracy, reducing it to pre-Internet levels.

Here's the big reason why I think #1 will win.  You will note in the last few years, the global trend towards outsourcing.  Outside of service industries like McDonalds and dry-cleaning, the only place we can remain competitve is in the field of Intellectual Property.  Whether it's software R&D, entertainment media, or coallated databases, it will be threatened if rampant piracy prevents a revenue stream.  DRM will be implemented, just like anti-counterfeiting measures are added to money.  Nobody complains that we should stop adding protections to Money, or to credit cards--why not electronic media?


----------



## Kalanyr (May 14, 2004)

Because the protection on my credit card doesn't potentially allow someone to shutdown a computer I payed $7000 (or my bank account) for at a whim ? 

DRM has a far higher potential to be abused than protection on credit cards/cash because it can shut down other things (than it should) when its implemented into the hardware. Its not like protecting money its like putting small bombs into money rigged to go off when its counterfeited, which I think is a trifle excessive.

Edit - Let me make it clear, no I do not think electronic filesharing abuse is a good thing, I do however have electronic copies of all the books I own because my laptop is lighter than the 3 ft stack of 3e books I own. I do not share them.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (May 14, 2004)

I have _yet_ to download any pirated material.  Back in the day, I was willing to share material (e.g., computer games) among friends and family--still do, sort of.  But I've yet to download anything pirated.

I'm tempted, I admit.  I had an extensive collection, at one time.  I've managed to regain over 300 D&D to 2E D&D books and boxed sets by legally buying them from RPG Now and SV Games.  But that program has apparently been discontinued, since there hasn't been a "new" old game in a while.  And the gaps are ridiculous (Encyclopedia Magica 1, 3, and 4, but no 2, for instance, with the paper versions going multiple times the cover price).

Plus, I don't want to be surrounded by boxes and boxes of books (twenty-eight before I started to sell 'em off--some of it, I only looked at once or twice every couple of years).

As for d20, oy!, but I have a collection.  Not as much as before, since I'm much choosier now, but still enough that I have five boxes already (GURPS, D&D3.xE, d20).  So at some point, I'll download some pirated stuff, just to either pick-and-choose content (maybe just the OGL stuff?), since I have very definite (but still vague  ) ideas about what I'd want in a campaign world, and I'm tired of paying $30 for a book of which I only want 3 pages.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Could I have used the $1200?
> Yup. That's basically a months pay in my household. So I basically had a month's pay stolen from my household.




Only $1200?

Where on earth did you come up with that number? 

By my reckoning, you tracked enough people willing to steal Crimson Contracts to account for a total of  $35,850 worth of theft on that title alone.

(You tracked 3,000 people that willingly downloaded the file expecting a free copy of a PDF priced at $11.95)


----------



## Kalanyr (May 14, 2004)

Dana, this is just my opinion but: 
Blowing up the number to a false figure does not help Ralts, his estimate shows how much it HURTS without assuming that everyone who downloaded it would have bought it, which they wouldn't have, on top of that some of those who did download it may have bought it later, its impossible to tell, you cannot count every unique IP address as a lost sale, on top of that anyone using a dialup modem can contribute at least a unique IP address a day. 

When Ralts says he lost a reasonable amount of money I feel sorry for him and he's been badly treated, when however you make the claim he lost far more than he actually did I start to look at it as deliberate obfuscation and that tends to make me dislike the people engaging in it. 

Ralts however did not, and yes those who downloaded his product without paying for it and could have willingly paid the price he asked for it should be disgusted with themselves, it [Crimson Contracts] is an excellent book and looks to be well worth the money (Ralts gave me a copy of the 3e version and it really is a very good book).


----------



## Sledge (May 14, 2004)

Having paid for numerous pdf's (including crimson contract's) I have to admit that I can see why people would pirate.  The question is still whether it hurts the publisher, because as much as someone might want to look at the sheer number of people that seem to have "stolen" their product, I think that the publisher would have to admit that sales of that level are not realistic for their product.  Most of the pdf books out there are good buys at 2-5 dollars.  However I have yet to purchase a pdf I would have paid 11.95 for.  If it wasn't around $5 it wasn't worth it.  Even a book like Crimson Contracts is really only useable in a very small amount in a single campaign.
Rather than complaining about potential loss of sales, I would suggest being more positive.  I honestly think the IP viral code in the pdf was a very big mistake.  Any book you had permission from the author to release with that code is now a legitimate copy.  The thing that should have really been done is some form of alteration to indicate the copy was not legitimate.  I have use file sharing services as quick means to download netbook releases.  In the process I have gotten many files of buyable pdfs.  Some of these have been renamed even.  In every case had I not known of the product, owned it already, or gone the extra mile and checked the website of the publisher I would never have known the product was not intentionally released as such.  Put a price tag on the cover or a note on the first page.  If you want to slow piracy down then motivate people to buy from you, don't just get grouchy.  Remember also that the majority of people downloading may be UNABLE to buy your product in a convenient manner.  To set up online payment and all that it entails is time consuming.  For the people sharing the files it is usually much much easier to simply search and download.
There have to be many ways to positively influence people into supporting the authors that create the source of their pastime.


----------



## Geron Raveneye (May 14, 2004)

What I've wondered for a long time now is why a lot of the companies that publish print products won't sell the hardcopy versions in pdf-format, allowing a price reduction for those customers who already bought the hardcopy and only want a pdf for laptop transport?

I mean, it can't be that hard...include a unique alphanumerical password in every hardcopy, set up a server with the pdf files that allows a one-time-only access for that specific password, and grant people who buy the pdf with that password a price reduction attractive enough to make it worth their while?

I'm sure a lot of people who posted in this thread with "I only download scans of the books I have for the purpose of laptop transportation" would have gladly paid $5 more for a pdf version of their books?


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (May 14, 2004)

*Giving away Open Content, selling added value*



			
				Sledge said:
			
		

> There have to be many ways to positively influence people into supporting the authors that create the source of their pastime.




One of these ways is for publishers to make sure that what they're selling is better than what people can take for free! Behemoth3 isn't going to tell you to stop gaming and get a job if you can't afford to support your gaming pastime/obsession/addiction. We know what it's like to have a boring job that's made tolerable only by having a cool PDF open on your desktop & hiding it every time the boss walks by. If the electronic version of Masters and Minions helps get you through the day, then you're one day closer to having the money to pay for it. We hope you'll agree it's worth the price! 

Stealing a crust of bread if you're starving is the classic example of when it's justified to take something for free. Behemoth3 isn't going to begrudge anyone a crust of bread. As gamers, we've been in the situation of having to decide whether to spend money on food or a new RPG book; as publishers, we want our customers to live long, healthy, happy lives (so they can buy more books from us) so we encourage you to eat right!

Bread is a good metaphor because restaurants give it away for free. They trust that generally people won't come in and eat the bread off the table and leave; what they're actually selling is the chance to sit down with your friends in a nice, comfortable environment and share a meal together.

Check out our initial SwoRD release for an example of the bread Behemoth3 is giving away for free, and then salivate over the forthcoming Vorpal tools that will be available to paying customers.




			
				Geron Raveneye said:
			
		

> I'm sure a lot of people who posted in this thread with "I only download scans of the books I have for the purpose of laptop transportation" would have gladly paid $5 more for a pdf version of their books?




Interesting; we were planning to give away the pdf version for free to people who bought the print version. Our reasoning is that it was better to use a sticker system such as you describe and try to increase the number of people who use PDF at all than to try to make a few bucks off the few who might pay for PDF versions.




			
				JohnRTroy said:
			
		

> I am also concerned about the new memetic warfare going on, mostly started by radical thinkers like Richard M. Stallman.




Ever since the Open Gaming License, our entire community has been in the forefront of the meme and culture wars! Long live the glorious revolution.

The discussion of copyright in this thread has missed the point that much of a d20/OGL release is actually operating under a copyleft system. For those who are calculating lost revenues: are you correcting for the percentage of your work that is Open Game Content & thus properly belongs to the community anyways?


----------



## JohnRTroy (May 14, 2004)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> Ever since the Open Gaming License, our entire community has been in the forefront of the meme and culture wars! Long live the glorious revolution.
> 
> The discussion of copyright in this thread has missed the point that much of a d20/OGL release is actually operating under a copyleft system. For those who are calculating lost revenues: are you correcting for the percentage of your work that is Open Game Content & thus properly belongs to the community anyways?




Revolutions don't always work though.  

This thread was about the RPG industry, not the d20 industry.  I see the OGL as an interesting experiment, that might either succeed or fail depending on what happens.  If the industry collapses because the free content providers exploit it too much, then it's a failure.

As far as DRM goes--no, "shutting down" the computer is not the only option.  I see it like the cable industry--in the beginning, it was a lot easier to get free cable, they didn't have the ability to detect siphons and feeds and didn't have a central management system.  Newer cable boxes and connection systems allow a much tighter control on cable theft now.  I would eventually see some sort of method being used for electronically distributed media.


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Having paid for numerous pdf's (including crimson contract's) I have to admit that I can see why people would pirate. The question is still whether it hurts the publisher, because as much as someone might want to look at the sheer number of people that seem to have "stolen" their product, I think that the publisher would have to admit that sales of that level are not realistic for their product. Most of the pdf books out there are good buys at 2-5 dollars. However I have yet to purchase a pdf I would have paid 11.95 for. If it wasn't around $5 it wasn't worth it. Even a book like Crimson Contracts is really only useable in a very small amount in a single campaign.



  [blinks]

  Wow.

 I can only assume I value money less than you do, if you considered titles like Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe, Three Arrows for the King and others to be barely worth $5, if at all. Either that, or you've just picked some really bad PDFs.

 I guess I just don't get it.  Seeing a new movie when it first comes out can be $8-11, depending on where you go.  Factor in snacks, and a single person can spend $13-20 alone, for around 1.5-3 hours worth of entertainment.  A matinee may drop that price by a couple of dollars.  And yet RPG books are considered overpriced, despite the continual increase in paper costs...even though they generate a better value over time.  The justification that "_Oh, it's too expensive...they MAKE me steal it_" is pretty silly, to me.  Especially since piracy tends to cause the price of a product to be inflated, to ensure that they can turn in profit.  I remember what it was like to buy computer games that were sold on cassette tapes, thankyouverymuch, and I remember what the market was like.  I think the market for RPG books rather resembles that market, now.  Ultimately, piracy was never stopped, just the product reached a large enough economy of scale that they could afford to lower the price.


----------



## mroberon1972 (May 14, 2004)

I was just informed of this thread this morning, so I'm late...

I know all of the arguments about piracy, and mine is not a logical reaction.  It's an emotional one.

"That's my bloody book out there.  I paid $250 to make it, and still owe $400 to pay it off.  Why couldn't the bloody basitch who posted it have waited until I paid off my friggen artists!?!"

Yes... I know...  Cost of doing business...

But I do not have to like it or take it quietly.

Keep in mind, I'm not after the people downloading it.  They're just doing what people do...

I want to get the guys who post it in the first place.

He has NO excuse.


John Bowden
Mr. Oberon
The Fool


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

These struck me as pretty funny:


----------



## mroberon1972 (May 14, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> These struck me as pretty funny:




<sigh>  I'm a sucker...  It never even occured to me to care enough to cheat...


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Dana, this is just my opinion but:
> Blowing up the number to a false figure does not help Ralts, his estimate shows how much it HURTS without assuming that everyone who downloaded it would have bought it, which they wouldn't have, on top of that some of those who did download it may have bought it later, its impossible to tell, you cannot count every unique IP address as a lost sale, on top of that anyone using a dialup modem can contribute at least a unique IP address a day.
> 
> When Ralts says he lost a reasonable amount of money I feel sorry for him and he's been badly treated, when however you make the claim he lost far more than he actually did I start to look at it as deliberate obfuscation and that tends to make me dislike the people engaging in it.






    It is reasonable to think that some of the downloads might possibly have been by the same people at different times, appearing as different IP's.  That seems reasonable.

    What I cannot agree with is the leap that the author loses nothing if the material is stolen, er, downloaded, by someone who "wouldn't have bought the product anyway."  If a thief breaks into a bookstore and steals merchandise, has the thief only stolen a value equal to what the thief could have paid for?  The most apparent difference between this case and the cases being discussed is that the material stolen has definite physical reality, but shouldn't that just be changed to the price of printing the books, in this view?

    If someone receives the, I guess I'll call it the "commercially useful portion", of a product (the information in a book, the ability to listen to a piece of music) without paying a price to the vendor, then the material has been stolen.  I don't see the moral high ground to downloading for free what normally has a price.

   There seems to be a perception that the individual has a genuine right to have access to material produced by a second party, and if the work is unavailable (by being OOP), or if the price of the goods are above what the indidvidual in question thinks is appropriate, then the individual has the right (it almost seems like it is being considered an absolute moral imperative) to get the material for less/free - by any means necessary.  I would like to see this addressed.



> Ralts however did not, and yes those who downloaded his product without paying for it and could have willingly paid the price he asked for it should be disgusted with themselves, it [Crimson Contracts] is an excellent book and looks to be well worth the money (Ralts gave me a copy of the 3e version and it really is a very good book).




  So if someone has decided that they weren't willing to pay the asking price on a product, then they have the moral right to grab it illicitly?  I don't get your logic at all.  If you are saying that this theft is all right because the source wasn't going to see any money for it anyway, then I disagree in that   if the material has "no value" to them dowloader, why do they have it?  If the response is that they were always going to have budgeted for other things, then their decision-making process was altered by the idea that they was something they wanted enogh to take that they didn't have to pay for.

      What is the "right" someone has to someone else's work?


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

mroberon1972 said:
			
		

> <sigh>  I'm a sucker...  It never even occured to me to care enough to cheat...



 Yeah well, I wouldn't take that as anything resembling truth...it's just a comic.  I honestly didn't know anyone who actually cheated in any real sense when I went to school, though I knew there were those who did.

 One could argue that my senior project was something of a cheat, but I prefer to think of my non-functioning database as a dog-and-pony show.  My front-end worked and the database presentation was awesome...that it was, essentially, vaporware is beside the point.  Some might even argue that it gave me valuable skills for professional business work later.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

Tav_Behemoth said:
			
		

> Stealing a crust of bread if you're starving is the classic example of when it's justified to take something for free.




    Is this level ever reached for a leisure pasttime?


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Dana, this is just my opinion but:
> Blowing up the number to a false figure does not help Ralts, his estimate shows how much it HURTS without assuming that everyone who downloaded it would have bought it, which they wouldn't have, on top of that some of those who did download it may have bought it later, its impossible to tell, you cannot count every unique IP address as a lost sale, on top of that anyone using a dialup modem can contribute at least a unique IP address a day.
> 
> When Ralts says he lost a reasonable amount of money I feel sorry for him and he's been badly treated, when however you make the claim he lost far more than he actually did I start to look at it as deliberate obfuscation and that tends to make me dislike the people engaging in it.
> ...




Kalanyr, if you think my assessment is an extreme, then your views are the opposite extreme. He did lose more than $1200. Based on repeat openings, he's got a lost of 1200 people with stable IP addresses. That right there alone represents the willingness to steal $14,000, not a mere $1200. Publishers only hurt themselves by trying to quantify how many downloads would have represented buyers, since that relies on the false justifications that the thieves offer up as an excuse for their activities.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Yeah well, I wouldn't take that as anything resembling truth...it's just a comic.  I honestly didn't know anyone who actually cheated in any real sense when I went to school, though I knew there were those who did.




   Well, one of the points of this thread is that people had radically different ideas of what is "cheating", and what is "acceptable".  After all, I note that you qualified your statement to say "in any real sense", a nice fuzzy phrase that can conceal a variety of sins.  

  I'm in academia, and this is a real problem.  I tried to give a set of tests as take-home", using the honor system, and I had a full third of the class cheat (9 out of 27).  There were several cases of copying another's work completely (including diagrams and scracthed-out work), and more limited cases of copying selected problems.  I don't know if a random reader would consider these as cheating in a real sense ("Hey, I only cheated on one test", or "Hey, I didn't cheat on the whole test"), but I consider the act and the current culture serious enough that I would willing have a student expelled for this level of cheating.  To be complete, I consider that those who gave other students access to their papers to cheat a culpable as well, and deserving of the same level of reaction.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 14, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> Yeah well, I wouldn't take that as anything resembling truth...it's just a comic.



Yeah, but it's _Doonesbury_, which has always been a bit closer to reality than most other media (ever since Viet Nam, in fact) despite its clearly satirical leanings.


----------



## Prest0 (May 14, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I'm in academia, and this is a real problem.




Dr. Harry--where are you from? I'm also in academia (administration) here in TX.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

Prest0 said:
			
		

> Dr. Harry--where are you from? I'm also in academia (administration) here in TX.




Where I'm from?  Long Story.

Where I'm at?  Kingsville - 45 mi SW of Corpus Christi, assuming that Corpus Christi still exists after last night's storms.

How 'bout you?


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Well, one of the points of this thread is that people had radically different ideas of what is "cheating", and what is "acceptable". After all, I note that you qualified your statement to say "in any real sense", a nice fuzzy phrase that can conceal a variety of sins.



 Well I used that because, AFAIK, none of my friends actually did cheat. At least, certainly not on exams or tests of any stripe. When I went to school, the web was not available to distribute term papers and tests, for example.  They certainly didn't openly brag about doing so, and showed no inclination for it.  The "in any real sense" is to indicate that maybe they borrowed an answer for an assignment that was late when they were in a rush, although I'm not aware of it.  But I know for a fact there wasn't any shortcutting on lab experiments, accounting work and the like. 

 Now, the only take-home exams I took, and they were few, were clearly meant as over-glorified research reports, and usually required you to show your work whenever possible...but the 'rules of the game' so to speak, were always made quite clear. And further, cheating didn't help you much, when you had 10-week quarters, semi-finals every third week, and classes that assumed you'd absorbed and mastered previous material. Of course, that may have accounted for the 50% freshman drop-out rate. 

 I'm curious as to what constitutes cheating on a take-home exam, for example. Were these essay questions that were copied, or just multiple choice answers that several people all got exactly wrong (which isn't to say I think they weren't cheating...I'm really just curious)?


----------



## Prest0 (May 14, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> How 'bout you?




College Station


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I'm curious as to what constitutes cheating on a take-home exam, for example.  Were these essay questions that were copied, or just multiple choice answers that several people all got exactly wrong (which isn't to say I think they weren't cheating...I'm really just curious)?




    These were problem-based physics tests.  I was trying to use take-homes because for the summer semesters everything is so compressed that in-class tests are hard to schedule and harder to do for the student that has had less time to do the recommended problems.  Becasue I was aware that the students considered the school to have something of a reputation as a place where cheating went on, I made three versions of the same test.  When someone took test "C" and gave me all the answers for test "A", I knew there was a problem.  When two exams showed *exactly* the same work, including repeating mis-spellings, dead ends, and *doodles*, I knew something was wrong.  I also realize that this underrepresents the prevalence of cheating, as it only required some fairly elementary techniques to avoid being caught.

     Sigh.  This is why I don't keep a bottle of Scotch in my desk at work.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

Prest0 said:
			
		

> College Station




Ah, so we're in the same system.  What's it like to actually get support from the state?


----------



## Thanatos (May 14, 2004)

I'm sorry, but my opinion is that you are either using faulty logic or basing it on a faulty premise.

Lets break it down.



			
				Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> ...He did lose more than $1200. Based on repeat openings,




Basis on 'repeat' openings is faulty. If you claim 'loss of sale' you don't get to make that claim everytime the infringer opens the product. The RIAA does not claim based on 'repeat' listening to an illegally downloaded MP3. It just doesn't hold up in any kind of business model profit/loss or supply/demand model I am familiar with.



> he's got a lost of 1200 people with stable IP addresses. That right there alone represents the willingness to steal $14,000, not a mere $1200.




Define a stable IP address? In a world of either dynamic or static ip addresses where people can often have both, you can't qualify that 1 ip address = 1 person. At my home, I have 1 dynamic ip address for my laptop (wireless) and one static for it (switch connection) and another static for my gaming pc. That's 3 and I am 1 person. I often use multiple combinations to obtain some download. I know many, many computer people that have at least 3 IP addresses and do things with a similiar methodology to mine. This also is simply not a valid way to determine actual loss. 



> Publishers only hurt themselves by trying to quantify how many downloads would have represented buyers, since that relies on the false justifications that the thieves offer up as an excuse for their activities.




I agree with you here that trying to use ambigious statistics to quantify and claim loss only generates public/user resentment and in the end, hurts themselves.

The RIAA/MPAA are excellent examples of using misleading statistics to get legislation passed for their own ends. If they spent half the money they are spending on lawyers to come up with a new business/distribution model, that whole fiasco would probably be right back where it was 10 years ago.


----------



## Umbran (May 14, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> What I cannot agree with is the leap that the author loses nothing if the material is stolen, er, downloaded, by someone who "wouldn't have bought the product anyway."




Let's say my left hand gets chopped off in a tragic accident involving sliced cheese and a copy of the Styx "Crystal Ball" album.  Have I now lost my chance to become a lead violinist in the New York Philharmonic?

No, because I don't play a violin, I never had a chance.  You cannot lose that which you never could have had.

Now, perhaps some other party is somehow responsible for this accident.  This person has done me wrong, and I may sue.  But I cannot list the income I would have gotten from the New York Philharmonic when I seek damages.

The thing is, that folks who have illegal copies of pdfs (or mp3s, or whatever) are inviolation of the law.  Yes, they have stolen.  But not every theft represents an economic loss.



> If a thief breaks into a bookstore and steals merchandise, has the thief only stolen a value equal to what the thief could have paid for?  The most apparent difference between this case and the cases being discussed is that the material stolen has definite physical reality, but shouldn't that just be changed to the price of printing the books, in this view?




Not quite.  We have to be careful when we make analogies between theft of physical products and theft of information.

If someone sneaks into a warehouse and steals a radio, it is clear that the manufacturer cannot now make a profit from selling that particular radio, and so suffers a loss.

If someone sneaks into a bookstore and walks out with a tome, likewise, since that physical object now cannot be sold, the retailer suffers a loss.

But, let's say someone sneaks into the bookstore with a battery-powered photocopier, their own toner, and a bunch of paper.  They photocopy the book and put the original on the shelf in as close to mint condition as anyone could ever tell.  He leaves with only the copy.  The retailer can still sell that book!  Which means that figuring out exactly how much was lost becomes a bit less straightforward.  A game of "what if?"

If the theif walks out and immediately burns the copy, the merchant has lost nothing.  If the theif walks out, and starts selling cut-rate copies of the book, the merchant has lost much more than the value of one copy.  The actual loss incurred can lie anywhere in a spectrum from zero to something very high, depending on circumstances.



> I don't see the moral high ground to downloading for free what normally has a price.




For the record, I don't discuss the "loss of sale" issue to establish moral high ground for the theif.  We have copyrights in order to protect the economic well-being of those who create new intellectual structures.  If we want to have sane copyright laws, we must be accurate and honest about the economics of data theft.  If we only have a naive estimate of the losses, we will also have naive rules, and they won't work well.  Rather like what we have today.



> There seems to be a perception that the individual has a genuine right to have access to material produced by a second party, and if the work is unavailable (by being OOP)...




In the case of out of print material, the owner of the rights does not allow me the opportunity to give them anything for their work.  It becomes a bit sticky to argue that an illegal copy causes a loss when the owner wasn't accepting money in the first place.  Again, it is the owner's right to publisht he work or not.  It would be illegal for me to copy it, even if they don't publish.  But since they aren't making money off it, and in fact refuse to make money off it, how can a copy for personal use cause them an economic loss?  

There are reasons to consider such copying a bit of a loss, actually, but evaluating how much of a loss there is becomes hairy.



> What is the "right" someone has to someone else's work?




Good question.

Imagine that after the aforementioned tragic accident in which I lost my left hand, I then use the Styx CD to save the life of George RR Martin.  And, in gratitude, he gives me the rights to the current "Song of Fire and Ice" books.  Because I am either a jerk or an idiot, or both, I allow them to go out of print, and refuse to print new copies.  Legally, such is my right.  Nothing you can do to stop me, so there, nyah.    

So, legally, I'm in the right.  But morally?  I'm dong a bit of a disservice to Mr. Martin, who isn't yet finished with the series.  I'm doing a disservice to those who haven't yet read all of what has already been published.  And so on.  Whle my legal rights are not questionable, the morality of my position is not exactly grand.  The moral position of those who thwart me is somewhat better then, no?

Which goes to show - legal rights and moral high ground are not necessarily linked.  We prefer to have our laws coincide with solid morals and ethics, but this is not always possible.


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

> I'm curious as to what constitutes cheating on a take-home exam, for example. Were these essay questions that were copied, or just multiple choice answers that several people all got exactly wrong (which isn't to say I think they weren't cheating...I'm really just curious)?



I actually had some take-home exams in college... the professor gave us the exams and said, "you may use ANY resource to complete these exams except for professors in this university's physics department.  That means you can use TA's, grad students, each other, the book, professors in other universities, etc."

I actually thought that pretty clearly spelled out what would be cheating - and made it easy for him to check on (by asking around at faculty meetings). I actually had a friend that was a physics professor at USC that I COULD have gone to, but I just got together with some of my classmates over the weekend and we collaborated to solve the problems ourselves.  Since our professor explicitly said we could use each other to solve the problems, I did. 

The problem, IMO, is that there are lots of resources out there, and it's hard for most people to differentiate which resources are "cheating" and which are not without a list of "allowed" or "forbidden" resources.  This does not mean I think "copying verbatim" is okay - it's plaigarism and/or copyright infringement... but if I am told, "your research problem is X" I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the student to make use of all resources available - including the internet - in his research unless he is specifically given a list of "allowed" or "forbidden" resources.  *Not* to copy from, but at least gain guidance as to how to approach the problem.  But then, the first lesson that I was taught in our physics curriculum in college was, "a good physicist doesn't memorize thousands tables and formulae.  A good physicist knows what book to look them up in so he can spend his time working on actual problems.  Storing tables and formulae is the reason for books and computers and such - so we don't have to."

Interestingly, I am told that one of the more "in vogue" cheating methods employed in college today is the use of cell phones with text messaging and/or cameras... the "first student in" to a test takes a picture of the test and/or text messages back and forth with his buddies to get the answers.  These technological abilities didn't even exist 3-4 years ago.

--The Sigil


----------



## Lazybones (May 14, 2004)

I was a TA at a University of California campus for five years, and an instructor at various state and community colleges for four more years after that. 

Cheating is an endemic problem.  I worked at several schools where the faculty had stopped assigning take-home exams and/or papers because it was just too much of a hassle.  Depending on your dean, it could be virtually impossible to discipline a student for cheating.  I was lucky in that most deans would back me up, but as I was an adjunct with virtually no standing, I had to document EVERYTHING in detail (it got to where I would photocopy dozens of papers each term as part of my investigations). 

I caught numerous students by simply doing a google search.  Take four uncommon words in sequence from a student's paper, put them in quotes, and search.  

One student turned in a paper on the book we'd used the previous semester (we were using a different book for the current term). 

I caught two young ladies when one turned in both her paper and her friend's together; they were virtually identical.  Apparently the friend had asked student #1 to turn in her paper for her; she did, but only after copying large parts of it into her own work. 

I would often create make-up quizzes where the questions were moved around, and sometimes would get them back where the answers were in the correct order--for the original version of the test. 

I miss teaching, but cheating was a pain in the ass to deal with.  Still, it was amusing to see how stupid some of the students could be in their attempts.  I'm sure there were many more who were at least moderately clever and were never detected.


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> In the case of out of print material, the owner of the rights does not allow me the opportunity to give them anything for their work. It becomes a bit sticky to argue that an illegal copy causes a loss when the owner wasn't accepting money in the first place. Again, it is the owner's right to publisht he work or not. It would be illegal for me to copy it, even if they don't publish. But since they aren't making money off it, and in fact refuse to make money off it, how can a copy for personal use cause them an economic loss?
> 
> There are reasons to consider such copying a bit of a loss, actually, but evaluating how much of a loss there is becomes hairy.



 Another well thought out, as usual.  I pretty much agree with most of what you're saying.  One thing that should be pointed out though is a question of future use of material.  

 To wit: when MAME came out, people quickly began creating ROM files of classic arcade games so that they could play them.  Naturally, most folks no longer had legitimate copies of some of these games, and many had NEVER had legitimate copies of them. (I mean, how many people owned a Zaxxon Arcade machine?)  One often quoted reason for ripping and distributing the ROMs was that it was 'abandonware' and that they were actually preserving the games for history.

 Except that many if not most of these games had legal rights holders who didn't like that the games were being distributed that way.  In some cases, because they had already begun work on updates to these intellectual properties, such as Frogger, Defender and so on.  In other cases, they actually were intending on rereleasing the games with an emulator to work on modern systems.  In either case, the fact that the publishers had not yet released the games didn't mean they didn't intend to, or that they didn't have worth.  It's even possible that some were waiting to generate more demand for their product.  How much money did they loose to MAME?  We have no way of knowing if they lost a dime...but I'd wager that some folks got their nostalgia fill prior to their releasal, and that _may_ have lost them some sales.  Now one could also argue that MAME itself generated that demand...and they might be right.    Hairy, as you said.

 Now, I'd love if Disney would realease Gargoyles on DVD.  They haven't, and haven't even mentioned thinking about it.  Coincidentally, they just started rerunning the show in syndication on ABC Family Channel.  Did the widespread presence of these episodes as mpegs on certain DC hubs lower the value of the sale to syndication, or prevent their releasal on DVD?  Highly unlikely.  I would guess that the success or failure of the Batman Animated Series DVDs later this year will have a much bigger determinant in the releasal of Gargoyles to DVD than an act of piracy ever would.  (and, of course, there's the issue of 'fair use'.  Gargoyles was broadcast over the open airwaves...if folks are sharing it for free on the 'net, is it a bad thing?)

 It's a slippery slope, to be sure, and IANAL. 

 Oh, and Lazybones and Dr. Harry?  That's a damn shame.


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

As far as calculating loss, I think it's HIDEOUSLY difficult to come up with an actual loss amount, even given "X users at Y IP addresses opened a book Z times."

The problem comes into play because you have to consider the supply-demand curve.  Yes, 1200 unique IP addresses obtained the book and use it on a regular basis... but they obtained it from a skewed curve where the price was zero.  Remember that the number of people who will obtain something usually increases as price point goes down.

I'm going to ignore the supply curve for a moment and look at the demand curve.  For a simple curve, let us assume we have some Product X.  If P is the price in dollars, the number of people willing to buy Product X might be:

1000 - (100 x P).  Thus, if P is $1, the number of buyers is 900 (and the publisher could rake in 900x$1 or $900).  If P is $2, the number of willing buyers is 800 ($1600).  And so on.

Obviously, the "sweet spot" here would be $5... the publisher has 500 people willing to pay $5 each for a profit of $2500.  

However, if the product were made available for free, the publisher would have 1000 people willing to pay $0 each.

Let us make a very optimistic assumption and say that the publisher prices it at $5 and every single person willing to buy it at that price does so (buys it legally).  The publisher makes $2500.  The publisher also notices that an additional 500 people obtain illicit copies for free (to bring the total to the 1,000 people who would be willing to buy the product for free).  Does the publisher have a loss on his hands?  No... because the 500 people who downloaded it for free would not have purchased it at $5.

However, let us assume the publisher prices it at $5 and 300 people pay full price and 700 people, including 200 who would be willing and able to pay that $5 but of course like the $0 price better, download it.  Now he is out $1000, because that's 200 lost sales.

But suppose the curve looks instead like this: 1000 - (28 x P^2)?  In picking a $5 price point, your sales will drop to 300 instead of 500.  (Assuming one dollar increments for P, the publisher on this curve should have guessed $3, which would yield 748 sales and $2244).

But the fundamental question is, how do you know that 1000 - (100 x P) represents your price curve?  What if is it is actually 1000 - (28 x P^2)?  In other words, if you have 300 sales and 700 pirates, how do you know if there are 0 potential buyers who resorted to piracy or 200 potential buyers who resorted to piracy?  The answer is - you CAN'T.

This is a point I think Dana is forgetting (it's also the point the RIAA keeps missing) - *nobody knows the formula in real life for the demand curve of Product X!*  In Ralts case, he has but two data points... the number of legitimate sales at a price point Y and the total number of "sales" at a price point of zero.  Since we cannot be sure the curve is simple (it might be logarithmic, it might be a square function, etc.) we cannot meaningfully interpret what the total lost sales are.

Let me repeat that... because we do not know the function that defines the demand curve, we cannot meaningfully intepret total lost sales.  We can guess.  We can rave.  But because we don't know what the demand curve looks like, it's just that... guessing.

In fact, I think just about the only chance we have to find a demand curve is to conduct an experiment where we somehow "exclude" piracy from the equation entirely and offer the item for, say, $10... then when sales peter off, lower the price to $9... then to $8... etc. so we get data for each price point, which allows us to plot the curve properly and get a better guess on what the underlying formula is.

Of course, since we CANNOT exclude piracy, we cannot get a meaningful number set through this method... by the time the price gets down to $8, some piracy has likely already occurred among those who would pay $3.

The only other chance a publisher has is to perhaps conduct a large poll among their buyers... perhaps on a free product, since that should have a high legitimate penetration to potential buyers, regardless of their favored price point... "what is the highest price you would have paid for this work?" and try to figure out the data accordingly.

Until we see some data that represents CURVES, rather than just two data points, we're just going to have guesswork with numbers that can't be meaningfully interpreted.

--The Sigil


----------



## Lazybones (May 14, 2004)

The MAME example is a good one, I think, and the issue of "abandonware" is linked to the concept of copyright in my mind.  

Wizardru mentioned "rights holders".  I wonder how many (if any) of the holders of these rights are in any way related to the people who initially created these games.  I know that many companies sit on copyrighted material for long periods of time, in the hopes that someday something will become profitable.  At what point, if ever, does the interest by the public in having this IP available for general use outweigh the potential earnings of this company in exploiting this product? 

My personal view should be clear from my earlier posts, but I suspect many of you will disagree. 

As for the demand curve that Sigil mentioned, this is exactly what happens in game software distribution.  It's almost predictable now when a game comes out, how the price curve will develop (I'm picking dates out of my ear, just my overall impression in a general sense):

Initial release: $50 (with some stores offering a special for $40-45 to lure in customers)
Six months later: $40
Year after release: $20-30 (depending on how well it does over time)
Eighteen months+ after release: cheap rack for $10-15, jewel case release and/or bundle at some point thereafter.
Three years+ after release: out of print, harder to find (not all titles, of course)

I don't have sales figures but I'm guessing that they get new customers at each price point, who weren't willing to buy the product at the higher price. 

I have no ethical qualms about using 20 year-old MAME roms or dl-ing abandonware (I know we can debate just what this term means) from the underdogs.  Again, I know others will strongly disagree and argue that I am cheating the creators out of their money.  I just don't agree, sorry.


----------



## Sledge (May 14, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> I can only assume I value money less than you do, if you considered titles like Magical Medieval Society: Western Europe, Three Arrows for the King and others to be barely worth $5, if at all. Either that, or you've just picked some really bad PDFs.
> ...



I'm not saying that people with lots of money won't throw it out the window without a single thought of the cost.  However my money is very tight.  Being in Canada that $5 book is actually $7.  Roughly an hour at minimum wage.  That $7 is slightly less than the price of a ticket ($9) to the local regular movies.  I don't have MMS:WE but I won't pay more than $5 for it.  I do have 3arrows.  Why do I feel the worth of pdfs is around that?  For one just dropping the printed version is at least a 75% drop in my opinion due to binding and prettiness issues.  So in my mind that $5 pdf is equivalent to a $20 real book.  Also I have caught regular sales.  I have purchased quite a few books at low low prices.  Crimson Contracts was on sale when I grabbed it.  Of all the pdf's I've purchased I've only used a small portion.  Since that portion requires significant work before usage I do consider it less valuable.  That is the nature of the d20 system instead of a specific brand with guaranteed rules.  My game will not work with most books as is.  That is a fact of life.  The value of Crimson Contracts is not $12 US to me.  That translates to 2-3 hours of my work or even equivalent to a movie with my wife.  A purchase of two inexpensive DVD's or one regular DVD.  At $12 few will buy it.  Don't believe me?  Check out the polls on RPGNow.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but my opinion is that you are either using faulty logic or basing it on a faulty premise.
> 
> Lets break it down.
> 
> ...




Sorry, but your logic is at fault. On the basis that a single IP address can be tracked to multiple openings indicated that the address is most likely a static IP address associated with a single individual. In other words, 1200 people opened the the file enough times to establish the 1200 IP address as their own. This leaves the remaining 1800 downloaders as being ambiguous. Were they all individuals who downloaded the file once each, or were some repeat downloaders who happened to have random IP addresses?



> Define a stable IP address? In a world of either dynamic or static ip addresses where people can often have both, you can't qualify that 1 ip address = 1 person. At my home, I have 1 dynamic ip address for my laptop (wireless) and one static for it (switch connection) and another static for my gaming pc. That's 3 and I am 1 person. I often use multiple combinations to obtain some download. I know many, many computer people that have at least 3 IP addresses and do things with a similiar methodology to mine. This also is simply not a valid way to determine actual loss.




In your instance, we turn to copyright as it affects software and other electronic products. You would be held accountable under the laws for two separate incidents of copyright infringement, 3 incidents after a search warrant revealed a third copy on your laptop. Under this perfectly valid legal concept even when someone downloads multiple copies, they can be held accountable for every copy they download, which makes my initial assessment to include all 3,000 downloads completely valid.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> Wizardru mentioned "rights holders".  I wonder how many (if any) of the holders of these rights are in any way related to the people who initially created these games.  I know that many companies sit on copyrighted material for long periods of time, in the hopes that someday something will become profitable.  At what point, if ever, does the interest by the public in having this IP available for general use outweigh the potential earnings of this company in exploiting this product?




If the public still has interest in the IP, then why shouldn't the company profit from that interest?


----------



## Belen (May 14, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> [blinks]
> 
> Wow.
> 
> ...




This is an old argument that I have little use for.  Comparing and RPG book to a movie is apples and oranges.  The fact is, most of the RPG books I buy do not provide even 2 hours of use.  They sit on the shelf and sometimes get used if I need a quick idea.  

While I do buy PDF books, I would never pay more than 10 dollars for them.  

1.) My credit is at risk by making online purchases.
2.) I have to print the book and bind it at my own cost (time and money).
3.) Even with printing, the book is not as useful as a normal bound book (ie. most bound books has indexes, PDFs do not.)

RPGs ARE overpriced, in general.  It's not exactly the rising cost of paper.  It's the intentional use of pricey paper.  For example, I work for a medical publisher.  We just reprinted a 500 page medical text book (5000 copies) for around 12k.  It costs us $7.00/ book to print it and we charge USD 50.  Even with all the associated costs (warehousing etc), then we're still charging 20-25 more than the minimum we need to pull a profit.

However, I AGREE with you about piracy.  I never have and never will download a book that I have not paid for.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> As far as calculating loss, I think it's HIDEOUSLY difficult to come up with an actual loss amount, even given "X users at Y IP addresses opened a book Z times."
> 
> The problem comes into play because you have to consider the supply-demand curve.  Yes, 1200 unique IP addresses obtained the book and use it on a regular basis... but they obtained it from a skewed curve where the price was zero.  Remember that the number of people who will obtain something usually increases as price point goes down.




That's like saying the price paid for shoplifted items skews the losses brick and mortar stores suffer.



> This is a point I think Dana is forgetting (it's also the point the RIAA keeps missing) - *nobody knows the formula in real life for the demand curve of Product X!*  In Ralts case, he has but two data points... the number of legitimate sales at a price point Y and the total number of "sales" at a price point of zero.  Since we cannot be sure the curve is simple (it might be logarithmic, it might be a square function, etc.) we cannot meaningfully interpret what the total lost sales are.




All that supply and demand nonsense you just posted doesn't apply. Theft is theft. The download of the files without paying for them is theft. The file Ralts posted was not put out there as an authorized copy from the company at a retail price of $0. It was a surreptitious experiment to track theft of goods. Not a single copy was legitimately purchased at $0 from a reputable online vendor. Everyone downloading it did so with the expectation of obtaining an illicit free copy of an e-book retailing at $11.95. It was not an attempt on Ralts' part to try to establish no pricing guidelines for his future products. Therefore, your entire effort to explain theft away as supply and demand was pointless.

However, there is one thing we all overlooked. This was an experiment Ralts conducted intentionally. Therefore, he technically cannot claim any losses, since he was expecting the thefts to occur.


----------



## Dakkareth (May 14, 2004)

Without having read the whole (probably unpleasant) thread I'll just chime in:

Yes, I have several books as scanned pdf or whatever. As a student to whom the money to buy even one of them is a lot this simply is a convenient way of *trying them out* - considering, that haven't found a group to play with and thus can hardly use them, I figure I'm not too damaging to anyone.

On the other hand, when I find a group, I'm 100% sure, that I will buy the books I'm using for the simple reason, that I want to have a real book to page back and forth in. Also if I get real use out of it, paying for it is the right thing to do IMO.

On a second thought this post is superfluous at best and flameworthy in a worse case (let's leave out the worst case :s). Oh well, make of it, what you will.


----------



## Prest0 (May 14, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Let me repeat that... because we do not know the function that defines the demand curve, we cannot meaningfully intepret total lost sales.  We can guess.  We can rave.  But because we don't know what the demand curve looks like, it's just that... guessing.




There's basically two issues here. There's moral right/wrong, and there's subject of this thread-- is it affecting the RPG industry.

Morally, mass "file sharing" is wrong. Period. Whether or not it takes money out of my pocket, it's wrong. Whether or not you consider yourself a digital rebel sticking it to "the man", it's wrong. Whether or not it's currently out of print, it's wrong. Furthermore, when you leave that file in your shared directory and allow others to download it, you're more than wrong. Maybe you never would have bought it, but you're giving access to others who might have. You're taking (or distributing) something that doesn't belong to you-- something for which you have not compensated the creator. It's wrong. There is no "grey area".

Is it affecting the RPG industry? If it hasn't yet, it soon will. Whether or not we (publishers) have other jobs with which to support ourselves, we still expect compensation for our hard work. It takes many many hours to produce quality material, and I expect more than warm and fuzzies for the sacrifices of working at this second job. It really doesn't matter where your curve lies. If we lose only $50 because 1% of the people in the curve would have purchased it anyway, that's $50 less to invest in artwork, editing, or layout. Will it affect the RPG industry? Hell yeah! Profit margins are mighty slim these days. In the face of rampant theft, each publisher is going to have to ask if it's still worth it.

It really doesn't matter why its happening. Copyright laws. Out of print. Too damn lazy to sign up at RPG Now and actually pay. The subject line is "File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?". Yes, and it's only going to get worse.


----------



## Belen (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> 4.) having a hardcopy of the book in its print edition does not entitle you to the right to produce backups. About 10 years ago, a law firm started "saving" money by photcopying pages of books in their legal library. They were sued by numerous publishers over this action and the publishers won on the ground that there was nothing stopping the law firm from buying multiple copies of the books for decimation down to individual pages to serve the same purpose as the photocopies.




You are forgetting fair use which is a part of copyright law.  An individual who has purchased a book has the right to copy that book (ie. they must copy the book that they purchased).

A law firm would be different, although they would still have a fair use ability to copy sections for use rather than buying a new copy every time someone needed a single paragraph!  However, wholesale copying of entire books would not be fair use in the case you mentioned, which is entirely different from individuals.

However, I am on your side in saying that I do not agree with the people who KaZaa etc.  However, this practice could have been solved if the RIAA and others had seen it as an opportunity rather than a threat.  Think of all the money they would have made through subscription services etc. (idiots!)

Also, copyright in general has been misused.  I mean, really, Life PLUS 75 years!  That leaves the door open for copyrights that could last upward of 150 years!  This means that a book written today would not be available in the public domain until the mid-22nd century.  Then what happens when some 20-year-old writes a book tomorrow and then lives to be 150-200 (which could happen with modern medical science advancing as it is).  That means it hits public domain in 2279!!!  That is NUTS!

Just think of the horrid effect that will have on society....the implications are frightening.

I can see companies hiring ever younger artists to produce creative work that they do not produce in order to keep copyrights as long as possible.  Not to benefit the artist, but rather the corporation....oh...wait....(already happening in the music industry)

And please do not get me started on how corporations are using the public domain, then copyrighting it!


----------



## Belen (May 14, 2004)

Look at it in game terms.  If the creator of mind flayers/ illithids dies tomorrow, then I will be 102 when someone other than a WOTC employee can write about them in the public domain.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The thing is, that folks who have illegal copies of pdfs (or mp3s, or whatever) are in violation of the law.  Yes, they have stolen.  But not every theft represents an economic loss.




I do not have a problem with the example that you used, but while every theft might not represent an easily quantifiable immediate economic loss, (1) I do not hold that an action is acceptable or unobjectionable (or, more strongly, unactionable - if that is a word) merely because it does not represent an immediate, easily quantifiable economic loss, and (2) the theft of material even by someone who'll steal it, but not buy it, changes the relationship between supply and demand for that item.  Sigil wrote a much better bit on this than I would.




> Not quite.  We have to be careful when we make analogies between theft of physical products and theft of information.




    I suppose the center of my starting point is that I would ask "Why?" to the above statement.  You seem to be saying that the value of the work taht was put into the material is dependant on the material itself.  If I steal a paper book that no one would ever buy (assuming that I can know that)  It's still theft, even though someone might argue that, in this case, there is no "economic loss".



> But, let's say someone sneaks into the bookstore with a battery-powered photocopier, their own toner, and a bunch of paper.  They photocopy the book and put the original on the shelf in as close to mint condition as anyone could ever tell.  He leaves with only the copy.  The retailer can still sell that book!  Which means that figuring out exactly how much was lost becomes a bit less straightforward.  A game of "what if?"




    But, at its base, it is easy to say what has been lost; the information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book.  The person took a commercial product without paying for it, ergo, as I see it, the person stole it.  If the thief makes many copies, then the thief is in the interesting position of 'stealing' many copies of the material by stealing it once.  It's not really a game of "what if?", but "How much?" 

   A man walks up to a woman in the street, and asks her, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars?"
   The woman thinks for a moment and answers, "yes."
   The man asks, "Okay, would you sleep with me for twenty dollars?" 
   At this point the woman becomes very upset and asks, "How dare you!  What kind of a woman do you think I am!"
   The man responds, "We've already established that, what we're doing doing now is just negotiating."

    I would say that the argument that material can be taken if there is no immediate, easily quantifiable economic loss is 'just negotiating'.




> For the record, I don't discuss the "loss of sale" issue to establish moral high ground for the theif.  We have copyrights in order to protect the economic well-being of those who create new intellectual structures.  If we want to have sane copyright laws, we must be accurate and honest about the economics of data theft.  If we only have a naive estimate of the losses, we will also have naive rules, and they won't work well.  Rather like what we have today.




   If we don't have an accurate idea about the losses, then ... we don't have an accurate estimate of the losses.  I'm not talking about whether a given copyright law is best or not, but about what is right to do.  For those who claim that they don't like some aspect of copyright law, so it is a moral imperative to get as many free downloads as they can, I'd like to remind them that Henry David Thoreau's idea of civil disobedience did include breaking unjust laws - and then accepting the penalty for them.  If there is someone who can say "I didn't like how a game supplement I wanted wasn't in print, so I copied it, and now I'm in jail for it" I'll buy the moral argument.  For the record, I think that the U.S. Supreme Court's limitation of what constitutes "fair use", for example is unfortunate - I'm a MST3K fan - but even in the most parsimonius sense of the time that copyright should exist falls well short of this.  Consider that even a copyright term of ten years would still include all d20/OGL material.



> In the case of out of print material, the owner of the rights does not allow me the opportunity to give them anything for their work.  It becomes a bit sticky to argue that an illegal copy causes a loss when the owner wasn't accepting money in the first place.  Again, it is the owner's right to publisht he work or not.  It would be illegal for me to copy it, even if they don't publish.  But since they aren't making money off it, and in fact refuse to make money off it, how can a copy for personal use cause them an economic loss?
> 
> There are reasons to consider such copying a bit of a loss, actually, but evaluating how much of a loss there is becomes hairy.




  A reason being that the demand for an OOP product has caused publishers such as TSR/WotC to make material available as PDF downloads.  There aren't new 'old' products coming out as PDF's, and this decision was made at the same time (though I cannot show a *direct* connection) that PDF-selling web sites changed their sales download procedure due to massive pirating.  Might not this wave of pirating have had the effect of killing the PDF project, representing a quite real loss?



> Imagine that after the aforementioned tragic accident in which I lost my left hand, I then use the Styx CD to save the life of George RR Martin.  And, in gratitude, he gives me the rights to the current "Song of Fire and Ice" books.  Because I am either a jerk or an idiot, or both, I allow them to go out of print, and refuse to print new copies.  Legally, such is my right.  Nothing you can do to stop me, so there, nyah.




  Well, for one thing, you have absolutely no enhanced right to distribute "Crystal Ball", even though you did lose your hand in connection with it, much less right to "Paradise Theater" or "Grand Illusion"



> So, legally, I'm in the right.  But morally?  I'm dong a bit of a disservice to Mr. Martin, who isn't yet finished with the series.  I'm doing a disservice to those who haven't yet read all of what has already been published.  And so on.  Whle my legal rights are not questionable, the morality of my position is not exactly grand.  The moral position of those who thwart me is somewhat better then, no?




   No.  Just because the hypothetical 'you' is being a jerk and doing a disservice to Mr. Martin and the fans does not mean that the moral position of someone who steal the book is in any way improved, as I see it.  



> Which goes to show - legal rights and moral high ground are not necessarily linked.  We prefer to have our laws coincide with solid morals and ethics, but this is not always possible.




   Perhaps this answer is not helpful because we just split ways at my last sentence, but I am arguing that what is not legal - here - is also not moral.  I can concieve of cases in which the moral (or, at a minimum, acceptable) act would be to break the law, but I am far from being convinced that I have seen anything in this thread that fits this description.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I actually had some take-home exams in college... the professor gave us the exams and said, "you may use ANY resource to complete these exams except for professors in this university's physics department.  That means you can use TA's, grad students, each other, the book, professors in other universities, etc."
> 
> I actually thought that pretty clearly spelled out what would be cheating - and made it easy for him to check on (by asking around at faculty meetings). I actually had a friend that was a physics professor at USC that I COULD have gone to, but I just got together with some of my classmates over the weekend and we collaborated to solve the problems ourselves.  Since our professor explicitly said we could use each other to solve the problems, I did.




  My method was to say that the students could use any resource but another living person.  If they want to go through the physics library, bless 'em, it'll be good for them, or if they want to Ouija up Isaac Newton, give it a go!  I can see the use in some classes for encouraging group work.



> The problem, IMO, is that there are lots of resources out there, and it's hard for most people to differentiate which resources are "cheating" and which are not without a list of "allowed" or "forbidden" resources.  This does not mean I think "copying verbatim" is okay - it's plaigarism and/or copyright infringement... but if I am told, "your research problem is X" I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect the student to make use of all resources available - including the internet - in his research unless he is specifically given a list of "allowed" or "forbidden" resources.  *Not* to copy from, but at least gain guidance as to how to approach the problem.




   There is a repsonsibility on the part of the teacher to check and examine sources, so if a paper is listed as a source it is possible to make a mistake and copy a section that is larger than proper, but if the section is uncited and unmarked ...



> But then, the first lesson that I was taught in our physics curriculum in college was, "a good physicist doesn't memorize thousands tables and formulae.  A good physicist knows what book to look them up in so he can spend his time working on actual problems.  Storing tables and formulae is the reason for books and computers and such - so we don't have to."




  Absa-fraggin'-lutly


----------



## Thanatos (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Sorry, but your logic is at fault. On the basis that a single IP address can be tracked to multiple openings indicated that the address is most likely a static IP address associated with a single individual. In other words, 1200 people opened the the file enough times to establish the 1200 IP address as their own. This leaves the remaining 1800 downloaders as being ambiguous. Were they all individuals who downloaded the file once each, or were some repeat downloaders who happened to have random IP addresses?






			
				Warlord_Ralts said:
			
		

> THREE THOUSAND DOWNLOADS!
> 
> TWELVE HUNDRED OF THEM OPEN THE DOCUMENT MORE THAN FIVE TIMES!
> 
> ...




No, my logic is fine. You missed what I was saying. He specifically stated 3000 downloads and seperated them by how many times they opened the product. 3000 downloads does not equal 3000 people. It could equal more or it could equal less. Some people have many IP's attached to them. DHCP, NAT, PAT -- and combinations of those make it impossible to to even hazard a guess at how many actual people may have obtained the product, maybe one person has a copy of all 5 of his machines, maybe someone bought a copy and lost it and just downloaded another to replace the lost one, what about 1 pc shared by 5 people, etc. 

I am saying this is not a valid concept for trying to determine 'loss of sale'. It doesn't really give you any concrete information. It just looks darned impressive, but amounts to the same arguements the RIAA/MPAA make.



> In your instance, we turn to copyright as it affects software and other electronic products. You would be held accountable under the laws for two separate incidents of copyright infringement, 3 incidents after a search warrant revealed a third copy on your laptop. Under this perfectly valid legal concept even when someone downloads multiple copies, they can be held accountable for every copy they download, which makes my initial assessment to include all 3,000 downloads completely valid.




Well, we aren't really talking about other software and electronic products, which sometimes allow you to have multiple installs and as long as only 1 install is being utilized, it is within the bounds of copyright.

You arguement is still not as valid as you seem to think though. If it shows my IP address as having downloaded the book 3 times, yet only 1 copy is found when my hard drive is searched, I can only be prosecuted for 1 violation. Where did the other 2 go? 3000 downloads =! 3000 people =! 3000 instances of the product.

Really all I am saying is, its just like the arguement the RIAA and MPAA make. It is subjective and ambigious at best and the numbers, while looking impressive, aren't necessairly so. IP Addresses only tell one segment of the story in any kind of investigation.

...and Ralts illegal invasion of privacy and federal computer laws violations pretty much put him in the same league with the copyright infringers in my opinon. I won't ever buy anything from him, now that I know he does things like this.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I caught two young ladies when one turned in both her paper and her friend's together; they were virtually identical.  Apparently the friend had asked student #1 to turn in her paper for her; she did, but only after copying large parts of it into her own work.





   The reason that I make homework myself is due to this story.  

   At the beginning of each semester, I would look through the text and select problems that would be good homework questions.  Well, the text has the odd-numbered answers at the back, and some questions line up with my way of teaching, and some are just better written than others, so when I did my homework problem sheet for year X, I did not stop to realize that there would be some overlap with my homework problem assignment sheet for year X-1 ...

  I became aware of one student's cheating when (1) some problems that I had assigned were not done, (2) some problems that I had not assigned that year *were* done, in addition to the "overlap", and ... (3) the person accidentally turned in the homework from a student of the previous year that had been the source of the illicit homework!

   Realizing, perhaps, what had been done, the cheating student in question never returned to class.

   Oh well, at least the cheater in question cheated off someone who had gotten an "A"; there's little funnier and more frustrating that a group of people who cheat off someone who doesn't know any more than they do!


----------



## Aezoc (May 14, 2004)

Edit: Poor example and I don't have time to reword it right now, I'll repost later.


----------



## Thanatos (May 14, 2004)

Prest0 said:
			
		

> Morally, mass "file sharing" is wrong. Period. Whether or not it takes money out of my pocket, it's wrong.




Umm...no, there is nothing 'morally' wrong with mass 'file sharing'. Providing what you are sharing is either your work, public domain, files you have permission to do so with, etc.

I know more then a few people who share their works and pass on public domain files and thats all they share. They have pretty large collections too, I was surprised to learn.

Though I often hear the RIAA/MPAA rhetoric about how all file sharing is wrong. I see that is what they are trying to teach people. Hopefully people won't fall for it.


----------



## Prest0 (May 14, 2004)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> Umm...no, there is nothing 'morally' wrong with mass 'file sharing'.




Okay-- based on the context of 8 pages worth of discussion, I thought it was clearly implied I meant file-sharing RPGs for which there was no compensation to the creator. Especially since that's what the rest of the post referred to. Let's keep things in context here.


----------



## jasper (May 14, 2004)

hello fellow thieves. 
If you have photo copy most of first edition module, splatbook welcome.
If you have pdf which you didn't pay for welcome.

Some have mention well I a high power user and have ten ip to my name because I 3 at home 3 at work and 3 at my mummy home so it reasonable that everyone else has as many ip as i do. Sorry look at being reasonable i would take the 3000 ip as a good base and if your lawyer did a good arguement and spoke pretty I would maybe discount the number a little. But saying it not thief because the whole purpose was to see who will stealing. 
HA. Gee that line does not work with cops who use bait cars. (Car own by the city with keys in and cops stake out).

You are stealing a luxury item. NOT BREAD. It does not matter how easy it is to steal but you have stole. If you were going to buying for x why did you take a copy after it had been stolen.

As someone has mention how many of you are willing to go before the judge and happy jolly smiling declare the law is wrong. Or will you still lurk in the shadows.
But in not in print. So contact the author/owner. If they not available to bad.
But it too expensive on EBAY. No it not in your price range. 

Should the copyright laws be changed to update to the 21st Century. Yes. 
How many of you have written to your Congress man or Representative?
Don't raise your hands all once. 

Whine about you only use x% of product so it not worth it to you to pay first price. Sorry that does not cut it. Does that arguement allows me to rip off barnes and noble because I don't like the cover art or chapters 5 -10 of the new honor book. No.

Hail the thieves guild brothers and sisters be proud of what you are. This meeting will be called to order as soon as the gravel is returned.


----------



## WizarDru (May 14, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> This is an old argument that I have little use for. Comparing and RPG book to a movie is apples and oranges. The fact is, most of the RPG books I buy do not provide even 2 hours of use. They sit on the shelf and sometimes get used if I need a quick idea.
> 
> While I do buy PDF books, I would never pay more than 10 dollars for them.



 Well, to clarify, I was taking away the impression he was saying that the material, overall, was not worth the money in any form....that is to say, when MMS:WE was printed, that it wasn't worth getting because he hadn't seen a PDF of value.  His later statement clarified that wasn't the case.  I agree the movie comparison is a poor one...but I will say that most D&D books, I get much more use out of, on average.  The M&M book I picked up, recently, has certainly generate much, much more time than that.



			
				BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> RPGs ARE overpriced, in general. It's not exactly the rising cost of paper. It's the intentional use of pricey paper. For example, I work for a medical publisher. We just reprinted a 500 page medical text book (5000 copies) for around 12k. It costs us $7.00/ book to print it and we charge USD 50. Even with all the associated costs (warehousing etc), then we're still charging 20-25 more than the minimum we need to pull a profit.



 I think that may also be an apples-to-oranges comparison.  Different markets and different needs through a different distribution system to a different demographic.  Marketing, for example, is a big cost of WotC book...if your book is an annual update to a medical text, the costs of devleopment may be less, and your market may be mostly secured, for example.  Ryan Dancey, SKR and C. Pramas all gave examples of breakdowns on costs for those books.  Now, you might make a case that WotC choose an expensive publisher, I'll bet, since I recall that was a big problem with Magic cards for a time.


----------



## Thanatos (May 14, 2004)

Prest0 said:
			
		

> Okay-- based on the context of 8 pages worth of discussion, I thought it was clearly implied I meant file-sharing RPGs for which there was no compensation to the creator. Especially since that's what the rest of the post referred to. Let's keep things in context here.




I believe I was keeping things in the context of what you said, I gathered no specific indication you were specifically referring to file-sharing rpgs. Thanks for making a clarification.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> You are forgetting fair use which is a part of copyright law.  An individual who has purchased a book has the right to copy that book (ie. they must copy the book that they purchased).




Problem is, there isn't anything in fair use that actually states you have any right to make a complete reproduction of a copyrighted work. The archival application of copyright law only applies to computer-related technologies as a legacy to the early years when hardware was vastly less reliable than it is now. You do not have any right under fair use to duplicate a print product, be it via scanning, photocopying, or duplicating it by hand.



> A law firm would be different, although they would still have a fair use ability to copy sections for use rather than buying a new copy every time someone needed a single paragraph!  However, wholesale copying of entire books would not be fair use in the case you mentioned, which is entirely different from individuals.




Again, this stems from the layman's misunderstanding of fair use. Fair use allows the duplication of short passages of the book. Even entire pages are often outside the scope of fair use. The lawsuit I mentioned involved the lawfirm photocopying pages for highlighting, thereby sparing the book the highlighting damage and eliminating the need to replace the book the next time a passage needed to be highlighted a second time.



> Also, copyright in general has been misused.  I mean, really, Life PLUS 75 years!  That leaves the door open for copyrights that could last upward of 150 years!  This means that a book written today would not be available in the public domain until the mid-22nd century.  Then what happens when some 20-year-old writes a book tomorrow and then lives to be 150-200 (which could happen with modern medical science advancing as it is).  That means it hits public domain in 2279!!!  That is NUTS!




Just wait until the next step in copyright evolution occurs at the hands of big business. Now the push is to have copyrights last the life of the author or first entity to buy it; in other words, a copyright on a new disney movie wouldn't burn out until the company ceases to exist.

My personal view is copyright should last 20 years with infinite renewals every 20 years. Initial copyright fee is $0, while renewal fees are based on an escalating scale. This way, big business can maintain its media copyrights at an ever-increasing cost. In either case, copyright should end with the life of the entity holding it, meaning the material becomes public domain if a business goes under without being bought out.

best of all, just imagine what all the revenues generated from those fees could do for the Library of Congress in its efforts to restore and digitally archive the incredibly vast collection of trademarked and copyrighted works it possesses, and the fees would cause big business to eventually start weighing the fiscal value of the IP it owns with each renewal. As things currently stand, IP value is assigned a general bulk value to everything a company owns, since money that would be spent on a simple cyclic renewal process is instead dumped into industrial lobbying for copyright changes.


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> That's like saying the price paid for shoplifted items skews the losses brick and mortar stores suffer.



Dana... you are heavily indoctrinated into the "IP is Property, it is mine, you steal it from me..." (probably because you have produced quite a bit of it).  Let go of your inherent biases for a moment and please try to listen to what I am saying here.

I am NOT saying that copyright infringement is "okay" or that it does not lead to a loss of revenue.  Of COURSE it contributes to a loss of revenue in a very similar way shoplifting does.  But...



> All that supply and demand nonsense you just posted doesn't apply. Theft is theft. The download of the files without paying for them is theft.



I call bullcrap.  The download of files without paying for them is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.  It is not theft.  Theft deprives you of use of your own item.  Copyright infringement does not.  "Intellectual Property" does not belong to you.  It belongs to the public because the act of sharing an idea naturally spreads it at no cost in the same way that if you light a torch from my torch, you have in no way diminished the light I carry.  We are both enriched.  It belongs to the public BUT as an incentive for your work expended to encapsulate an idea (which cannot be copyrighted) into an expression in tangible medium (which can be copyrighted), the public graciously grants you the exclusive right to distribute your expression of the idea for a limited time... after which all rights revert to the original owners: all of humanity individually and collectively.  Please divorce yourself from the concept of "I wrote it, it's MINE" for a moment to look at that view of copyright (which is, I think, the more correct one - otherwise having stuff pass into the public domain would be the public in general stealing something you owned).

By leaving behind the "MINE" attitude, you will be able to better understand the point I was trying to make...



> The file Ralts posted was not put out there as an authorized copy from the company at a retail price of $0. It was a surreptitious experiment to track theft of goods. Not a single copy was legitimately purchased at $0 from a reputable online vendor. Everyone downloading it did so with the expectation of obtaining an illicit free copy of an e-book retailing at $11.95. It was not an attempt on Ralts' part to try to establish no pricing guidelines for his future products. Therefore, your entire effort to explain theft away as supply and demand was pointless.



Please stop calling it "theft."  It is not.  There is a reason we have a different set of laws for "copyright infringement" than for "stealing physical objects" - because the two are VERY different beasts by nature.

My point about demand curves was simply this...

Ralts has two data points.  He has the number of people that legitimately purchased his product.  He has the number of people that downloaded a "free" product.

Go back to basic geometry, and you'll find that two data points are NEVER considered enough to define a curve.  Therefore, there is NOT ENOUGH DATA to quantify losses because there is NOT ENOUGH DATA to figure out the equation of the curve.

I am NOT saying no infringement occured.  I am not saying no "lost sales" occurred (I think we both can agree that one instance of infringement does not necessarily equal one lost sale).

All I AM saying that with just these two data points, it is literally impossible to justify putting out a number that represents a "quantifiable expression of lost sales."  Ralts put forward a figure of $1200.  You put forth a figure an order of magnitude higher.

My point is simply, "you have no good scientific evidence to justify any dollar amount put forward because you do not have enough data points to provide a curve."  

I believe the answer to "how many sales dollars have been lost" is greater than zero, but I have no clue as to whose figure is "more correct" as a representation of reality.

This is NOT justifying infringement.  This is not an attempt to explain it and "make it right."  This is NOT trying to downplay lost sales dollars.  

This IS an attempt to say, "I'm a scientist by training.  From a purely scientific standpoint, the data you have collected is woefully insufficient to justify any specific number you decide to put forward."

Simply put, while there are lost sales there, the data given suggests $1 as easily as it suggests $1200 as easily as it suggests $12,000 as easily as it suggests $12,000,000.  

So please stop trying to tell people, "piracy is responsible for $X not being in a wallet" because THE DATA IS INSUFFICIENT.

That was all I was trying to get at.  A brick and mortar store can figure out its losses because it can see "we bought 18 and sold 12 and have 3 left.  3 have been stolen, that's a lost sale rate of 16.7%"  The data provided DOES NOT and CANNOT be used to justify any specific dollar amount, and frankly, I'm tired of seeing you claim it does.  

As a scientist, when I see your claims and your data, my only conclusion is: "To come up with any dollar figure on the data provided is simply blowing smoke out of an orifice."  You simply cannot support your dollar figures.

I will concede that piracy damages revenue; however, I cannot as a scientist concede in good faith *any* specific number with the incomplete data set we have.

I learn a lot from your posts, Dana, and you clearly have lots of experience in the industry, but I just can't accept faulty math to back an argument, which is why I can't accept the numbers you've throwing around in this case.

Piracy occurs and it hurts sales.  But we *don't have enough data* yet to know with any certainty "how much."  That is the beginning and the end of my point.  I would love to see more data to see how much, I just can't bring myself to jump to conclusions that may be flawed because I tried to interpolate with assumptions that may or may not be tainted by my view of the value of my work.



> However, there is one thing we all overlooked. This was an experiment Ralts conducted intentionally. Therefore, he technically cannot claim any losses, since he was expecting the thefts to occur.



True enough that! LOL

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> My personal view is copyright should last 20 years with infinite renewals every 20 years. Initial copyright fee is $0, while renewal fees are based on an escalating scale. This way, big business can maintain its media copyrights at an ever-increasing cost. In either case, copyright should end with the life of the entity holding it, meaning the material becomes public domain if a business goes under without being bought out.
> 
> best of all, just imagine what all the revenues generated from those fees could do for the Library of Congress in its efforts to restore and digitally archive the incredibly vast collection of trademarked and copyrighted works it possesses, and the fees would cause big business to eventually start weighing the fiscal value of the IP it owns with each renewal. As things currently stand, IP value is assigned a general bulk value to everything a company owns, since money that would be spent on a simple cyclic renewal process is instead dumped into industrial lobbying for copyright changes.



Sometimes we disagree, but I see eye-to-eye with you here.  Myself, I'm for a term of 14 years (symmetry with original law) for free.  Year 15 costs you 1 penny.  Year 16 costs 2 cents.  Year 17 costs 4 cents.  Year 18 costs 8 cents.  Year 19 costs 16 cents... and so on, doubling each year (all values are adjusted to inflation, BTW).  

Also, I think that for a work to be copyrighted, there must be a copyright notice attached to the work itself (including date) so that it is perfectly clear when copyright would expire.  Then you can just look at something and cross-index with the library of congress if it's older than 14 years to see if it's usable.

--The Sigil


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> No, my logic is fine. You missed what I was saying. He specifically stated 3000 downloads and seperated them by how many times they opened the product. 3000 downloads does not equal 3000 people. It could equal more or it could equal less. Some people have many IP's attached to them. DHCP, NAT, PAT -- and combinations of those make it impossible to to even hazard a guess at how many actual people may have obtained the product, maybe one person has a copy of all 5 of his machines, maybe someone bought a copy and lost it and just downloaded another to replace the lost one, what about 1 pc shared by 5 people, etc.



You still have flaws in your thinking. DHCP simply means your IP address is asigned via network communications, nothing more. Most cable systems rely on DHCP assigning the IP address based on a locally maintained table on their servers. My IP address via comcast is assigned via DHCP, yet every time the modem resets (which happens about 4 times per week, between 1 AM and 3 AM) my IP address is always the same. Only time it changed was during the transition between comcast@home to comcast.net

Same can be said for all the other addressing methods. Unless you're using dialup, MAC, NAT, etc. assigned on the LAN in your home are irrelevant.



> Well, we aren't really talking about other software and electronic products, which sometimes allow you to have multiple installs and as long as only 1 install is being utilized, it is within the bounds of copyright.




Those excess copies beyond the first archival copy are terms of individual licensing, not copyright law.



> You arguement is still not as valid as you seem to think though. If it shows my IP address as having downloaded the book 3 times, yet only 1 copy is found when my hard drive is searched, I can only be prosecuted for 1 violation. Where did the other 2 go? 3000 downloads =! 3000 people =! 3000 instances of the product.




Lost, sold, deleted, whatever. This really doesn't matter thanks to the way the warez community is now starting to be prosecuted. The download record is sufficient proof that you had 3 copies in your possession.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 14, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Dana... you are heavily indoctrinated into the "IP is Property, it is mine, you steal it from me..." (probably because you have produced quite a bit of it).  Let go of your inherent biases for a moment and please try to listen to what I am saying here.




Sigil, the problem here is your lack of familiarity with all of copyright law. You obviously never bothered familiarizing yourself with the criminal aspects of it under the provisions of counterfeiting laws.

Under counterfeiting laws, you can go to jail for years for distributing copies of ANY COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, once the numer of copies distributed exceeds a certain quantity or $1,000 retail value, even if you did not accept even so much as a penny for the copies you distributed. Copyright infringement is indeed a crime equated to theft under the law once you're aware of all the ramifications of the act.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 14, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> The download of files without paying for them is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.  It is not theft.  Theft deprives you of use of your own item.  Copyright infringement does not.




   I believe that this discussion came up in a previous discussion (or several previous discussions).  "Copyright Infringement" is a legal offense.  If any or many people here use "theft" in a colloquial sense to mean the moral failing of the unjustified acquisition of an object that does not belong to the individual taking it, and to which the individual has no inherent right to take, then I think you need to actually make an argument as to why that is improper.  If we use the phrase "stealing" instead of "theft", would that be acceptable?



> "Intellectual Property" does not belong to you.  It belongs to the public because the act of sharing an idea naturally spreads it at no cost in the same way that if you light a torch from my torch, you have in no way diminished the light I carry.  We are both enriched.  It belongs to the public BUT as an incentive for your work expended to encapsulate an idea (which cannot be copyrighted) into an expression in tangible medium (which can be copyrighted), the public graciously grants you the exclusive right to distribute your expression of the idea for a limited time... after which all rights revert to the original owners: all of humanity individually and collectively.  Please divorce yourself from the concept of "I wrote it, it's MINE" for a moment to look at that view of copyright (which is, I think, the more correct one - otherwise having stuff pass into the public domain would be the public in general stealing something you owned).




   As I read this, the actual work of producing a book is of no value, it is only the transmission of that book to a medium that has any value.  This does actually seem to defend the idea that the individual has a moral imperative to grab whatever one can download.  When you have an idea, then work on that idea, then produce that idea, the only value is the paper it's printed on -- if I can take that (which is my *right* as intellectual work belongs to everyone) without stealing paper, I'm almost morally required to do so.   I don't see it that way.

   Please make an argument for the position that the results of intellectual work instantly belong to the public that goes beyond simply instructing ourselves to "divorce ... from the concept".  Instead of the concept in which copyright is society graciously refraining the work produced - as is 'our' right- for a period of time, I hold that copyright protects the individual to gain the benefit from intellectual labors in the same way that the laws protects the labor of the person who prints the book by making the removal of the physical book a crime.

   In this sense, the expiration of copyright due to time would have to be justified under a form of social "taxation" in which the IP is public domain (at a point after most of the benefits to the creator will have been obtained) in order to promote the dissemination of knowledge and to encourage the generation of new material.  In this cases, there should be a "you can't take it with you" clause where copyright does not long survive the death of the author.


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Problem is, there isn't anything in fair use that actually states you have any right to make a complete reproduction of a copyrighted work. The archival application of copyright law only applies to computer-related technologies as a legacy to the early years when hardware was vastly less reliable than it is now. You do not have any right under fair use to duplicate a print product, be it via scanning, photocopying, or duplicating it by hand.



Problem is, there's nothing that explicitly states I *don't* either... that's one of the tricky things about Fair Use - intent plays a huge part of it, and another part of it is interpretation.

IANAL, but I think that the problem is simply that technology hasn't gotten a good way to reproduce books yet.  But I personally see very little difference between scanning a book THAT YOU OWN into your computer for personal use versus ripping the contents of a CD and storing them as MP3s on your computer - all this amounts to is "format shifting" or "space shifting."  The legal precedent set in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia ( http://www.gigalaw.com/library/riaa-diamond-1999-06-15.html ) is that format shifting IS permissible as an application of Fair Use.  

As I mentioned, while technology for converting "copyrighted contents of book" to "computer file" is not as easily utilized as the technology for converting "copyrighted contents of CD" to "computer file," I do think that the precedent set here is that you CAN legally scan a book you own into a computer-readable file for personal use... after all, in both cases, _all you're doing is format-shifting copyrighted material for personal use_.

IANAL, but there doesn't seem to me to be any difference - the only difference is in the medium that stores the copyrighted material in the first instance, but the net effect - format shifting of copyrighted material - is the same.

It should be noted that Fair Use is not some "neatly defined" set of "here's what you can do and nothing else" but rather a nebulous concept that takes into account at least the following factors (though this is an exemplary, not an exhaustive list):

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

I have to believe that scanning a book into your computer for personal use meets the fair use criteria in that doing so does nothing to harm the potential market for or value of the work (#4 above) since in order to scan a book you own, you have to have paid for it in the first place, thus meaning the scan will have no effect upon the potential market or value of the book.

Just some thoughts.  It's not explicitly legal, but it's not explicitly ILLEGAL either... and given legal precendents, I would have to say odds are that if it came up in court, it would be legal.  But again, IANAL and TINLA.

--The Sigil


----------



## Sledge (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> The file Ralts posted was not put out there as an authorized copy from the company at a retail price of $0. It was a surreptitious experiment to track theft of goods. Not a single copy was legitimately purchased at $0 from a reputable online vendor. Everyone downloading it did so with the expectation of obtaining an illicit free copy of an e-book retailing at $11.95. It was not an attempt on Ralts' part to try to establish no pricing guidelines for his future products. Therefore, your entire effort to explain theft away as supply and demand was pointless.
> However, there is one thing we all overlooked. This was an experiment Ralts conducted intentionally. Therefore, he technically cannot claim any losses, since he was expecting the thefts to occur.




Actually if Ralts had permission to do this experiment then the copies are all legitimate.  If Ralts did not have permission, then before anyone else could be charged Ralts would have to be for every copy he made available.  (Presuming US law)  Also as I indicated earlier there is no mention on the entire Crimson Contract's PDF of a retail price.  Anyone downloading that would have no way of knowing without further research whether the book was a commercial enterprise.  Effectively now, Ralts actions have given a situation that all the books he distributed are either public domain or that Ralts must be officially stated as not having permission for his actions.  Copyrights must be defended to be maintained.


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Sigil, the problem here is your lack of familiarity with all of copyright law. You obviously never bothered familiarizing yourself with the criminal aspects of it under the provisions of counterfeiting laws.
> 
> Under counterfeiting laws, you can go to jail for years for distributing copies of ANY COMMERCIAL PRODUCT, once the numer of copies distributed exceeds a certain quantity or $1,000 retail value, even if you did not accept even so much as a penny for the copies you distributed. Copyright infringement is indeed a crime equated to theft under the law once you're aware of all the ramifications of the act.



I am in fact pretty familiar with copyright law.  And I am aware that criminal, as well as civil penalties, are attached in some cases.  I fail to see how it's relevant to the discussion, however, considering that the law usually tends to treat copyright infringement much more harshly than actual physical theft (steal a CD, get charged with misdemeanor petty theft, put a file for download on P2P and get charged with a felony and millions of dollars of damages - despite the fact that it's nearly impossible to prove you actually *distributed* the file sufficient times to do reach the threshold necessary to trigger such damages).

The fact is, they're very different beasts, and the law DOES treat them as such (though I think that the law is a bit bass-ackwards in its treatment).  The difference between copyright infringement versus theft is the difference between me looking at a brand new BMW in your driveway, carefully examining it (but without touching it), then arranging the dirt molecules from my lawn into an exact copy of the BMW versus me taking your BMW away and using it.

That fundamental difference - that you are NOT deprived of the use of your original copy in instances of copyright infringement is what makes the beasts different.  Morally, you are in the wrong in infringing or stealing in that you're benefitting from someone else's work.  Morally, you're probably MORE in the wrong for stealing because in addition to benefitting from someone else's work, you're also depriving that person of the benefits of their work.  

In other words, theft is a "double whammy" - though current copyright laws punish infringement FAR worse than theft (which makes no sense to me).

Yes, I know they're different.  Yes, I know why.  No, I don't think it makes a difference to the discussion of whether piracy hurts sales. 

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (May 14, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> As I read this, the actual work of producing a book is of no value, it is only the transmission of that book to a medium that has any value.



Not quite... an idea itself has no "value" in monetary terms because the idea can spread at no cost to the originator himself.  In other words, it's worthless to try to assign a monetary value to that which is ephemeral and that which I can give to you without impoverishing myself by the loss of it.

The work required to translate from "abstract, ephemeral concept" to "communicable medium" by which the idea can be shared is where the value lies.  In other words, it's not the idea of "boy meets girl" that has value, but rather the time and effort you spend in transcribing the story about "boy meets girl" to paper, cd, or other tangible medium that has value.  The value is not bound up in the work itself, but rather in the effort that created it.



> This does actually seem to defend the idea that the individual has a moral imperative to grab whatever one can download.  When you have an idea, then work on that idea, then produce that idea, the only value is the paper it's printed on -- if I can take that (which is my *right* as intellectual work belongs to everyone) without stealing paper, I'm almost morally required to do so.   I don't see it that way.



I must have come across badly then.  The effort and time take to type are where most of the value lies (the physical cost of the paper it's printed on or the plastic CD it's recorded on make up some cost as well).

In other words, the idea itself for "your kewl prestige class" is worth squat.  The effort you spend organizing words - and that set of words - that communicate your idea is where the value lies.  The EXPRESSION of the idea - and the effort spent crafting that expression - is what's important.

--The Sigil




> Please make an argument for the position that the results of intellectual work instantly belong to the public that goes beyond simply instructing ourselves to "divorce ... from the concept".  Instead of the concept in which copyright is society graciously refraining the work produced - as is 'our' right- for a period of time, I hold that copyright protects the individual to gain the benefit from intellectual labors in the same way that the laws protects the labor of the person who prints the book by making the removal of the physical book a crime.



"He who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me." (Thomas Jefferson)

Intellectual work by its very nature belongs to the public, as the purpose of society is to enrich its members.  If I share an idea with you, you are enriched, and I am not impoverished.  Thus, sharing ideas allows all to be enriched and impoverishes none.  Furthermore, once thought of, an idea is very difficult to "un-think."

The purpose of copyright is to ensure that you enrich the public by adding your idea to the common pool.  However, if you do the work of writing it down, drawing it, etc., and get nothing in return, you have no reason to do so.  You should expect to enrich yourself by hoarding your idea (since once you share it, you have no control over where it goes), in which case the idea goes with you to the grave and all of society is poorer for its loss.

To this end, the public proposes to grant you a time period to profit from your work and cleverness in exchange for you enriching all.  This is copyright.



> In this sense, the expiration of copyright due to time would have to be justified under a form of social "taxation" in which the IP is public domain (at a point after most of the benefits to the creator will have been obtained) in order to promote the dissemination of knowledge and to encourage the generation of new material.  In this cases, there should be a "you can't take it with you" clause where copyright does not long survive the death of the author.



This sounds very much like what Thomas Babington MacAulay concluded.  I've quoted him before and you can google him if you wish.  His argument, in a nutshell, is this:

1 - We need ideas and "IP" works contributed to society.
2 - Nobody can afford to/will do the work required to achieve #1 without some sort of reward.
3 - We can either reward IP creators using private parties, in which case they are beholden to the interests of the rich, or we can tax society as a whole.
4 - Taxing society as a whole gives us the greatest freedom in producing ideas as there are no "special interests" that direct the creation of ideas.
5 - To tax society as a whole, we create a monopoly called copyright.
6 - Monopolies are always evil and serve only to unjustly drive up the prices of that which is monopolized.
7 - Given #2, #4, and #6 above, the optimal solution is a short copyright, as it uses a necessary evil of monopoly to bring about a great good of IP creation.
8 - Doubling a copyright term doubles the "evil" of the monopoly by doubling its duration but does NOT double the amount of good received by the public; in fact, it can be argued that it does nothing or even DECREASES the good received by the public.
9 - Copyright must hit the "sweet spot" where the evil of the monopoly generates enough revenue to justly reward the creators, but then immediately pass into the public domain.
10 - Macauley didn't like booksellers (media giants) who buy copyrights from artists "in their distress" for what amounts to pennies on the eventual dollar.

I'm running low on time, but is that good enough for you?

Copyrights are a tax of the nastiest kind - monopolies - that should be considered a necessary evil for the creation of IP and should last just long enough that the "evil" done does not offset the good of creation.

My opinion: Copyright terms as they currently exist currently do WAY too much evil and have offset completely the good of creation.

--The Sigil


----------



## Lazybones (May 14, 2004)

First off, thanks to all who participated in this debate and helped an agonizingly slow Friday in the office go just a bit faster.  While law-talk (my wife's an attorney) generally puts me to sleep, I find this particular topic to be very interesting.

Second, I agree entirely with Sigil and feel that his interpretation of copyright is spot on.  I suppose it's natural for publishers (who have an inherent stake in seeing their monopoly on their ideas continue indefinitely) to feel differently.  Also I suppose it's natural for someone like me, who has written a great deal of unpublished material, and who has been unable to break into the narrow world that is publishing today, to prefer the public domain. 

Ideas are great.  The people who create new ideas deserve to be compensated for their creativity.  But to have a situation where the words "You're fired" are registered as a trademark, where media created today won't enter into the public domain for hundreds of years, and where songs like "Happy birthday" cannot be sung in public without compensating someone (while at the same time big companies can pay to have classic Gershwin and other tunes as their corporate jingles)... I just feel that this goes against the initial intent of copyright law. 

The public domain is a great place.  When I was teaching history, I'd build my own course readers from public material and save my students $40 off the cost of a published compendium (that was largely the same kind of stuff).  But when I got to the 20th century, it was much harder, because of the strangehold that copyright law has placed upon the exchange of ideas.  So instead, you have to make students buy $14 copies of works whose authors have been dead for, in some cases, for nearly a century.


----------



## Umbran (May 15, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> ...I do not hold that an action is acceptable or unobjectionable (or, more strongly, unactionable - if that is a word) merely because it does not represent an immediate, easily quantifiable economic loss...




Right.  Now, what happens when we start allowing action against things that don't represent a quantifiable loss?  You think this nation is litigious now, wait until you've set a precedent that says you don't need to have a loss to legally call someone out onto the carpet.




> I suppose the center of my starting point is that I would ask "Why?" to the above statement.  You seem to be saying that the value of the work taht was put into the material is dependant on the material itself.




Not quite.  The value of the finished product is partially dependant on the value of the materials.  And there may be synergy involved - between intellectual content and physical manifestation.  Plus, there's an added complication...



> But, at its base, it is easy to say what has been lost; the information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book.




Yes, but that information has not be taken away from the seller!  The book and it's data are still preent, and may still be sold.

This is why we must be careful in dealing with electronic media.  In standard theft, the thief denies the owner the ability to sell a product - the product is physically no longer persent, and cannot be given to a paying customer.  Also note that the damage a traditional thief can do is limited by how many items he or she can physically carry away.

With electronic copies, the thief leaves behind the thing that was to be sold.  He does not fully deny the seller the ability to sell it.  But, note that while he only made one copy at the time of the theft, he has the ability to deny the original owner more than one sale, if he desires.  

This is why we must deal with theft of information differently.  Sometimes the theft represents no loss.  Sometimes is represents a very large loss.  



> The person took a commercial product without paying for it, ergo, as I see it, the person stole it.




Yes.  I don't deny that.  The question, though is what harm was done in the theft.  That whole, "make the punishment fit the crime" thing comes into play. 




> I would say that the argument that material can be taken if there is no immediate, easily quantifiable economic loss is 'just negotiating'.




Yes.  When did you become of the opinion that our legal systems didn't involve a whole lot of negotiating?  Sure, if you like we can go back to the days where a thief had his hand cut off, no matter what was stolen.  But somehow I don't see that as a movement forward in our social development.  



> If we don't have an accurate idea about the losses, then ... we don't have an accurate estimate of the losses.  I'm not talking about whether a given copyright law is best or not, but about what is right to do.




That's fine.  I was not trying to slap a simple label of right and wrong on it.  Copyright is about protecting the income of those who spend precous time and effort to create new ideas and new combinations of ideas.  In order to properly protect them, we have to know more than "right/wrong".  We need to know how much loss they incur.  

Note that I never said that the lack of clear economic loss made the thing right.  But our justice system is not fully digital.  It is at least partially analog.  We use how much damage is done to another to determine how wrong an act was.  



> Might not this wave of pirating have had the effect of killing the PDF project, representing a quite real loss?




Yes, but that's aside from the point I was making at that time. But the issue I was addressing was more akin to askig: what loss did WotC feel from those folks who photocopied old modules after the modules went out of print, but before the pdf project started?



> No.  Just because the hypothetical 'you' is being a jerk and doing a disservice to Mr. Martin and the fans does not mean that the moral position of someone who steal the book is in any way improved, as I see it.




Okay.  So you don't seem to be a moral relativist.  Unfortunately for you, our legal system is at least partially relativist.  Until that changes, you'll be somewhat unsatisfied with it.  To consider that any further, though, would be roaming into politics, and I'm not gonna do it.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 15, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> It is reasonable to think that some of the downloads might possibly have been by the same people at different times, appearing as different IP's.  That seems reasonable.
> 
> What I cannot agree with is the leap that the author loses nothing if the material is stolen, er, downloaded, by someone who "wouldn't have bought the product anyway."  If a thief breaks into a bookstore and steals merchandise, has the thief only stolen a value equal to what the thief could have paid for?  The most apparent difference between this case and the cases being discussed is that the material stolen has definite physical reality, but shouldn't that just be changed to the price of printing the books, in this view?
> 
> ...



 (Sorry for the large quote but its been several pages)(And apologies if this has been said I'm reading through answering in order)

Okay here's the difference a thief in the bookstore takes the merchandise which prevents it being sold to someone else therefore you do not lose money to the thief, he probably wouldn't have been interested anyway, but you lose the money because you can't sell the stolen product to someone who would have paid for it, this is not an issue with electronic copies. 

However, I have NEVER anywhere in that post claimed that anyone has a right to the contents, they still stole the work, however you cannot claim it as a LOSS, because quiet frankly if they wouldn't have paid for it in the first place you have lost $0. 

And would someone please tell me where I said they had the right to grab it if they couldn't pay for it please ? I'm fairly sure I said that you can't claim it as a loss, not that they have the right to steal it. There's a difference between the reality of economic loss and the more mental structure of morality.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 15, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Kalanyr, if you think my assessment is an extreme, then your views are the opposite extreme. He did lose more than $1200. Based on repeat openings, he's got a lost of 1200 people with stable IP addresses. That right there alone represents the willingness to steal $14,000, not a mere $1200. Publishers only hurt themselves by trying to quantify how many downloads would have represented buyers, since that relies on the false justifications that the thieves offer up as an excuse for their activities.



 (Apologies again)

Yes if I'd said $1200 was the highest estimate I'd take I'd agree its a low end, but I didn't, in fact I deliberate avoided positing an actual loss estimate, because I know it'd be impossible to tell how much he lost, but computing every copy as a loss is the maximum extreme (comparable to claiming that he lost $0 because none of the downloaders would have paid for it (which is admittedly more mathematically improbable)).  He almost certainly lost more than $1200 but less than the estimate you provided.


----------



## Thanatos (May 15, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> You still have flaws in your thinking. DHCP simply means your IP address is asigned via network communications, nothing more. Most cable systems rely on DHCP assigning the IP address based on a locally maintained table on their servers. My IP address via comcast is assigned via DHCP, yet every time the modem resets (which happens about 4 times per week, between 1 AM and 3 AM) my IP address is always the same. Only time it changed was during the transition between comcast@home to comcast.net
> 
> Same can be said for all the other addressing methods. Unless you're using dialup, MAC, NAT, etc. assigned on the LAN in your home are irrelevant.




How does my thinking have flaws? Also, I know what DHCP means and I know individuals that get a new address each time their cable modem resets and it happens at least one or two times a week. It is completely relevant to the issue at hand. How do you figure it can not be? Those kind of things are completely capable of skewing the statistic.



> Lost, sold, deleted, whatever. This really doesn't matter thanks to the way the warez community is now starting to be prosecuted. The download record is sufficient proof that you had 3 copies in your possession.




No, the download record is not sufficient proof in and of itself that you have 3 copies in your posssession, nor is even sufficient proof WHO downloaded it ( If more then one person has acccess to the computer you have). How about all those IP addresses the RIAA served warrants are...some of those people didn't even have computers or were not used by them? IP Addresses are far, far from being a smoking gun, despite what you seem to believe.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 15, 2004)

Having just finished reading the extra couple of pages of this thread I'd like to say ignore all my posts Sigil and Umbran are saying pretty much exactly what I'm trying to say, only far far more eloquently and clearly.


----------



## Heretic Apostate (May 15, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> And please do not get me started on how corporations are using the public domain, then copyrighting it!



Are you talking Disney, with regard to such things as Snow White and such?  Or something else entirely?

(Sorry, you got me curious...)

*********************************************

I consider some items to be true abandonware when the company selling them do not live up to the promises that accompany the sale.  For instance, I own a copy (legally bought, still the original file...) of "The Castle of Winds," a rather good and cheap game from over five years ago.  It specifically states, in one of the files (as well as the website?), that one only has to contact the company to get a boatload of freebies to go with the game.

Only thing is, the company sold the rights to some corporation.  And the corporation doesn't feel obligated to give out the freebies.  (Freebies being such things as "a Word document that has tips and tricks and types of items and such"... basically, a Strat Guide on the cheap.)  They don't want to honor their commitment, so I feel no qualm about giving the game out.  (Of course, there's a website out there already doing it, so not much point in me doing it.  But if someone were to ask, I'd be very tempted to send a copy...)


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 15, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Not quite... an idea itself has no "value" in monetary terms because the idea can spread at no cost to the originator himself.  In other words, it's worthless to try to assign a monetary value to that which is ephemeral and that which I can give to you without impoverishing myself by the loss of it.




  Well, if we think about the idea - and I am using 'idea' in this case to represent the developed work, the content of the hypothetical book in question - in terms of "capital", then it does not have value from intrinsic materials, but it does have value due to the work done by the author, the value of the author's time.  Now, once the work is done the value of the work as a commercial product depends upon the demand for the 

   This means that while the market value of the material varies, there is no point at which it has zero value.  Additionally, the spread of the material, even among people who say that they would never have purchased it, will have an effect on the demand for the product.



> The value is not bound up in the work itself, but rather in the effort that created it.




  But not strictly in the act of transferring the product from existing as an electronic file to paper.  Hang on, we're about to agree more in a moment.



> I must have come across badly then.




   What surprised me was that your line of reasoning could (it seems to me) easily be swung around into a claim as a moral basis for "file-sharing", the request I made of the pro-fileshare posters.  I didn't want to start from the idea that that was where you were going yourself, but I could see *someone* going there, so I wanted to address it first thing.  From the way I defined what I was referring to as an "idea" above, we're not as far apart as we could be.



> The effort and time take to type are where most of the value lies (the physical cost of the paper it's printed on or the plastic CD it's recorded on make up some cost as well).
> 
> In other words, the idea itself for "your kewl prestige class" is worth squat.  The effort you spend organizing words - and that set of words - that communicate your idea is where the value lies.  The EXPRESSION of the idea - and the effort spent crafting that expression - is what's important.




   So the electronic version of your product has value, value which can be enhanced by the medium but is not totally dependant on the medium.




> "He who lights his taper at mine receives light without darkening me." (Thomas Jefferson)
> 
> Intellectual work by its very nature belongs to the public, as the purpose of society is to enrich its members.  If I share an idea with you, you are enriched, and I am not impoverished.  Thus, sharing ideas allows all to be enriched and impoverishes none.  Furthermore, once thought of, an idea is very difficult to "un-think."




  Are we back to an idea as just a cool thought?  If Thomas Jefferson ran a fire-producing business, then if someone came in and lit his taper it would be a theft of services.

  We are bouncing back and forth between an idea as the electronic aspect of a commercial product and an idea as an abstract iota of knowledge or enlightenment.  Context is also improtant.  I spent a lot of time, effort, and money to get my Ph.D., but if someone asks me a question I can answer about astronomy, physics, or something else I have expertise in, then I'll talk their ears off and consider it a full Thomas Jefferson moment, but someone sneaking into a class that I teach is stealing by virtue of taking for free what a number of other people are paying for.  Context.  



> To this end, the public proposes to grant you a time period to profit from your work and cleverness in exchange for you enriching all.  This is copyright.




It is interesting that both our descriptions of copyright could appeal to this sentence, but the difference is where the sense of moral power lies; does the  intellectual work done belong to society which allows the author to benefit from his/her work, or does the contructed work in some sense the property of the author, who allows the work to be inheirited eventually by society in exchange for society's protection of the individual's exclusive right to distribute their work for the time before that?



> This sounds very much like what Thomas Babington MacAulay concluded.  I've quoted him before and you can google him if you wish.




  I will try this on Monday, when I'm back at work on a computer that can multitask.   'Til then, I'll say that much of this seems reasonable (in fact, I'll skip the stuff that seems cool straight off) without necessarily endorsing this guy until I know his full position so I don't get slammed if he endorsed playing croquet with kittens or the extension of slavery to anyone who has got a knighthood, or some such .  



> 5 - To tax society as a whole, we create a monopoly called copyright.
> 6 - Monopolies are always evil and serve only to unjustly drive up the prices of that which is monopolized.




#1-#4 I'm cool with, but I don't think that #6 is correct.  There are some monopolies that I think are positive goods.  For example, medicine is in some sense a monopoly, as there are strict governmental restrictions as to who can practice medicine.  I consider this as a good in that there are then at some checks are to what type of fruit loop can claim to be a medical doctor.  I think that the condition of having the police force as a state monopoly is much better than having them a part of competing private forces, and I would wager that the cost is lower as well.
   To say that exclusive rights to material generated by the worker = a monopoly seems excessive.  If one source controls gasoline to an area (the Keewenaw penninsula of the UP of Michigan) that's a bad thing.  If only one company can produce a specific sourcebook, I cannot imagine that to be comparable.  As I see it, the author is the one being "taxed" by the limited life of copyright for society's help in enforcing the copyright.



> 10 - Macauley didn't like booksellers (media giants) who buy copyrights from artists "in their distress" for what amounts to pennies on the eventual dollar.




  True, but as I responded to in a different post, it is not a moral thing to do a non-moral thing to a bastiche.



> I'm running low on time, but is that good enough for you?




   Zowie.



> Copyrights are a tax of the nastiest kind - monopolies - that should be considered a necessary evil for the creation of IP and should last just long enough that the "evil" done does not offset the good of creation.




And here is where we break ranks.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 15, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Right.  Now, what happens when we start allowing action against things that don't represent a quantifiable loss?  You think this nation is litigious now, wait until you've set a precedent that says you don't need to have a loss to legally call someone out onto the carpet.




   First, just because the loss is difficult to assign a dollar value to does not mean that we cannot see that loss has occured.  Secondly, it is possible to call someone to account for a indeterminate loss, the trial (ideally) also serving to generate a value based upon an idea of the damage done and the settlement as a punative act against the offending party.  Also note that I said "immediate, easily quantifiable", not "not quantifiable".




> Not quite.  The value of the finished product is partially dependant on the value of the materials.




But it is not entirely dependant on the material; the file has some non-zero value, so it's removal is a form of stealing.




> Yes, but that information has not be taken away from the seller!  The book and it's data are still preent, and may still be sold.




  The information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book has been removed from the store.  The thief removed what the store had for sale without paying for it.  The punishment might be changed in context, but the action seems straightforward.




> This is why we must deal with theft of information differently.  Sometimes the theft represents no loss.  Sometimes is represents a very large loss.




  I completely disagree that the theft can represent no loss, unless you posit a case where the material is downloaded and immediately erased.




> Yes.  When did you become of the opinion that our legal systems didn't involve a whole lot of negotiating?  Sure, if you like we can go back to the days where a thief had his hand cut off, no matter what was stolen.  But somehow I don't see that as a movement forward in our social development.




  What the smeg page are you on?  You are completely missing my point.  In the context of the anecdote, the 'just negotiating' comment was to say that the claim of "My stealing isn't really stealing because I'm goin' after the 'Man'", or "My stealing isn't really stealing because there's no 'economic loss'" is no more moral than any other type of theft of a luxury item.  The woman in the story who would prostitute herself for a million dollars is no different in quality from someone who would do it for twenty, if there is a difference in degree.  I don't see a difference in quality between different types of stealing.  To move to a point of "I call no harm, so no punishment", I feel , is a weak rationalization.  
   We do not have a system where the punishment is to be set as equal to the immediately demonstrable monetary value.  There are bins: petty theft, grand theft, copyright infringement, etc.  The file-share person might argue about which bin they should be in, but they "pat on the back and a lollypop" bin isn't one of the choices.
  If one person steals a copy of a book that sells out, and another steals a copy of a book where the rest just sit on the shelves have still committed the same crime.  If one person makes a download available, and that happens to noticeably damage the sales of a product, and another person makes a download available that they argue have had no effect on sales, it's still the same action.

  The system does allow for adding consequences if the consequences from the criminal action are excessively large, but no the other way to let the first shoplifter from the last paragraph off.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Dr Harry_:
> The information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book has been removed from the store. The thief removed what the store had for sale without paying for it. The punishment might be changed in context, but the action seems straightforward.




How has he removed the idea from the store ? The idea is still very much there, its still inside the book, the idea hasn't been removed at all, its been copied. 

This is like saying that if I read a book from the library I'm stealing it (from whatever bookstore I normally go to) because I should have gone and bought the book to get the idea. Or saying that reading bits of a book in a store are theft (you're removing parts of the idea), god forbid you have a photographic memory and flip through an entire book because you've just stolen the entire thing. I'm not really sure I want to start holding people with photographic memories flipping through books as being guilty of a crime the average person doing the same thing isn't, and thats where that line of thought taken to extremes leads.

Edit: Corrected an Italics tag.

Edit: And if you want to say a library won't have the book during release how about I borrow the book from a friend and read it ?

Edit3: Last is  changed to an isn't so it makes sense now.


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 15, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I completely disagree that the theft can represent no loss, unless you posit a case where the material is downloaded and immediately erased.



The idea of "no theft occuring", as I seem to be reading it, is that filesharing results in an act more akin to counterfitting.  For instance, if I buy a copy of _Lord of the Rings_ at the store and then set up a printing press to crank out 50000 copies, I haven't stolen anything because I haven't physically taken anything.  However, the act _is_ copyright infringement; I have reproduced an item that I'm not permitted to reproduce and distributed it in a manner that will likely impact sales to some degree.  Now, how much of an impact would have to be determined by an expert ("Forensic Accountants" being the actual name of that particular specialty, and yes, they do exist), but I would be liable for _that_ crime.

Now, morally, we could call it theft (I stole their material, I stole the priviliage, and thus stole their profits).  However, if we are going to talk about the topic, how we view it (theft) is irrelevant next to the actual law that the crime pertains to (copyright infringement).

Granted, IANAL; This is just how I'm comprehending the posts being made.  However, it definately seems to make sense to the extent that I understand the law (as my profession involves a measure of proprietary software and thus _some_ knowledge of what I was getting into was desirable at the time).


----------



## FraserRonald (May 15, 2004)

Wow. A lot of reading. This has drifted from a thread about how piracy has/will effect the RPG industry into a discussion of piracy itself. I don't want to add too much, but I will say this. A lot of theories are floating around about what constitutes piracy, what should be public domain and ideas about copyright. That is fine in a theoretical sense. I--personally--do not live in a theoretical world. 

The fact is simple: IP is important if we want art and literature. As a writer, my IP is as important to me as the Ford assembly line is to it. If you took away Ford's assembly line or even borrowed it for a weekend, is that acceptable? I get paid for writing most of the time--when I do it for pay. A doctor works for pay also. Should he work for free?

Honestly, if copyright expires within the creator's lifetime, is that fair? Should the investments made by private companies become public property after ten years?

I know it is difficult to get our heads around IP, but it as much property to those of us who rely on it as your home is to you. I won't steal your home if you don't steal my IP.

I hope this hasn't sounded too terse, confrontational or rude. My dinner is on the table, my wife is staring at me and the cat is eying up my french fries, so I'm a little bit rushed. Please assume anything offensive was untintentional. Likely anything inspired was as well.

Thanks and take care all.


----------



## Acid_crash (May 15, 2004)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> I get paid for writing most of the time--when I do it for pay. A doctor works for pay also. Should he work for free?
> .




To be honest, I think that everything should be free but due to the greedy nature of the world we live in, everything costs money, and more money than it's truly worth.  

We are a greedy bunch of human beings in the world.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 15, 2004)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Actually if Ralts had permission to do this experiment then the copies are all legitimate.  If Ralts did not have permission, then before anyone else could be charged Ralts would have to be for every copy he made available.  (Presuming US law)  Also as I indicated earlier there is no mention on the entire Crimson Contract's PDF of a retail price.  Anyone downloading that would have no way of knowing without further research whether the book was a commercial enterprise.  Effectively now, Ralts actions have given a situation that all the books he distributed are either public domain or that Ralts must be officially stated as not having permission for his actions.  Copyrights must be defended to be maintained.




Let me rephrase. The copy Ralts put out was not authorized for resale, rather like how you can buy snack size potato chips at lunch with all the nutritional info, but if you buy a bulk pack at the grocery store, the individual packs are labelled "not for resale". Even if authorized, Ralt's experiment used what was effective a copy considered "not for resale".

Second, copyrights do not have to be defended to be maintained. You're confusing copyright with trademark.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 15, 2004)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> No, the download record is not sufficient proof in and of itself that you have 3 copies in your posssession, nor is even sufficient proof WHO downloaded it ( If more then one person has acccess to the computer you have). How about all those IP addresses the RIAA served warrants are...some of those people didn't even have computers or were not used by them? IP Addresses are far, far from being a smoking gun, despite what you seem to believe.




Okay. Store surveillance tape shows a guy walking in, stashing a radio under his jacket, and walking out. He comes back in and does the exact same thing four more times. Nobody notices at first, but he gets caught on the fifth try. Security discovers the first four instances while reviewing security footage while waiting for the cops. Cops arrive, search the guy's car, but can't find the other four radios. How many counts of shoplifting does he get charged with when the cops drag him off to the station? 5 counts, because their is circumstantial video evidence, even if they could only find one of the five radios. Proof of the download now usually works the same way as that surveillance video, thanks to a lot of recent kiddie porn cases, where "someone else must have downloaded it on my computer" didn't work as an excuse.


----------



## FraserRonald (May 16, 2004)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> To be honest, I think that everything should be free but due to the greedy nature of the world we live in, everything costs money, and more money than it's truly worth.
> 
> We are a greedy bunch of human beings in the world.




Hi Acid Crash. 

You know what? I agree. I wish everything were free, that no one needed money. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We are a greedy bunch of human beings for the most part, some greedier than others.

Ah well, until the day of the United Federation of Planets and a moneyless society, I'll be pimpin' my wares for the Benjamins.

Take care all.


----------



## Umbran (May 16, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I completely disagree that the theft can represent no loss, unless you posit a case where the material is downloaded and immediately erased.




Well, as I shall say again, you cannot lose what you can _never_ have gotten.  

As an extreme example - I can write down 17 words in a pdf, call them the best joke in the world, and chage $50 for you to download them.  The likelyhood that anyone would buy a 17 word joke from me, sight unseen, for that much is extremely small.  I am not going to make any sales.  This pdf will earn me no money whatsoever.  So, if people steal it, what sales am I losing?  None whatsoever.  So I suffer no actual loss.  My rights were violated, yes.  But I didn't lose any income in that violation.

But, I'll do you one better.  There are cases in which the theft leads to financial _gain_.  Specifically in the case of the music industry, with artists who don't have big contracts with major labels.  Occasionally, an mp3 of theirs gets loose on the net.  Definite ilegal copying.  Theft.  However, it also acts as advertising, leading to sales of albums and concert tickets.  This certainly happens for some artists.  Depending on which numbers you believe, it may be happening to a great many artists.  

Same thing can happen with a pdf.  Geek steals a copy of one, decides it is really cools stuff, and decides to support the company by buying others.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 16, 2004)

The people who spend the time engaging in intellectual debate over the pros & cons of IP aren't the ones who are using filesharing. It's the regular joe who really doesn't care about the "morality" of the issue.

We're living in a brave new world. People better learn to adapt or the times will pass them by...


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 16, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> How has he removed the idea from the store ? The idea is still very much there, its still inside the book, the idea hasn't been removed at all, its been copied.




   Yes, the material has been copied.  Material that was in the store for the purpose of sale was removed from the store without the sale occuring.  The difference between this case and one where the book itself is shoplifted is immaterial as far as whether stealing has occured.  Sure, someone could claim that no "material" has been stolen, similar to someone claiming that nothing was lost if a thief shoplifted a book and there were a lot of other copies, but I don't find this meaningful.  The thief removed the material offered for sale as he now has a copy outside the door that he can use that he didn't pay for.



> This is like saying that if I read a book from the library I'm stealing it (from whatever bookstore I normally go to) because I should have gone and bought the book to get the idea.




   No, it is not like saying that.  The material was purchased by the library for the purpose of being used in the way you are using it.  Photocopying the book when you got it home from the library would be stealing it, though.  



> Or saying that reading bits of a book in a store are theft (you're removing parts of the idea), god forbid you have a photographic memory and flip through an entire book because you've just stolen the entire thing. I'm not really sure I want to start holding people with photographic memories flipping through books as being guilty of a crime the average person doing the same thing isn't, and thats where that line of thought taken to extremes leads.




    No, it doesn't lead there at all, unless you posit the idea of people who can read minds who can then read the material .  A ridiculous fantasy, to be sure, but no more than your reductio ab absurdio.  This accusation of yours depends on bouncing between two different descriptions of the "idea".  One the one case is anything gained from a casual reading of the material, and the material in a form in which it can be casually accessed whenever.  As I said in another post, this cannot be divorced from the context.



> Edit: And if you want to say a library won't have the book during release how about I borrow the book from a friend and read it ?




    I didn't say that, so my response does not change.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 16, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, as I shall say again, you cannot lose what you can _never_ have gotten.
> 
> As an extreme example - I can write down 17 words in a pdf, call them the best joke in the world, and chage $50 for you to download them.  The likelyhood that anyone would buy a 17 word joke from me, sight unseen, for that much is extremely small.  I am not going to make any sales.  This pdf will earn me no money whatsoever.  So, if people steal it, what sales am I losing?  None whatsoever.  So I suffer no actual loss.  My rights were violated, yes.  But I didn't lose any income in that violation.




   To say that the electronic theft represents what the creator "would never have gotten" presumes a 'God's-eye' view in which it's possible to claim that the thief would never have valued the material enough to buy it when the thief did value it enough to steal it.  Removing the material shows that the thief broke the implicit contract of not getting access to the material without paying for it, so I feel it's totally reasonable to use the cost of the item to describe the magnitude of the stealing.

  If you shoplift an item from a store that has a price tag of $1600, then your charge will be based on that price tag, not your claim that the item only has a real value of $1000.  We can both imagine ridiculously extreme situation in which a judge might use his/her discretion to adjust this for this silly case, but that would be a reaction to what is clearly an extreme, and I don't think that there is a case this extreme that has come up.



> But, I'll do you one better.  There are cases in which the theft leads to financial _gain_. ... Geek steals a copy of one, decides it is really cools stuff, and decides to support the company by buying others.




  Even if I go with you completely on this, it does not change the act itself, so I don't think it should change the legal repercussions of the act.

   I have never met anyone who falls into the category of the geek in the story, but I have met too many people, unfortunately in the gaming community, like this to imagine the scenario as "Geek steals a copy of one, decides it is really cool, and decides to steal another by the same company".  Could you please explain how you can know that the wonderful, noble thieves of your story so outnumber the ones in mine that filesharing 
does no harm?


----------



## Kalanyr (May 16, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Yes, the material has been copied.  Material that was in the store for the purpose of sale was removed from the store without the sale occuring.  The difference between this case and one where the book itself is shoplifted is immaterial as far as whether stealing has occured.  Sure, someone could claim that no "material" has been stolen, similar to someone claiming that nothing was lost if a thief shoplifted a book and there were a lot of other copies, but I don't find this meaningful.  The thief removed the material offered for sale as he now has a copy outside the door that he can use that he didn't pay for.




Okay for the rest of this post I will assume that theft represents removal of an idea, rather than (or perhaps as well as, since otherwise we end up with the ridiculous case where physical removing the book from the shop but not reading it is a lesser (or non-) crime than removing the idea, which is absurd because it prevents sale to another) physical material since this is what you are claiming. 



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> No, it is not like saying that.  The material was purchased by the library for the purpose of being used in the way you are using it.  Photocopying the book when you got it home from the library would be stealing it, though.




But a library purchases maybe 3 or 4 copies of a book and the idea is distributed to 100s of people. Surely the 100's who have not been paid for are committing theft of the idea ? If not it leads to the situation where I have the right to lend something I buy to as many people as I want, and from there one has to ask what's wrong with copying it ? They'll see the idea anyway , and I don't know a lot of people that read the same book more than once (with a few exceptions (textbooks,or something like the Lord of the Rings)) and hence the bookshop has lost any potential sales already. 



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't lead there at all, unless you posit the idea of people who can read minds who can then read the material .  A ridiculous fantasy, to be sure, but no more than your reductio ab absurdio.  This accusation of yours depends on bouncing between two different descriptions of the "idea".  One the one case is anything gained from a casual reading of the material, and the material in a form in which it can be casually accessed whenever.  As I said in another post, this cannot be divorced from the context.




Ah but you see, I have removed the material that was there for sale without paying for it, which you say is what theft is, so by that defintion (yours) I have stolen it. And I can choose to write it down and distribute it. The idea has been taken, exactly the same in the above case it just has not been physically reproduced (yet), if we go by your definition that duplication of ideas is theft than I have committed it, because the idea is now in my head. 




			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I didn't say that, so my response does not change.




Fair enough, I was just positing a possible claim based on earlier replies about libraries.


----------



## Dana_Jorgensen (May 16, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> As an extreme example - I can write down 17 words in a pdf, call them the best joke in the world, and chage $50 for you to download them.  The likelyhood that anyone would buy a 17 word joke from me, sight unseen, for that much is extremely small.  I am not going to make any sales.  This pdf will earn me no money whatsoever.  So, if people steal it, what sales am I losing?  None whatsoever.  So I suffer no actual loss.  My rights were violated, yes.  But I didn't lose any income in that violation.




You call that an extreme example? It really isn't. At one point, people were paying up to $25 for _The Wisdom of Lobo_ a "comic book" published by DC. IIRC, it was perfectbound, full color cover, 32 blank pages inside, retailing at somewhere around $3.00 when it initially reached the stores.


----------



## resistor (May 16, 2004)

The distinction people are really looking for is "larceny" vs. "copyright infringement."

Stealing a book from a bookstore is a case of larceny, because the thief has deprived the bookstore of possession of the book.

Copying a book in a bookstore with a portable copier is NOT a case of larceny, because the bookstore has NOT been deprived of the either the physical book or the ideas contained in it.

You will note that legal dictionaries (http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/ or http://dictionary.law.com/) define "theft" as synonymous with "larceny."

So Sigil is in fact correct that taking a copier into a bookstore and duplicating the book is NOT theft because it is NOT larceny.

Hence nothing was stolen.  Period.  Copyright was infringed, certainly, BUT NOTHING WAS STOLEN.  QED.


----------



## scott-fs (May 16, 2004)

As others have commented, this is a very interesting thread.  I'm coming in on it a few days late, though it has gone fairly strong.



			
				JDWiker said:
			
		

> If you're interested in this topic, and you plan to be at Gen Con Indy this year, The Game Mechanics is hosting a debate on this very subject at Gen Con, on Saturday afternoon ("Internet Piracy: Impact vs. Ethics" at 3 pm). It's our intention to present the basic arguments for and against file-sharing, then open up the floor to comments from the audience. If you've got an hour to spare, we'd appreciate getting your insights!




I wish I could attend GenCon as it would be a very interesting debate/seminar.  Would it be possible to have it audio recorded, and then made available online after GenCon ?  A transcript would also be very cool.

At GenCon I knew there was a d20/OGL seminar that was recorded and made available on the internet.  I found the link in an mp3 playlist file I had on my computer:
http://gamingreport.com/files/audio/OGLd20Session.mp3

It's about 53 minutes long (almost 19Meg in size at a 48 bitrate).



			
				MerakSpielman said:
			
		

> I really don't think I could use pdfs instead of books even if I wanted to. If I did want a pdf archive of books, I'd do it myself from books I've already purchased so I can be sure it's being done right.




I'm very selective like that with my music.  I have a compulsive need to have as many mp3s as possible at the maximum bitrate (meaning 320kps), meaning a 5:23 song weighs in at 12.3 meg.  I can notice the difference in quality between a 320 and a 128.  In order to get that quality, I have to buy the cd, and extract the tracks.  Lately I've forsaken North American music for the much higher quality European progressive rock/metal bands.  As a shameless plug my favorites are: Lacuna Coil, Hammerfall, Nightwish, Stormwitch, Metalium, Rhapsody, Within Temptation.

To lead this post back semi on topic, I've downloaded lots of books, most of them poor quality.  I like many others in this thread, download them to preview them.  The last product I've actually purchased was probably the Ravenloft PHB and the third module in GRR's Freeport series.  There was one book can only assume I got off Kazaa.  It was an adventure I used to kick off my recent campaign.  Funny thing was, it was an adventure the publisher had put on their website as a free download.   

In general I've noticed a trend in which 80% of the product that can be downloaded comes from about 7 companies.

And now to a post from the beginning of the thread which I felt I needed to respond to:



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> The small-press people see sales (maximum) of 5000 copies over the lifetime of one product, in rare circumstances going higher than that. PDF publishers will see an average of 100 to 500 sales TOTAL of a product, only slightly more if it's absurdly popular.




Wow, what figures (and from who) did you get those from ?  Recently (with all the product flying around), you're in heaven if you manage to sell 1,000 copies over the lifetime of a product, particularly if you are small-press (non-d20 gets about half).  It's possible S&SS, Mongoose, Fantasy Flight, AEG, etc get around your figures, but I wouldn't call them "small press".  They're in the mid range.

As to PDFs, I'd expect that publishers might see an average of 50-100 sales.  Some of the popular titles maybe within your 100-500 range.  Of course, I don't have any stats to give any actual figures.

Unless you have actual data.  My only figures come from being a member of the GPA (Game Publishers Association) where a large number of Small-Press can be found, and the advice regarding the state of the market from the head man at Impressions Advertising (who does fullfillment for a number of d20 and non-d20 companies).


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (May 16, 2004)

Thanatos said:
			
		

> ...and Ralts illegal invasion of privacy and federal computer laws violations pretty much put him in the same league with the copyright infringers in my opinon. I won't ever buy anything from him, now that I know he does things like this.




Gee, all of a sudden I invade privacy and federal computer laws by inserting a tracking method for a product?

Hmmmm, let's see what else does this...

WINDOWS!
Norton Antivirus!
Hundreds of software titles use this system. In order to register/update, etc, it pings a server.

Now, how did I invade thier privacy? Are IP number private, or are they public information that the backbone of using your computer on the internet is based off of?

No copies of thier hard-drives. No identification of names. No information what so ever, at all.

Just }ping xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx

That's it. Ping.

Your computer does that on a regular basis. This site leaves more data and examines more data on your system than my little tracker did.

Honestly, to me, that little statement reminds me of a child caught with his hand in the cookie jar who yells: "FINE! I'LL NEVER EAT COOKIES ANYWAY!" at his catcher.

Thanks for the accusation that I invaded people's privacy and broke federal computing laws. Thanks for the libel. I appreciate your devotion to the facts, as well as the intent and scope of what I did.

Remind me, if I ever regain the ability to really care about things, to reread the section on how I'm a criminal.



And additionally, if you read it again, this is what was done...

I took the online "FREE SAMPLE", inflated the PDF and zip size, added my code to **PING** an IP address (the massive invasion of privacy I did, a PING! Oh my god, I know everything about them, and can now watch them in the shower! They've been violated by a PING! I could get more data with a _whois_ on mIRC!) edited the zipfile comments and file comments to match the illegal copies on KaZaA, Bearshare, Gnutella, eMule and others, and placed it in a folder.

The "Free Sample"...

Not my complete work.

But, apparently my data was skewed. One person downloaded it and just opened it a lot. And continued to open it, a lot, just because he likes to see: "BUY THE REAL BOOK, THIEF!" in big red letters at the top of the pages of the PDF....

I like how an attempt was made, both to discredit what I did, and to claim that I am a worse criminal than those who download the RPG material...

Here's some data to consider...

Many companies are moving to no longer producing computer games. Why? Because you can download ISO CD files within days of the product hitting the shelf to copy the CD, complete with instruction for the stupid.

RPG PDF's are moving to the "Why bother? They'll just steal it." train of thought.

Quality software for RPG's is not being produced for pay, due to the massive amount of piracy.

Is this having an affect on the industry? I'd say yes.

Is it wrong to download PDF's that sell for even $0.01 for free? Yes. Unless you live in some bizarro universe, it's wrong, and most of all, YOU KNOW IT!

All of this legalese is just self-aggrandizing excuses for something you KNOW is wrong.

Oh, and for those of you who were wondering, we will be inserting microchips within all hard-copy books that allow me to track you on my global sat-system and watch your sister take a shower.

Sheeesh.


----------



## scott-fs (May 16, 2004)

Ok, this post goes along in much more detail than I was planning to.  I have no idea how much fire there is under this thread, or if it has simply come to it's natural conclusion (with nothing left to be said).



			
				Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> One question I do have for the "preview" file-sharers: Do any of you find yourselves "backed-up" in your planned purchases?  How many have found yourselves in possession of _so much_ material that you _want_ to buy that you can't possibly do so in a reasonable amount of time?  Or, more possibly in my mind, at such an expense that you can't feasibly afford it all?




I recently (since about Febuary) got into HarnWorld and HarnMaster.  Compared to many other products by many other companies, theikr products are expensive.  Imagine for $30 you get 160 pages of rules (80 looseleaf sheets) a pad of character sheets and a thick cardboard GM screen.  On the other hand, HMlite (consisting of just the rules) is $10.  Ok, admitedly, this is fairly cheap cost/number of pages, but the core rules only comes with a brief two pages for Wizards, and two pages for Clerics.  To get the rules for wizards and magic, it is $30 for 72 pages.  To get the rules for clerics and religion, it is $30 for 88 pages.  All told, $60 for 160 pages of material that you generally might find included in your average FRPG.  So, what does the above mean.

When I first learned of Harn (from their free pdf of the HM3 rules), I immediately knew that this was the set of rules that I would use for my gaming purposes and drop 3e completely.  Since I had major differences in my world background for Wizards and Clerics, I decided that the Magic and Religion products weren't worth getting.  I spent some time on Kazaa and found Magic.  I found a whole lot of other harn product (mostly OOP products from 20 years ago that I will likely have no chance of finding used online for a decent price).  I eventually want to get a physical copy of all product for Harn, but simply do not have the money (most of the inprint articles cost $0.50 per page) at this present moment.  Back to Magic.  I read up on it, and was interested in it, but it wouldn't fit my world.  I could not find Religion on Kazaa *anywhere*.  It wasn't a concern because I figured it eventually has to show up sometime.  Well, I decided to start a HarnWorld campaign to familiarize myself with the rules, and one player wanted to be a Cleric.  I attempted to find it again on Kazaa, but to no avail.  I eventually decided to purchase it.  I got it used from Noble Knight for about $2 cheaper than CGI sells it for.  I also got another product at the same time (Pilot's Almanac).  Note: my reason for eventually purchasing had more to do with the emergency of requiring it for a game, rather than being unable to find it.  If I didn't have any plans of starting up Harn, I would've waited.

I want so much to go on CGI's website and order a copy of every article they currently have in print, but I simply do not have the available resources to commit to it.  Imagine oweing $7500 on a credit card, an $8000 student loan, and a $5500 personal loan from family, and combine this with a $100 week income.  

And yet, with all this debt I have managed to purchase about $200 worth of Harn product, and around $100 worth of cds from some amazing European bands (who without the presence of Kazaa would go unpaid).

Of the files I do have 93 total, only 20 are official Harn products.  The other 73 or so is fanwork of incredible quality (or free official pdfs).  Of the 20 "illegal" downloads, only 7 are still inprint, and thus available for me to purchase if I had the available cash.  I'd have to spend $127 to catch up on planned purchases at this present moment.  The only slight problem comes to some of the products released as pdfs only (though there is only one such product I have downloaded), and they're not quite up to the quality of classic Harn products.

Now, onto another sub-topic of this whole debate.  As many have commented, people have a price range in which they are willing to purchase a particular product.  For me, computer games are simply not worth the price that new releases are charged.  The amount I will pay is between $15-25.  As an example, for many years I played Starcraft off of a burned copy.  We mostly played at lan parties, and I rarely if ever actually played the single player or on battlenet.  Even when it was available, my need for a legit copy did not outweigh the price I would be willing to pay.  Eventually the price dropped, and I found the Starcraft bundle for $30.  This fit my price range of $15 per item.  I was playing it more often, became decent at the game, and enjoyed it, thus it became an ethical obligation to purchase it, and in a small part support Blizzard.  The fact that it has, and still is a mainstay years later at lan parties shows that it has been well worth it.

Part of my resistance at paying "New Release" price for a computer game is that I know in about a month (with my ADHD) I won't be playing it very much anymore.  Also, I have no idea whether or not my computer will have the necessary hardware support.  I got "screwed" when I first bought NFS: Hot Pursuit 2, at $30 (it was near my price threshold, and it had dropped from $50 that it was at).  It chunked and was horrid.  I eventually learned why having a soundcard is a good thing.  By the time I learned the "problem" (about 6 months later), Hot Pursuit 2 was selling at $15!  Of course, this discussion thread is about RPGs, so I'll end this with a little bit of my "philosophy".

In my current financial situation, I need to be careful with how I spend my very limited dollars.  I always support those products which I get the greatest benefit out of, and encourage everyone else to the limit of my ability of persuasion.  Of course, knowing how much benefit something can provide can only be determined by using it as such.  Whether this use takes one week, one month, or even one year, is dependant on the lifespan of my use of the product.

That is one of my complaints with "trial use" software.  I will never know within the trial period if it will be something that will justify the price asked for.  One example to bring this back into RPGs is Campaign Suite by Twin Rose.  If I recall, the trial use had some disabled features so that you couldn't use it fully functional without paying for it.  Since I've never used a program to organize and keep track of campaign details, I don't really know what the program's full potential could be, and I couldn't spend enough time with the disabled version to know if it could do as much as I wanted to, if not more.

And finally one more opinion (since the 5th paragraph I've been telling myself that was all I had to say...  :\  ) To print up a supplement that has been downloaded will often cost as much if not more and you'll end up with a lower quality product.  PDF's are fine for reference on the computer, but not much beyond that.  I've determined that if I were to print about 60 pages, it would use half of a black cartridge.  $40+paper for approximately a 128 pages.  It is cheaper to simply purchase it at the store.  This of course depends on how much use you will get out of the item.  One final example, when Star Wars was released, I managed to get it as a Christmas present.  I have not used it *once*.  I've barely looked at it beyond how they deal with Jedi (possibly for ideas for my own game).


----------



## resistor (May 16, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Gee, all of a sudden I invade privacy and federal computer laws by inserting a tracking method for a product?
> 
> Hmmmm, let's see what else does this...
> 
> ...




Actually, those would be invasions of privacy too except for one important note:  the End User License Agreement.

You remember all that legal mumbo-jumbo that most people just click OK to when installing a program?  Well, part of that agreement gives Microsoft/Norton/whomever the permission they need to track the software.  By clicking OK there, you've waived the ability to sue them for invading your privacy.

In your case, however, there is no such agreement.  Now, whether they could successfully sue you for it is another question.  More than likely, you would sue them for copyright infringement and then they would counter-sue you for illegal invasion of privacy.  Then it would get so bogged down in legal workings that it's unlikely either of would ever get anything out of it.

Also, the fact that you were sharing the file invalidates your ability to sue people for taking it from you.  The same is true, for instance, of police drug busts: they cannot prosecute someone for trying to purchase drugs if the police OFFERED to do it.  They can only prosecute them if the buyer contacted them first.

In other words, they must be able to demonstrate the intent to perform the illegal transaction BEFORE they enabled it.  Since it's nearly impossible to prove whether or not people would have downloaded your PDF if you hadn't been sharing it, it would be extremely hard to convict them.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 16, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Okay for the rest of this post I will assume that theft represents removal of an idea, rather than ...as well as ... physical material since this is what you are claiming.




   The impression that I have received is that it is the use of the word "idea" that may be causing much of the problem, as the use of the word is changing during the course of each discussion, and different uses are being applied even in the same paragraph.  Please reread the post that your responded to.  
   Note that earlier (post #181) when I said "The information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book", you responded with "How has he removed the idea from the store?".  This was responding to something I do not write while ignoring something that I did write, and even something which you quoted.  This messiness contributes to the circular nature of this debate.  It is my position that the stealing (I am using this colloquially, whatever the technically correct criminal description of this act; this should not affect the discussion overmuch unless one is making the argument that nothing criminal is occuring) is the act of removing the commercial product without rendering payment for it.
   What I claiming is what I have just _re-_written.  I hope that this is direct enough that there is no need to interpret me such that you tell me what I'm claiming.



> But a library purchases maybe 3 or 4 copies of a book and the idea is distributed to 100s of people. Surely the 100's who have not been paid for are committing theft of the idea ? If not it leads to the situation where I have the right to lend something I buy to as many people as I want, and from there one has to ask what's wrong with copying it ? They'll see the idea anyway , and I don't know a lot of people that read the same book more than once (with a few exceptions (textbooks,or something like the Lord of the Rings)) and hence the bookshop has lost any potential sales already.




  Well, again, it is not the theft of the "idea", as you are using the word.  The use of the library book falls well within the anticapted use for which it was purchased by the library.  If you friend buys a book and loans it to you, the same situation applies; the material has been legitimately purchased - until you make photocopies of it.  Your purchase of the material gives you the right to do a lot with your copy of it (loan it, give it away) but not to make a copy of it.  This form of stealing is the crime of copyright infringement and, in a pinch, I see no reason to object to using the number of copies that other people liked enough to take as a measure of the loss suffered by the person with the rights to produce the material.  To the oft-made response "Well, I didn't like enough to buy it", if the individual in question had no interest in it, then why take it?



> Ah but you see, I have removed the material that was there for sale without paying for it, which you say is what theft is, so by that defintion (yours) I have stolen it. And I can choose to write it down and distribute it. The idea has been taken, exactly the same in the above case it just has not been physically reproduced (yet), if we go by your definition that duplication of ideas is theft than I have committed it, because the idea is now in my head.




  No, you have dramatically overstated my position.  You are not correct in what you say that I say theft is.  The "idea" (see above for my thoughts on the harm using this term in this discussion has caused) is not available in a commercially useful way by looking at the material and leaving.  While many people do not read books more than once, gaming material especially is most often used as a reference, and is thus refered to relatively often.  While IANAL, I would wager that reproducing the material would be stealing by copyright infringement, as leaving with the material on electronic media would be as well.

  I do not have the position that copyright is an inherent evil.  This does not represent an endorsement of copyright laws as they now stand, but any problems one might have with copyright law does not enoble those who steal material (with the possible exception of someone who did and then submitted themselves to the system to protest the law).  I could use examples from recent history, but I stopped myself in time.


----------



## Sledge (May 17, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I took the online "FREE SAMPLE", inflated the PDF and zip size, added my code to **PING** an IP address ... edited the zipfile comments and file comments to match the illegal copies on KaZaA, Bearshare, Gnutella, eMule and others, and placed it in a folder.
> The "Free Sample"...
> Not my complete work.



You also:


			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> So, I did it with any PDF I could lay my hands on that was already on the file-sharing groups.
> Roughly, each book (which had 3-6 pages of OGC in it) generated over 1900 unique IP's that also in the repeat IP hits.
> Each book generated roughly 3000 unique IP hits.



This implies that A you either did it with non demo books or you are complaining because people have copies of the Free Samples on their computers?  I am confused here.  Either these books are the real ones and you personally are giving them away, or these books are the free demos which anyone should be able to download without concern.  Which is it?


----------



## tetsujin28 (May 17, 2004)

I can't see how file sharing would take any bigger a bite out of profits than when cheap photocopiers were invented. Folks these days take them for granted, but I remember when they were The Thing That Will Destroy Civilization As We Know It. The only exception would be the indie guys, but I hazard to make a guess that it's the products of the Big Guys (tm) that are being illegally copied.


----------



## Rel (May 17, 2004)

This has indeed been an interesting thread and I regret even more that I won't be able to make it to Gen Con this year because I'd be very interested in attending the seminar that was mentioned earlier.

I wish only to make one more point that I haven't really seen fully addressed and I think it is fairly relevant to the discussion.  A number of the people in this thread have defended the idea that, while it is generally considered "wrong" to download a product without paying for it, that there is no economic loss to the seller in the event that the person in question wouldn't have paid the listed price for the product in the first place.  I would contend that the fact that illegal filesharing is so rampant in the first place has already harmed the seller before he sells his first product.  

The seller must consider right up front that his product is going to be up against some very stiff competition, namely, *the same product, for free*.  In a completely rational market, nobody would ever buy his product because they can get an identical product *for free*.  The only thing muddying the waters here is the ethics involved.  By asking for any money at all, the seller is placing his faith in the segment of the market (a segment that I believe to be dwindling) that is both honorable enough and retains enough foresight to see the wisdom of paying for the product in question.

I would suspect that many a seller has said to himself, "Self, my product is probably worth $10.  But if I ask for $10, more people are going to steal it than if I ask for $5.  Maybe if I ask for $5, folks won't sell out their morality for quite that cheap."

The Sigil touched on this "price point" concept earlier, but I don't think that too many people latched onto the idea that the seller may be accepting a loss compared to what he could have gotten in a market without theft.  I therefore posit that these vendors are being significantly financially harmed, albeit indirectly, by those who say "I wouldn't have bought it at the listed price anyway so no harm done."

I will however concede that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and that this trend (illegal filesharing) is not going anywhere.  This may well signal the death of the way that copyright law has been dealt with in the past and require a new way for various products to be distributed in the future.  But I will not concede that these people are doing no harm to this industry because I cannot bring myself to relinquish the thin ethical barrier to the complete collapse of the "PDF for sale" gaming market.


----------



## resistor (May 17, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Okay. Store surveillance tape shows a guy walking in, stashing a radio under his jacket, and walking out. He comes back in and does the exact same thing four more times. Nobody notices at first, but he gets caught on the fifth try. Security discovers the first four instances while reviewing security footage while waiting for the cops. Cops arrive, search the guy's car, but can't find the other four radios. How many counts of shoplifting does he get charged with when the cops drag him off to the station? 5 counts, because their is circumstantial video evidence, even if they could only find one of the five radios. Proof of the download now usually works the same way as that surveillance video, thanks to a lot of recent kiddie porn cases, where "someone else must have downloaded it on my computer" didn't work as an excuse.




Bullcrap.

The case of someone downloading a PDF and having their IP discovered is much more akin to this:

A lot of gas stations have outside security cameras aligned to film the bumpers of cars that go through.  Let's suppose that someone drives through, fills up, and drives off without paying.  Because the camera was fixed on the bumper of the car, there is no record of the person himself (this is true of internet access: we see the equipment used to perform the crime, not the person behind it).  Now, we can get some information from this film; certainly we at least know the color and make of the car.  This is similar to knowing the IP address of the the perpetrator.

Knowing the make and color is information, but it is not enough to pin it to a specific person.  Even in the case of someone with a non-changing IP, it is at best tedious tracking that IP back to a person: lots of red-tape and paperwork getting the ISP to release their record.  In the worst case, that of a constantly changing IP, it is well-nigh impossible.  Just as with the gas video that only shows the make and color, it is conceivable that we might find the person, but not likely and certainly not easy.

Now, we HOPE that the gas video also caught the license number of the car.  This would be of great help to us, but it is still not conclusive evidence: while we can discover exactly which car it was, we cannot say for certain who was driving it.  This similar to a case where the offender happens to have a non-changing IP and the ISP has been cooperative in revealing it.  Again, it is extremely difficult to prove who was operating the computer at that instant, however.

There might be three people who drive a given car on a daily basis, any of whom could have been the gas thief.  Equally, there could be three (or oftentimes more) people who use a given computer on a daily basis.  Without additional evidence (like another camera that caught the actual person on tape), the prosecutor is at best looking at a tough legal battle and at worst looking at the impossible.

Having an IP record is circumstantial evidence.  If the offender happens to have non-changing address (which you won't know until you've gotten through the ISP's red-tape, which isn't a picnic in and of itself), then you have strong circumstantial evidence.  But it remains just that: circumstantial evidence, and one cannot be convicted on such.  Hard evidence, such as a copy of the file on the offender's computer, is required for a conviction, or forensic evidence that the file was at one time on their computer.

To further illustrate the absurdity of your example, consider this:

A man steals four radios from a store, as you described before.  A security officer notices it later, and reviews all the tapes.  He notices that the thief is male, always wears blue jeans and a red hat, and has a beard.

Does this mean that the next bearded man wearing blue jeans and a red hat that enters the store can be charged with four counts of shoplifting?  NO.  A security video, just like an IP, is not a conclusive identification.

You have evidence that an unknown person with a given description (Used a Computer that had IP 43.21.354.12 at 12:35:02PM or Male/Beard/Blue Jeans/Red Hat).  This does not, however, give grounds to convict some random person who happens to fit that description.


----------



## Aezoc (May 17, 2004)

As much as I hate "me too" posts, I have to say that resistor summed up my feelings on that point perfectly.


----------



## James Heard (May 17, 2004)

>Either these books are the real ones and you personally are giving them away, or >these books are the free demos which anyone should be able to download without >concern. Which is it?

And no amount of justification allows for planting viruses on people's computers. Spreading viruses for any reason is a felony, while copyright infringement is usually a civil crime unless you can prove felony losses I think. None of which matters, I know someone I won't be buying a product they have any hand whatsoever in now. People who take the law into their own hands don't have an ethical leg to stand on, and don't deserve my business.


----------



## scott-fs (May 17, 2004)

*Filesharing ?  Illegal ?  Not in Canada*



> "Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers."




Cnet News.com 

I felt that this might be interesting to add to the discussion.  I had only heard this second hand not long ago, and didn't think to search for a link for this particular discussion.  At the current time, it is currently legal to download and have files shared in a p2p program.  Downloading in Canada has always been legal (ie downloading is NOT copyright Infringement).

Copyright Infringement (as far as Canada is concerned) is the act of distributing something which you do not own the copyright.  That's right, distribute.  Giving something to someone else, but not taking something someone is offering.

For those who read the article in the link provided above and at the end of this message, it also explains that simply having a file located in a directory that happens to be shared does not constitute distribution unless you take a positive action such as sending copies out or advertising that they are available to be copied.



> In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.
> 
> Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.
> 
> "The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."




Needless to say, we pay a price for our ability to share files.  The government imposes fees on recordable media and mp3 players, which they then take and distribute to copyright holders.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is that only recording artists/labels see this revenue.  Movie Studios and, Software and Video Game companies, do not see any of this, and it has been my experience that music is not the only thing that gets put on such media.  Games are the obvious one.  Most games require a cd to run (unless you crack it), and in general, we make copies of our games so that we don't wear out the originals.



> The regulators cited a long-standing rule in Canada, in which most copying for personal use was allowed. To repay artists and record labels for revenue lost by this activity, the government imposes a fee on blank tapes, CDs and even hard disk-based MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod, and distributes that revenue to copyright holders.




Cnet News.com 


Does this mean that I will go out and start downloading as much music as I can find ?  No.  Does this mean that I will search for gaming products to get "for free" ?  No.  What it does mean is that I know legally that I am fine to download something to preview it.  If it is good enough, I will support the artist or company.  It is very difficult to find cds for European bands here where I live (unless they are incredibly popular), and I much prefer to support B&M stores, rather than go online.  More for the fact that when I pay for it, I'll have it in my hand right then, rather than having to wait a few days.

As this will apply to the RPG market: I don't plan to be purchasing much more d20, as I'm pretty much done with it.  Most of my future purchases will be creating a Harn collection.  As a result, I'm not likely to be a customer for any publisher on these boards (presuming most are d20/OGL publishers), therefore any pdfs I may download in the future will not constitute a lost sale.  On the other hand, products that I would be interested in are historical supplements that are very well researched.  If I came across a book called for example: "Real World Religions" which accurately detailed many of earth's religions since the beginning of time, it would be an invaluable resource as I'm trying to introduce in my campaign setting the feel of religions from history.


----------



## Sledge (May 17, 2004)

Something just occurred to me... to be fair it is 2AM so I'm not sure how coherent this will be.
The problem with "Piracy" is one of ethics.  Not of whether piracy is right or wrong, but instead the understanding of electronic information which can be copied without changing the original.  We are still thinking in terms of the physical world.  However the copying issue has no physical implications.  We have games companies and record companies and book companies trying to tell us what we can do with their hardware.  There was even a debate at one point whether playing a game and creating your own resources for it would result in the game creator owning all you do.  A copyright holder may still insist that when you buy a CD you had better not change it in any way shape or form.  Movie companies try and force you to watch movies in a certain way.  Until this digital manipulation was a possibility no one cared if you did it to a physical version.  If I want to take my old vhs tapes and recut them no one will stop me.  They may laugh, but it's my tape.  Now all of a sudden I don't own that movie anymore.  The companies tell me I just have a license to their movie.  Games companies release games that are specifically intended to defeat backups.  I can no longer do anything with my purchases except what the producer intended.  In effect I am now expected to just rent them.  So we have two different ethics, one I can own this, and two I can only rent it.  If I buy a machine and want to modify it I can.  I can even take it apart and put it together separately.  If I buy the parts I can even copy it.  My electronic "property" however has no parts to buy.  All it takes is my time.  We have a mishmash of confusion that is massively blurring ethics.  A publisher looks at it one way having put plenty of good effort into a product, but the so-called pirate sees it as no different than borrowing a friend's books without the inconvenience of having to worry about returning it.  The publisher sees a lot of people that are reading the book but not buying it and gets upset at the lost sales.  The borrower sees himself as no different than someone that uses a library or even checks out books at a bookstore a few minutes a day.  Certainly it is more convenient but since when does convenience have anything to do with right or wrong?
All of this comes out of the problems capitalism is discovering when products are no longer tangible.  Before we had the authors selling books in order to generate finances to support the author.  Now we are trying to sell the content of those pages.
In the end it will eventually come down to this.  Everyone will have to face the knowledge of their consequences eventually.  In the end it won't be about the purchase, but instead about supporting those that brighten and enhance our lives.  As the author of VoFT put on their website people that have donated can consider themselves to have paid for the product.  The ethical thing when all the capitalism is dropped is to feed the authors and the artists.  Sustain them so they can continue to create wonders for our minds.


----------



## WizarDru (May 17, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> You call that an extreme example? It really isn't. At one point, people were paying up to $25 for _The Wisdom of Lobo_ a "comic book" published by DC. IIRC, it was perfectbound, full color cover, 32 blank pages inside, retailing at somewhere around $3.00 when it initially reached the stores.



 "The Wit and Wisdom of Lobo" was never sold by itself...it was part of a slipcase pack containing two graphic novels and the comic.  It was a joke as part of a package, and never intended to be sold separately.  Judging by ebay right now, no one is buying Lobo, period.  I doubt anyone ever paid $25 for it...perhaps the whole set.  

 On the other hand, one can buy an air guitar on ebay, so who knows?


----------



## Thanatos (May 17, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Okay. Store surveillance tape shows a guy walking in, stashing a radio under his jacket, and walking out. He comes back in and does the exact same thing four more times. Nobody notices at first, but he gets caught on the fifth try. Security discovers the first four instances while reviewing security footage while waiting for the cops. Cops arrive, search the guy's car, but can't find the other four radios. How many counts of shoplifting does he get charged with when the cops drag him off to the station? 5 counts, because their is circumstantial video evidence, even if they could only find one of the five radios. Proof of the download now usually works the same way as that surveillance video, thanks to a lot of recent kiddie porn cases, where "someone else must have downloaded it on my computer" didn't work as an excuse.




You are confusing theft of physical items with copyright infringement of intellectual property and these are two different things under the law. Since you are comparing apples to oranges, there isn't any point in addressing your scenerio. 

"proof" of the download does not work the same way as surveillance video. How about all those people who have gotten off of kiddie porn charges because other people have had access to their computer or their computer was found to have had virii and trojans on it? Funny...it DID work for them, contrary to what you are saying. It's already proven to be a working defense in caselaw. Has it worked in every case? no, but then, what kind of prosecution or defense has worked 100% of the time? *shrugs*


----------



## jasper (May 17, 2004)

I Sue Freely, “Mr. Jasper you claim that IP is not real and costs nothing but time. And you would have not bought Wonderful Wizard from WOTC anyway.”

Jasper, “Correct”

I Sue Freely, “How much did your computer cost?

Jasper, “About 1250 dollars with all the add ons including the printer and games I bought that day.”

I Sue Freely - So I can safely say your computer cost 1000 dollars.

Jasper - yes but...

I Sue Freely- but 1000 dollars is close. How much do pay for internet access? Give me a round number.

Jasper- $30.

I Sue Freely- how many gigs does you hard drive have?

Jasper -Two

I Sue Freely- and Wonderful Wizard is a 5 meg PDF?

Jasper - Correct.

I Sue Freely- so the product which cost you nothing, is taking up no real space at all. Is taking up about two dollars and fifty cents worth of your hard drive space?

Jasper- Huh?

I Sue Freely - 5 megs of space taken up by Wonderful Wizard is taking up .0025 percent of your hard drive. Which multiplied by $1000 the cost of your computer is $2.50. So you must admit Wonderful Wizard is worth at least $2.50 since you are saving it on your hard drive. And you have mentioned it cost $30 a month for unlimited access. This comes to 43,200 minutes during a 30 day month. So if took you 5 minutes to download Wonderful Wizard and you could stay on your computer every day, every hour, and every minute of a month, it would cost you to pay your internet access company about .00001157 cents. However according to your internet records your average is 30 hours per month.  Which means it cost you about 27 percent of a penny to pay the internet company for the privilege of ripping off WOTC of their product Wonderful Wizard. So you are willing to pay your computer company money to have a FULL and TOTALLY EXACT version of Wonderful Wizard. And you are willing to pay your internet company to have a FULL and TOTALLY EXACT version of Wonderful Wizard. But you not willing to pay WOTC their rightful due for creating the product.


----------



## The Sigil (May 17, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Well, if we think about the idea - and I am using 'idea' in this case to represent the developed work, the content of the hypothetical book in question - in terms of "capital", then it does not have value from intrinsic materials, but it does have value due to the work done by the author, the value of the author's time.



I think part of the problem is that we have more concepts than we have words to describe them. 

For the sake of clarity, let me try to put forth the different concepts I am trying to work with here...

1.) A "raw idea" = some abstract concept (e.g., the concept of "boy meets girl")
2.) A "transcribed idea" = the language/graphical representation of a "raw idea" (e.g., the phrase "boy meets girl")
3.) A "processed idea" = the electronic file, book, painting, or similar "container" that contains the transcribed idea (e.g., the piece of paper upon which the phrase "boy meets girl" resides and the ink used to make the characters) - note that I'm staying away from the term "work" because using that word can confuse the "container" sense of the word "work" with the "effort" sense of the word.

Copyright law requires that we have a "processed idea" before it can be copyrighted.  Even if you create and memorize a song or story (turning a "raw idea" into a "transcribed idea" by assigning language/musical representations to it), and sing it/tell it on the streets so everyone knows about it, until you have made a recording, put it to sheet music, written it down, etc. _it cannot be copyrighted under law!_

Thus, it takes TWO steps to go from "raw idea" to "copyrightable material" and each of those steps adds value to the work.  The effort/work undertaken to move from "raw idea" to "transcribed idea" is the first point of "value-addedness" - as others have pointed out, you're not just paying for the three seconds it takes to figure out that your idea is represented by the phrase "boy meets girl" but you're also paying for the education and training required to learn the language.  Obviously, this is an extremely simple example, but we can of course extrapolate to the training and education and experience required to visualize a picture, conceive a novel, etc.  But I think keeping things extremely simple is a good thing for the moment.  

The second point of "value-addedness" is the cost of placing this "processed idea" into a container - in the above example, it is the cost of the training and/or experience involved in learning how to write/paint/play music to place the "processed idea" into the container, as well as the cost of the container itself.  To continue our example above, it is a percentage of the cost that you incurred learning how to write legibly, as well as the cost of a sheet of paper and the ink required to write the phrase "boy meets girl" - i.e., getting from point 2 above to point 3.

I suppose we could try to separate out the ability to write from the paper written upon, but since writing of necessity requires paper, I think it's good to keep that cost together in the first instance.  More generally, the ability to transfer things to a certain medium is no good without the medium itself and vice versa; the two are intrinsically linked in terms of producing a copyrightable work.

Thus, we have two phases involved in moving from "raw idea" to "processed idea" - the first phase is 100% intellectual, while the second phase is, in many ways, 100% physical (as once the words in question are assigned to a work, the process of scribing those words to a medium is trivial and can be done by machines - witness, for instance, the printing press, which does the work involved in getting from Step 2 to Step 3).

It should be noted that "copying" of a work is simply moving from Step 2 to Step 3 multiple times (usually using someone else's "processed idea" as the basis for your own "transcribed idea").

In times past, the greater expense was involved in carrying out the transition from a "transcribed idea" to a "processed idea" - while lots of people could think thoughts and tell stories and sing songs, the ability to write was rare, and paper and ink were not plentiful and thus expensive.  The advent of the printing press somewhat mitigated the expense of hiring a someone trained in the skill of writing, and of course, the cost of paper and ink has been falling for quite some time now.  A similar journey could be traced for movie cameras and film, audio recording equipment, etc.  Basically, for quite some time, moving from Step 2 to Step 3 required a great deal of expense because finding someone with the right training - or purchasing the right equipment - was not a trivial task.

However, starting at about the turn of the 20th century (i.e,. 1900), the ability to write began to be a fundamental part of the curriculum in public schools.  Suddenly, those with the ability to write were not nearly as rare as they once were.  In the 1940's and 1950's, many people began learning to type, which of course increases the rate at which ideas can be "packaged into containers."  Furthermore, it could be argued that since most people gained the ability to write and/or type in the publicly-funded school system, that these skills have in fact already been "paid for" - i.e., I can no longer demand that someone pay "a percentage of the cost I incurred gaining the knowledge and experience of how to write things down" since I incurred no cost (or what cost was incurred was paid for by the public).  

And of course, in the past 20 years, we have seen a boom in the availability of personal computers, which means that some editorial skills - such as spell checking - are now much less in demand than they once were, as we have machines doing things for us.  And since computer files are now considered an acceptable "container" for housing copyrightable material, as the cost of computers continues to drop, the cost of the container itself continues to drop.  Computers and their capabilities have wreaked similar havoc on the music industry - no longer is a huge studio with an enormous mixing board required to produce a high-fidelity recording; a quiet studio and a relatively inexpensive computer and mixing board can be used, with the computer handling much of the dirty work.  Films, with their extensive use of digital cameras and computerized effects, are starting to work their way in that direction as well, though the shift has not yet been as pronounced because a film usually requires more components - scenery, costumes, multiple actors, etc. than a book or a music recording.

However, the upshot of all of this is that public education and inexpensive computers have lowered the cost of Step 2 to Step 3 *dramatically* - in fact, they've brought it close to zero EXCEPT for the time required to do what is in essence "Data Entry" - i.e., taking the set of words used to convey a raw idea and putting them to paper/word processing file/music file/etc.

However, large media conglomerates were born in the era when moving from Step 2 to Step 3 was still expensive... they cannot effectively do Step 1 to Step 2 because that is not something that can be mass-produced.  The media conglomerates are now frustrated that going from Step 2 to Step 3 is much easier and in fact, the barriers to entry are so low that they are really not needed any more.  And while they WERE needed when cost barriers to entry were still high (allowing the cost of moving a work from Step 2 to Step 3 to be shared among many), they are now obsolete.

Which brings me full circle to my point.  While for many centuries, the cost of moving from Step 2 to Step 3 was the biggest part of creating a copyrightable work, that is no longer the case.  Now, it is MUCH harder to find someone who can do an eloquent/quality job of using language/music/other media to convey a "raw idea" (i.e., transition from Step 1 to Step 2) than it is to move from Step 2 to Step 3.  Because moving from Step 1 to Step 2 is a purely intellectual and creative process, it CANNOT be automated.  Now, the greater value is in moving from Step 1 to Step 2, because the skills and expense moving from Step 2 to Step 3 are very low.

Thus, while in the past, the value of a copyrightable work was made mostly of the "physical work" required to place it into a medium, the advent of computers means that today, the value of a copyrightable work is made mostly of the "intellectual work" required to assign language/other representation to the work; the physical work and physical media involved now contribute little added value once the effort of moving from Step 1 to Step 2 is complete.

That was a long, boring discussion, but I needed to see it to clarify my own thoughts. 



> But not strictly in the act of transferring the product from existing as an electronic file to paper.  Hang on, we're about to agree more in a moment.



There is some little added value in transferring from electronic file to paper - the cost of the paper, ink, and a percentage of the cost of the printer used.  The cost of labor of course, is essentially zero, as the labor involved is simply pressing the "print" button plus a minute or two of binding time (plus a fraction of the cost of binding machinery).  In fact, it could be argued that there is MORE added value in transferring a paper book to an electronic file as I would wager even at minimum wage it "costs" more to scan a book (even with a quick scanner, I would wager it takes at least fifteen seconds per page to properly prepare and scan a page, either by cutting a book into its constituent pages for feeding through a scanner or by laying the book flat on the scanner bed, hitting scan, picking the book up and moving it to pick up the next page, hitting scan, turning the page and repositioning it, hitting scan... etc.).. plus a fractional cost of the computer, electricity, hard drive, and scanner... thus the "labor cost" involved could be argued to make going from paper to electronic MORE valuable than going from electronic to paper!



> So the electronic version of your product has value, value which can be enhanced by the medium but is not totally dependant on the medium.



Again, the electronic version of the product has value, but IMO, the majority of the value comes from the fractional expense of education and training plus the labor required in moving from Step 1 to Step 2 (i.e., figuring out what words to use to express the idea) as opposed to the material it's carried on (let's be honest, the fractional percentage of a hard drive required to store an e-file plus bandwidth charges are neglible).



> Are we back to an idea as just a cool thought?  If Thomas Jefferson ran a fire-producing business, then if someone came in and lit his taper it would be a theft of services.



Yes, idea is back to just a "cool thought" here (the "raw idea" spoken of above).  An interesting point about Jefferson - though I suppose another analogy might be, "if my neighbor is hosting a party in his back yard, and I get out and groove to the DJ's music in my back yard, should I expect a bill from the DJ for theft of services?"

But you did hit on the right point - the idea is that of paying for a service.  Paying for a "raw idea" is foolish - because no service has been rendered!  Paying for the effort required to make that raw idea communicable - now THAT's a service.   Paying for the effort required to write down a copy of the words involved?  Well, that's getting less and less expensive and therefore less and less valuable (especially once the first copy has been input - copying it is nearly zero cost)... it will never quite get down to zero, since there must always be a fractional payment on the effort required to input the "first copy."



> We are bouncing back and forth between an idea as the electronic aspect of a commercial product and an idea as an abstract iota of knowledge or enlightenment.



Yes... which is why I put forth "transcribed ideas" (the electronic aspect of a commercial product) and "raw ideas" (the abstract iota of knowledge) above... as I mentioned, it's hard to have a meaningful discussion when we have more concepts than words to describe them! 



> Context is also improtant.  I spent a lot of time, effort, and money to get my Ph.D., but if someone asks me a question I can answer about astronomy, physics, or something else I have expertise in, then I'll talk their ears off and consider it a full Thomas Jefferson moment, but someone sneaking into a class that I teach is stealing by virtue of taking for free what a number of other people are paying for.  Context.



*smiles* an interesting debate.  Suppose you have really good loudspeakers and I hang out in the hall, in a public area outside your classroom, and am enlightened by your lecture about the way E=Mc^2 naturally falls out of Maxwell's Equations.  Am I stealing your services in that case? 



> #1-#4 I'm cool with, but I don't think that #6 is correct.  There are some monopolies that I think are positive goods.  For example, medicine is in some sense a monopoly, as there are strict governmental restrictions as to who can practice medicine.  I consider this as a good in that there are then at some checks are to what type of fruit loop can claim to be a medical doctor.  I think that the condition of having the police force as a state monopoly is much better than having them a part of competing private forces, and I would wager that the cost is lower as well.



Ah, but medical doctors are not a monopoly... because there is more than one medical doctor - if I don't like Dr. A, I can go to Dr. B instead.  

Suppose for a moment that one person - and only one person (call him Dr. C)- was authorized to perform, say, Laser Eye Surgery.  Even though there are a lot of doctors around that are competent to perform the surgery, they can't do it because Dr. C has a monopoly.  Dr. C decides to charge $10,000,000 for eye surgery.  If I want the surgery, I have to pay his price, because nobody else offers it.  That's not a good thing.

A monopoly truly is one person holding the exclusive ability to do something.  Not a class of people.  One person.  I'm sure you can see what kind of abuse this might lead to.



> To say that exclusive rights to material generated by the worker = a monopoly seems excessive.  If one source controls gasoline to an area (the Keewenaw penninsula of the UP of Michigan) that's a bad thing.  If only one company can produce a specific sourcebook, I cannot imagine that to be comparable.



The only difference is a matter of degree... more people use and rely upon gasoline than d20 sourcebooks.  But suppose, for example, (to use an example that might be close to you as a teacher) one person held the rights to, say, all physics textbooks.  You can't even write a physics textbok without infringing upon his copyright monopoly, because it would be a derivative work - after all, the only way you could have gained your PhD in physics is through use of his textbooks (as they are required for all physics courses in college) and thus your work would be a derivative of his.  Now let's assume that he jacks the prices on physics textbooks up to $20,000 each... or worse, that he decides (out of spite) to withhold permission for publication at all.  How do you teach your class?



> As I see it, the author is the one being "taxed" by the limited life of copyright for society's help in enforcing the copyright.



And that's where we break ranks.  The author has a reasonable right to be recompensed for his effort; however, there is a finite amount of IP that can be created... if we allow author after author to claim chunk after chunk, soon we will be left in a situation where we have to pay royalties on everything we say, read, hear, etc.

Just a couple of quotes here... emphases mine



			
				Orson Scott Card said:
			
		

> From http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2003-09-07-1.html
> 
> Since every penny I earn depends on copyright protection, I'm all in favor of reasonable laws to do the job.
> ...
> ...





			
				Spider Robinson said:
			
		

> From http://www.baen.com/chapters/W200011/0671319744___1.htm
> 
> "Now tell me: what's so damned awful about extending copyright to meet the realities of modern life? Customarily I try to listen to both sides before accepting a campaign donation—but this seemed so open and shut, so straightforward . . ."
> 
> ...



I highly recommend the Spider Robinson piece, Melancholy Elephants, BTW. I had to excise massive chunks for brevity, but to catch the full impact, it is necessary to read the piece.

--The Sigil


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 17, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I think part of the problem is that we have more concepts than we have words to describe them.




   Precise language vs. "yer jes usin jargon!", or "if it didn't need technical terms to describe technical concepts it wouldn't be complex enough to warrent discussing."



> That was a long, boring discussion, but I needed to see it to clarify my own thoughts.




 Actually, I thought that was a concise summation of a lot of germane material.  I hope this makes future discussions more compact.  Thank you for your work.

 (I am going to skip some really good material as, while valuable to the discussion, it is long.  Any point I do not specifically address in the post of yours that I am responding to should be interpreted to mean that I agree with/ recognize the value of the excised post.

[/QUOTE]
Yes, idea is back to just a "cool thought" here (the "raw idea" spoken of above).  An interesting point about Jefferson - though I suppose another analogy might be, "if my neighbor is hosting a party in his back yard, and I get out and groove to the DJ's music in my back yard, should I expect a bill from the DJ for theft of services?"
[/QUOTE]

  That is an interesting idea, and I can make what I think are valid arguments for either side.  Perhaps someone will pick this part of your post to expound on, and then I might disagree with them.  



> *smiles* an interesting debate.  Suppose you have really good loudspeakers and I hang out in the hall, in a public area outside your classroom, and am enlightened by your lecture about the way E=Mc^2 naturally falls out of Maxwell's Equations.  Am I stealing your services in that case?




  Another interesting thought.  I do not know if the school that I work at would take the position:

A)  Thieving Bastiche!  You must pay us for that!
B)  Oh well, only the little piece of paper at the end has actual value.  (Yes, I'm pessimistic enough to think that they might go that way.)

   I very much doubt that they would take the position of 

C) Come one, come all, this is a public university so this is a public service.  Students pay to have the knowledge officially endorsed by the teacher by receiving a grade!



> Ah, but medical doctors are not a monopoly... because there is more than one medical doctor - if I don't like Dr. A, I can go to Dr. B instead.
> 
> Suppose for a moment that one person - and only one person (call him Dr. C)- was authorized to perform, say, Laser Eye Surgery.  Even though there are a lot of doctors around that are competent to perform the surgery, they can't do it because Dr. C has a monopoly.  Dr. C decides to charge $10,000,000 for eye surgery.  If I want the surgery, I have to pay his price, because nobody else offers it.  That's not a good thing.
> 
> A monopoly truly is one person holding the exclusive ability to do something.  Not a class of people.  One person.  I'm sure you can see what kind of abuse this might lead to.




  Yes, although the are still some counterexamples that are probably to political to discuss, but that still falls to government as a class of people so I guess there really isn't a great qualification that is required.  I used this as an example as it is similar (and in fact a good deal harsher) than the situations discussed in this thread.  One person with control over who can buy gasoline and at what price is an evil, one person with control over who can print copies of a specific game book, and determine the price for that game book would trivialize the definition of 'evil' if it were applied to this case.

    To jump ahead of myself, I see it as a perfectly reasonable "tax" of society on the individual that work goes into the public domain after a certain period of time in exchange for society's help in preserving the creator's (of the 'processed idea') right to the material for a certain period of time.



> The only difference is a matter of degree... more people use and rely upon gasoline than d20 sourcebooks.




   While I will grant that the primary difference is as a difference of degree, that is an exceptionally important difference, important enough to justify different conclusions.



> But suppose, for example, (to use an example that might be close to you as a teacher) one person held the rights to, say, all physics textbooks.  You can't even write a physics textbok without infringing upon his copyright monopoly, because it would be a derivative work - after all, the only way you could have gained your PhD in physics is through use of his textbooks (as they are required for all physics courses in college) and thus your work would be a derivative of his.  Now let's assume that he jacks the prices on physics textbooks up to $20,000 each... or worse, that he decides (out of spite) to withhold permission for publication at all.  How do you teach your class?




   That would be a dangerous monopoly, and it would not correspond to copyright as that one person did not create or contract the processed idea in question.  There are "processed ideas" (I do not use quotation marks to demean the term "processed idea", but to ensure that the words remain linked together as one term) that are not released to the public, typically related to some corporate or production function in that way, but most of my field has a different outlook.  The overwhelming pressure is to publish and thus to release one's professional work immediately into the public domain - as long as proper credit is maintained.



> And that's where we break ranks.  The author has a reasonable right to be recompensed for his effort; however, there is a finite amount of IP that can be created... if we allow author after author to claim chunk after chunk, soon we will be left in a situation where we have to pay royalties on everything we say, read, hear, etc.




   While we might have broken ranks on the basic outlook of where the most fundamental rights lie, we agree here.  I think that society is fully justified (and that it is a positive good) in saying that copyrights have a limited life.

  I won't comment on the quotes, but it is interesting that a friend of mine changed the name of his fledgling game company from one that shared a word common to Orson Scott Card's web pages due to Card's reputation as someone who strongly protects product identity.  (This was OSC's perceived reputation; if that is inaccurate I would like to know.)

               Dr. Harry


----------



## The Sigil (May 17, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> I won't comment on the quotes, but it is interesting that a friend of mine changed the name of his fledgling game company from one that shared a word common to Orson Scott Card's web pages due to Card's reputation as someone who strongly protects product identity.  (This was OSC's perceived reputation; if that is inaccurate I would like to know.)



*chuckles*  It's been over two decades since I was over at Scott's house playing "Babel" on his Atari 5200 with his son Geoffrey... and about 5 years since I last saw Geoffrey himself (he has also gone into writing, interestingly).  Of course, living just around the corner from OSC when he moved into Greensboro, NC and spending lots of afternoons playing with his kids, and spending 20-odd years of having families exchange Christmas cards (after we moved to California the following summer), I have probably a rosier view of him personally than most.   I have the feeling that I'm not well-qualified to answer that... though I also have the feeling that if any d20 publisher wanted to use a name similar to what he's used, a quick e-mail his way would probably be met with "go ahead and use the word; I won't sue you as long as there's no implication that you're tied to my works."  Never hurts to ask and my experience with him is that he's a pretty reasonable guy as far as copyrights go - he doesn't want his stuff diluted, of course, but unless you're looking at "Hatrack River Game Publishers" or "Ender's Game Publishers" or similar as a name, you'd probably be all right.  'Course, as I mentioned, it's been a LONG while since I last spoke with him face-to-face and a lot can change in that time span.

--The Sigil


----------



## Umbran (May 18, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Gee, all of a sudden I invade privacy and federal computer laws by inserting a tracking method for a product?
> 
> Hmmmm, let's see what else does this...
> 
> ...




Yep.  With the added caveat that the fact that it does so is either in the EULA, or obvious and simply understood.  Like you could update your virus definitions or OS or register your software with a company without actually contacting the company in some way?  

As in the Matrix - the difference is choice (even if only ona sub-conscious level) 




> Here's some data to consider...




Here's some other data to consider...

I'm sorry, but your little test is not a particularly solid measure, statistically, of what happens in the genre-market as a whole.  Nor does it give a solid idea of how much you would have made if file-copying didn't exist.

Another little tidbit for folks to chew on - the RIAA has said that it has lost revenue to filesharing.  But, oddly, the number of records actually passing out the doors of record stores has _increased_ in the past year.  It's an odd bit of accounting, described in this article.

The thing is this - pirating software and files is illegal.  And we have a perception that this is hurting the industry through lost sales.  But the only folks I know of who have tried to prove this sort of thing has been the RIAA, and they're using really screwy bookkeeping to do it.  We have a _perception_ that it hurts the industry, but no solid statistical proof.  

That's not a good basis upon which to have this sort of conversation, is it?


----------



## epochrpg (May 18, 2004)

*OOP Material*

I think it is perfectly okay to swap OOP material.  Some of those OD&D modules are nigh impossible to find in a store!


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 18, 2004)

WizarDru said:
			
		

> On the other hand, one can buy an air guitar on ebay, so who knows?



Oh my god!!!  It's mint condition!


----------



## Bendris Noulg (May 18, 2004)

epochrpg said:
			
		

> I think it is perfectly okay to swap OOP material. Some of those OD&D modules are nigh impossible to find in a store!



Actually, almost all of them are available at RPGNow and SVGames.


----------



## woodelf (May 18, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I dont' think this is a very storong argument, for a couple of reasons...
> 
> First and foremost, I doubt that the majority of Americans even know how long a copyright lasts.  If I'm correct, they cannot really be resentful about it, now can they?  They can't go seeking revenge for that which they don't recognize as a wrong done unto them.  While some activists may think this way, the general public really isn't that knowlegeable or long-sighted on the subject.



I disagree. I suspect that most people "know" how long copyright is to sufficient accuracy to support this argument: it's "forever". I'll bet the average person on the street thinks that copyright lasts until the creator dies, or is perpetual. Neither of which is quite correct, but it feeds into the notion of too-long copyrights. The average person on the street probably also does'nt know that older works are pre-copyright (other than, perhaps, a dim notion that the bible is public domain). The average person also probably has radically wrong notions of what constitutes infringing, and what rights copyright governs. Witness, frex, people on this very messageboard (in this thread even, i think), that see copyright as protecting access to content, rather than duplication of content (and thus the notion that if you've bought it once, you should be able to make copies for yourself).



> Next, the logic doesn't hold for new releases.  Surely, the original author deserves some length of time in which their work is protected from theft, so that they can make at least some money from it.  Any work that is still under what folks would call a copyright of reasonable length shoudl still be reasonably clear of piracy.  If what you say is correct, we should see more copyright infringement of older works.
> 
> Simply put - folks ticked off at how long copyrights are should not be stealling stuff released this very year.  But, oddly, I expect it is the newest stuff that gets stolen.




The Sigil's argument isn't that people steal stuff that has been protected by copyright for too long. It is that, because copyright protects things for too long, people steal everything (including that which has only been protected for a short while).



> I severely doubt that the pervasiveness of copyright infringement is based upon such high ideology as this.  It's basic greed - everyone likes getting something for nothing.




Not high ideology--unconscious reaction. The claim isn't that people will calmly and rationally violate copyright when the term is long, but that they will "instinctively" seek a way around it when it seems too long--and not only once it has exceeded what they deem a reasonable length. It's a psycho-social thing.  

An analogy:around here, they've re-signed school zones for 20mph instead of 15mph. Why? Because they found that more people slow down to less than 20mph when that's the speed limit in a school zone than slow down to less than 20mph (much less <15mph) when the speed limit is 15mph. IOW, by raising the speed limit, they've gotten, on balance, slower traffic flow in the school zones. The more onerous restriction of the slower speed limit leads to a larger portion of the populace either disregarding it completely or only making a half-hearted attempt to comply. The new, higher speed limit leads to greater compliance.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 18, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> ... but unless you're looking at "Hatrack River Game Publishers" or "Ender's Game Publishers" or similar as a name, you'd probably be all right.  'Course, as I mentioned, it's been a LONG while since I last spoke with him face-to-face and a lot can change in that time span.
> 
> --The Sigil




   Well, the name the friend came up with (independently) was "Hatrack Games", so I'm not saying that OSC wouldn't have a legitimate point, but the quote was interesting in the context of what I had heard about OSC, which I cannot vouch for, and so pile on disclaimer after disclaimer.


----------



## woodelf (May 18, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We, as a society, are still trying to figure out how to deal with the issue.  So, memebers of an industry (like the RIAA), poke around.  They get some estimates, and they go to Washington DC...
> 
> "We estimate that X songs were copied without a sale.  If we had sold all those songs instead we would have made $Y more this year.  Therefore, we have lost $Y in sales to this copying.  Please pass a bill that will stop us from losing so much money."
> 
> ...




Another factor that may come into play is the very reputations of the music industry producers themselves. Frex, if a new group came out that i really liked, and they were released on the Sony label, i probably wouldn't buy it. I'm particularly pissed off at Sony right now for their stupid copy protection scheme that makes CDs unplayable in computers--for most of my CD-player-owning life, my only CD player has been a computer, and my primary CD player has always been my computer. But i've almost never ripped CDs i own--didn't even have the capability until a bit over a year ago--and the only time i've copied a few tracks off of them was for putting together a soundtrack for a game campaign. Making legitimate users unable to use your product in legitimate ways is not good copy protection. And the fact that it was so easily circumvented just makes it that much more ridiculous--now the legitimate user can't use the CD without doing something illegal (DMCA: even talking about how to circumvent copy-protection technologies is illegal, much less doing so, regardless of the purpose for which you do so), while the pirate can trivially circumvent the protection anyway. So, if a new band turned up that i really loved, i would choose to do without before i'd buy it--there's always the radio. Or, i might download at least a few tracks (probably not teh whole album, but out of laziness rather than moral imperative). But, even if i think the price is reasonable for the degree to which i like the music, i'm not gonna support some of the big producers--put the identical CD out on a different label, even at a higher price, and i'll buy. Whether it's logical or not. 

Then again, i also bought Aqua's first album (the one with Barbie Girl on it) only because of Mattel's lawsuit against them. Sure, i enjoyed the song, but not badly enough to buy an album. Then i heard about the lawsuit. I looked around for the single for a while, but nobody had it. $20 for one song wasn't reasonable. $20 to get one song *and* thumb my nose at a foolish, hypocritical, frivolous lawsuit, and maybe give the victims of teh lawsuit a little more money, was perfectly reasonable. So i bought the full album. I'm just upset with myself that i never got around to writing Mattel that letter, pointing out that "Barbie Girl" wasn't gonna do any damage to the image of Barbie that Mattel hadn't already done, and all their lawsuit was doing was making the song more popular.


----------



## woodelf (May 18, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> And of course, if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle.




um, she does:


			
				Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary said:
			
		

> \Gon"ad\, n.; pl. Gonads. [Gr. ? that which generates.] (Anat.) One of the masses of generative tissue primitively alike in both sexes, but giving rise to either an ovary or a testis; a generative gland; a germ gland. --Wiedersheim.


----------



## woodelf (May 18, 2004)

Bendris Noulg said:
			
		

> One question I do have for the "preview" file-sharers: Do any of you find yourselves "backed-up" in your planned purchases?  How many have found yourselves in possession of _so much_ material that you _want_ to buy that you can't possibly do so in a reasonable amount of time?  Or, more possibly in my mind, at such an expense that you can't feasibly afford it all?
> 
> I'm not looking to rip on anyone for this; I'm just curious how often the desires of the "previewer" aren't possible due to the facts of the sitaution.




My RPG desires *always* exceed my budget. Always have. Frex, i stopped into the FLGS a couple days ago specifically to spend some money. Just among the things i thought to check for _and_ they currently had in stock, i found myself deciding between B5 D20; A/State; the 4th Everlasting core book; Codex of the Immortals (for The Everlasting); tLotR RPG; Hearts, Swords, Flowers (for BESM); FREd; Fantasy HERO; StarHERO; UNTIL Powers Database; the latest two supplements for Mechanical Dream; the latest two supplements for Ars Magica; Love & War; Crime & Punishment; and a new TV-show-oriented RPG whose name i forget. I figured i could afford $20-30, or _maybe_ stretch that to $40 to get a single book. And, at the rate RPGs are produced, my "to buy" list grows much faster than i buy stuff--probably add at least 5 books to the list for every book i buy. Previewing (legal or otherwise) has nothing to do with this, one way or the other: i probably add as many things to the list because of looking at them as  i cross off the list once i get a look at them.


----------



## woodelf (May 18, 2004)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Having paid for numerous pdf's (including crimson contract's) I have to admit that I can see why people would pirate.  The question is still whether it hurts the publisher, because as much as someone might want to look at the sheer number of people that seem to have "stolen" their product, I think that the publisher would have to admit that sales of that level are not realistic for their product.  Most of the pdf books out there are good buys at 2-5 dollars.  However I have yet to purchase a pdf I would have paid 11.95 for.  If it wasn't around $5 it wasn't worth it.  Even a book like Crimson Contracts is really only useable in a very small amount in a single campaign.




You need to buy different PDFs. I'll concur that i've found very few D20 System PDFs that i think are worth $10-12. I've seen slightly more, though still not that many, that i think are "worth" $10-12, but that aren't worth that to me personally. But i've spent as much as $16 on non-D20 System PDFs, and felt i've gotten a bargain. Despite the fact that i really hate reading on screen. There are a *lot* of really excellent PDFs out there. And, don't take my comments above to mean there aren't some great D20 System PDFs out there--i honestly think there're probably more PDFs than books that're worth their price (even if you have to pay Kinko's to print out the PDFs), when it comes to D20 System stuff. 

But, yeah, paying $10 for a book you're gonna use 5pp of _is_ a bit silly. So don't buy those PDFs. Buy the ones you'll use most of the content of. Don't buy The Complete Book of Horses [fictional example] for a one-time horse-riding character. But if you're gonna play a campaign (or, really, even a session) of Donjon, it's a bargain. RPGs as PDFs are a steal. Broad-topic RPG supplements as PDFs are a bargain. Narrow-topic RPG supplements are often not worth the price, unless you have a particular interest in/use for the topic.


----------



## Lazybones (May 18, 2004)

I had a nice long post here this morning but the board slowdown ate it. 

The gist is that I agree with The Sigil and woodelf.  I think that people obey laws for two reasons:

a) fear of punishment
b) belief that the law is just/necessary/useful/whatever. 

There's also a "c", but I didn't list it because I think it's linked to Motivation B.  That's obedience because you were socialized to do so. 

While some posters have focused on either A or B, I think that most people fall somewhere on a line graph between the two.  Also, I think that your place on that graph isn't absolute; you can be moved along the continuum by developments in the world around you, your experiences, and your perceptions.

I think that the crackdown of the RIAA (to use on widely publicized example most of us are probably familiar with) on filesharers has been counterproductive because while it appeals to Motivation A, at the same time it undermines Motivation B.  The RPG industry is a good counterexample; I think piracy is less of a problem in this sector because its consumers have a stronger belief that the producers of content are entitled to their profits, and the perception is that the _actual_ producers (as opposed to "greedy, faceless corporations") get a larger share of the consumer dollar.  I'm not saying this perception is true, nor am I saying that those who infringe copyright by file trading are justified in their behavior; my comments focus more on what's happening than the abstract ethical aspect of it (which I've discussed earlier in this thread). 

History has shown that fear of punishment alone is not sufficient to deter behavior.  As it becomes easier to break the law and get away with it, Motivation B becomes increasingly important.  As Sigil noted, however, I think that the producers have lost that battle, at least for the current generation.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Kalanyr, if you think my assessment is an extreme, then your views are the opposite extreme. He did lose more than $1200. Based on repeat openings, he's got a lost of 1200 people with stable IP addresses. That right there alone represents the willingness to steal $14,000, not a mere $1200. Publishers only hurt themselves by trying to quantify how many downloads would have represented buyers, since that relies on the false justifications that the thieves offer up as an excuse for their activities.




Even then, it gets a bit fuzzy. I'm not gonna believe anybody who says the folks who opened it more than once a week for multiple months weren't stealing in a meaningful sense. They clearly had use for the product, and saw sufficient value in it, whether or not they had the economic means to purchase it. And the second group, which looked at it multiple times over a 6mo period probably, likewise, fell into a group that should've bought it. (Especially if they behave anything like me: opening a file once could represent multiple days of reading.) But any of the less-using groups i think are much more questionable as losses. Those, to me, look more like the level of interest of browse-in-the-store-but-don't-buy. IOW, people who evaluated the product reasonably, and then came to the conclusion that they didn't want it. So, your estimate here (quoted above), seems fairly reasonable (without finding his post again to see which groups you included). Your first response to his estimate of losses (~$35k) seems unrealistic. And i have no idea where he got his estimate of $1200 from--it seems downright bizarre, in light of the numbers he provided.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 19, 2004)

I'm guessing the $1200 dollar estimate is because he probably doesn't get full price on every copy sold, the publisher probably gets a share, as does whoever sells it etc. 

Sorry about my lack of responses in the thread the last couple of days, this is still really interesting but I'm bogged down in assessment hell.


----------



## Gundark (May 19, 2004)

Torm said:
			
		

> I will admit to having downloaded RPG books, but this doesn't represent lost sales for those companies - I wouldn't have bought them, anyway,




Well those that I know have downloaded books say that they would not have bought the book anyways. I admit that I have downloaded a book or two (I'm not proud of it), and these are titles that I would not bought. So while it might hurt the print industry a bit, I don't think that hurts that much (not saying that it's right). Using a scaned book is a pain. This is why I don't buy/use PDFs. If I want the book I'll buy it.  That said I think it hurts the PDF industry more.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Dana_Jorgensen said:
			
		

> Just wait until the next step in copyright evolution occurs at the hands of big business. Now the push is to have copyrights last the life of the author or first entity to buy it; in other words, a copyright on a new disney movie wouldn't burn out until the company ceases to exist.



Can't remember if it was this thread or another where i mentioned it, but i still think that, even if we didn't shorten the term of copyright, limiting copyright to actual people would improve the situation vastly. Immortal beings simply shouldn't be allowed to have copyrights limited by length of life. And, IMHO, corporations shouldn't have copyrights, period. Let the actual person who created it own it and license it to the corp.



> My personal view is copyright should last 20 years with infinite renewals every 20 years. Initial copyright fee is $0, while renewal fees are based on an escalating scale. This way, big business can maintain its media copyrights at an ever-increasing cost. In either case, copyright should end with the life of the entity holding it, meaning the material becomes public domain if a business goes under without being bought out.
> 
> best of all, just imagine what all the revenues generated from those fees could do for the Library of Congress in its efforts to restore and digitally archive the incredibly vast collection of trademarked and copyrighted works it possesses, and the fees would cause big business to eventually start weighing the fiscal value of the IP it owns with each renewal. As things currently stand, IP value is assigned a general bulk value to everything a company owns, since money that would be spent on a simple cyclic renewal process is instead dumped into industrial lobbying for copyright changes.




hmmm... interesting idea. But would we really be in a better situation if corporate behemoths can maintain copyrights indefinitely, while the individual author can only afford something for a few years? It seems to me that the damage long-term copyrights are doing is being done by large corporations, not small-time authors. Unless the cost increased to values that'd actually make a megacorp think about the value of IP, i don't think it'd improve the situation. And i mean things like, Disney should be paying $1M+/yr, each, for old copyrights, because it'd take costs of at least that magnitude to make them consider letting a copyright lapse. And the only people who, arguably, actually need long-term copyrights--poor, struggling individual artists--would actually be worse off.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

BelenUmeria said:
			
		

> This is an old argument that I have little use for.  Comparing and RPG book to a movie is apples and oranges.  The fact is, most of the RPG books I buy do not provide even 2 hours of use.  They sit on the shelf and sometimes get used if I need a quick idea.




I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and suggest you're buying either the wrong RPG books, or too many RPG books. I've gotten more use than that out of supplements for systems/settings i never intend to play, and i certainly _intend_ to "get my money's worth" out of all the RPG books i buy, even if i haven't done so yet. Heck, just reading most RPG books could take 2hrs of, presumed, enjoyment.



> While I do buy PDF books, I would never pay more than 10 dollars for them.
> 
> 1.) My credit is at risk by making online purchases.



I understand there are online-only pseudo-credit cards you can now get, for just that reason. Basically, it's an account, sort of like paypal, but that behaves like a Visa, so you can isolate yourself from fraud and theft. Sorry i don't know more--i've been meaning to look into it myself.



> 2.) I have to print the book and bind it at my own cost (time and money).
> 3.) Even with printing, the book is not as useful as a normal bound book (ie. most bound books has indexes, PDFs do not.)



There's no reason they couldn't. Only one i've produced so far has an index.



> RPGs ARE overpriced, in general.  It's not exactly the rising cost of paper.  It's the intentional use of pricey paper.  For example, I work for a medical publisher.  We just reprinted a 500 page medical text book (5000 copies) for around 12k.  It costs us $7.00/ book to print it and we charge USD 50.  Even with all the associated costs (warehousing etc), then we're still charging 20-25 more than the minimum we need to pull a profit.




Um, math? If you printed 5k copies, and it cost ~$12k, the per-copy cost is ~$2.40. Anyway, how is pointing out that RPG books, which presumably have a significantly smaller market than medical texts, are cheaper than medical texts, in any way supportive of the argument that RPGs are overpriced?



> "When someone asks if you are a God, you say YES!" Ghostbusters




You know, after all these years, i'm _still_ disappointed that at no point in the 2nd movie did anyone ask Ray if he was a god, thus giving him an opportunity to say 'yes'--and probably be told by the others 'when someone asks if you are a god, you say NO!'


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Well, one of the points of this thread is that people had radically different ideas of what is "cheating", and what is "acceptable".  After all, I note that you qualified your statement to say "in any real sense", a nice fuzzy phrase that can conceal a variety of sins.
> 
> I'm in academia, and this is a real problem.  I tried to give a set of tests as take-home", using the honor system, and I had a full third of the class cheat (9 out of 27).  There were several cases of copying another's work completely (including diagrams and scracthed-out work), and more limited cases of copying selected problems.  I don't know if a random reader would consider these as cheating in a real sense ("Hey, I only cheated on one test", or "Hey, I didn't cheat on the whole test"), but I consider the act and the current culture serious enough that I would willing have a student expelled for this level of cheating.  To be complete, I consider that those who gave other students access to their papers to cheat a culpable as well, and deserving of the same level of reaction.




After seeing your next post on this: that's ridiculous. Not your behavior--theirs. Though i am skeptical of your claim that you are under-reporting cheating, just because i can't conceive of cheating exceeding, or even approaching, 35% in academia as a whole. I certainly never ran into any evidence of it, personally, in 7 years of full-time undergraduate studentness. I sincerely hope my experiences are more representative than yours. (Though i realize they may not be.)

as for take-home exams: only professor i had who used those extensively did so precisely to make them different from conventional exams. He told us outright that not only could we use our notes and textbooks, we could use anything we wanted from the library, we could ask each other, we could even work together. We just had to show all the work.  He probably would've allowed internet resources, too, if they'd existed at the time. I presume he reasoned that successfully solving the problem, even if by having the solution explained to us, was of greater educational value than conventional testing. Often a dozen or more of us would gather in a library and work the problems out as a group. Usually still took us a dozen or more hours, working together, to complete an exam, so it's not like they were easy. 

OK, sorry 'bout the tangent.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> We, as a society, are still trying to figure out how to deal with the issue.  So, memebers of an industry (like the RIAA), poke around.  They get some estimates, and they go to Washington DC...
> 
> "We estimate that X songs were copied without a sale.  If we had sold all those songs instead we would have made $Y more this year.  Therefore, we have lost $Y in sales to this copying.  Please pass a bill that will stop us from losing so much money."
> 
> ...




Another factor that may come into play is the very reputations of the music industry producers themselves. Frex, if a new group came out that i really liked, and they were released on the Sony label, i probably wouldn't buy it. I'm particularly pissed off at Sony right now for their stupid copy protection scheme that makes CDs unplayable in computers--for most of my CD-player-owning life, my only CD player has been a computer, and my primary CD player has always been my computer. But i've almost never ripped CDs i own--didn't even have the capability until a bit over a year ago--and the only time i've copied a few tracks off of them was for putting together a soundtrack for a game campaign. Making legitimate users unable to use your product in legitimate ways is not good copy protection. And the fact that it was so easily circumvented just makes it that much more ridiculous--now the legitimate user can't use the CD without doing something illegal (DMCA: even talking about how to circumvent copy-protection technologies is illegal, much less doing so, regardless of the purpose for which you do so), while the pirate can trivially circumvent the protection anyway. So, if a new band turned up that i really loved, i would choose to do without before i'd buy it--there's always the radio. Or, i might download at least a few tracks (probably not teh whole album, but out of laziness rather than moral imperative). But, even if i think the price is reasonable for the degree to which i like the music, i'm not gonna support some of the big producers--put the identical CD out on a different label, even at a higher price, and i'll buy. Whether it's logical or not. 

Then again, i also bought Aqua's first album (the one with Barbie Girl on it) only because of Mattel's lawsuit against them. Sure, i enjoyed the song, but not badly enough to buy it. Then i heard about the lawsuit. I looked around for the single for a while, but nobody had it. $20 for one song wasn't reasonable. $20 to get one song *and* thumb my nose at a foolish, hypocritical, frivolous lawsuit, and maybe give the victims of teh lawsuit a little more money, was perfectly reasonable. So i bought the full album. I'm just upset with myself that i never got around to writing Mattel that letter, pointing out that "Barbie Girl" wasn't gonna do any damage to the image of Barbie that Mattel hadn't already done, and all their lawsuit was doing was making the song more popular. I wonder if there's any point, now?


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Rel said:
			
		

> Of course it is.  I never tried to suggest otherwise.  But if it is worth nothing to you then *don't download the file in the first place*.




Don't forget that at least some downloading occurs precisely to discern whether the product is worth something to the consumer. They can't not download it because it's worthless, because they don't yet know it's worthless. Also, that completely ignores the spectrum of desire: it's not "i want" and "i don't want"--there are degrees of want, and value comes into it. Frex, i almost never go to first-run movies these days. There just aren't very many movies that're worth $10 to me. About the only time i do go is when i'm "voting with my dollars": when i care very strongly that a movie do well, in the hopes that more like it in some fashion (in the same genre/by the same director/with the same actor/from the same production company/whatever) will get made, i'll do my little part to make the numbers look good. Otherwise, i'll wait for the 2nd-run theater ($4 w/student ID), the budget theater ($2.50), or video (which is actually more expensive, at ~$4/rental, but i can split the cost, and i'm saving on time by doing it at my convenience). Similarly, a lot of my RPG purchases occur 2nd-hand or on sale. But, it is still possible for my desire for a book to fall short of the cheapest price i can get it at. Sometimes, i luck out: i stumbled on a rather beat-up copy of W:tA 2nd ed. for <$5, which brought it below my threshhold (i'd previously not bought it because i had the original edition). Usually, i don't. 

So then, the question becomes: if i am never going to realistically find the product at a price that agrees with my personal value of the product, and therefore am otherwise not going to buy the product, have i done any harm to the producer by downloading a free, illegal, scan? I'm not sure. It seems oversimplistic to say 'no'--if only because the availability of the illegal scan is likely to skew market perceptions of value, if not my own perceptions. But it seems equally oversimplistic to just say 'yes'.

Oh, and don't forget the compulsive collectors. I have a friend who has downloaded the entire run of Dragonball Z and burned it to VCD (or maybe DVD). Along with lots of other stuff. He'll never watch it, and he makes no pretense that he'll watch it. He'd never buy Dragonball Z, no matter how cheaply. He did it just to have a "complete set". From other threads, i suspect that there are a fair number of people out there collecting PDF scans of RPG books who never use the scans they download. The point isn't to game with them, it's to have the biggest collection. They wouldn't be interested if they were legal, even if they were still free. No idea what percentage of the piracy population this represents, however.



> I notice that when I go to the box office to buy the ticket that they don't just let me pay what I think the performance will be worth to me (down to and including $0).  Instead, the producer of the product sets the price and I decide that I either will or will not pay that price for the product offered.  Stealing the product because I'm not willing to pay full price does not fit into my moral code.




What about haggling over the price? Now, i realize that that isn't what's going on. But right now, the system is as you say: price is X, you pay it or do without--or steal it, giving the producers nothing. I wonder if the producers might not come out better off if the "default" price was X, but they would lower it in some circumstances. Would enough people who previously stole it pay some Y, less than X, to make up for those who previously paid X and now only pay Y? It would be like sales, only on a vaster scale, and more arbitrary.


----------



## Rel (May 19, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> So then, the question becomes: if i am never going to realistically find the product at a price that agrees with my personal value of the product, and therefore am otherwise not going to buy the product, have i done any harm to the producer by downloading a free, illegal, scan? I'm not sure. It seems oversimplistic to say 'no'--if only because the availability of the illegal scan is likely to skew market perceptions of value, if not my own perceptions. But it seems equally oversimplistic to just say 'yes'.




I disagree that it is "oversimplistic" to say that "yes" the vendor is harmed.  The vendor is unquestionably harmed because every person who downloads a product illegally, places some value on that product but that money never reaches the person legally selling the product.  Many people throughout this thread have said that lots of these products are worth nothing to them.  This is untrue because, at very least, it was worth the time it took for them to locate and download the product and was worth the space that it takes up on their computer and the time they spent viewing the product.  That time and effort must necessarily be valued at greater than $0.

Here's "the thing" folks (and you can feel free to disagree if you like but I haven't seen anything in this thread that has convinced me that this isn't "the thing"):  *This issue cannot be looked at from an economic standpoint.*

In a rational market, the buyer will always seek the lowest price he can get for a product, all other factors being equal.  The only "unequal factors" in this case are the ethical infraction of taking the fruits of someone else's labor without paying for them and the theory that, if everybody illegally downloads the product, then the producer will stop producing because there is no profit in it.  Those are the only two reasons that I can see that prevent people from simply downloading everything they want for free.

The conclusion that I draw from this (and here's where opinions will probably differ the most) is that since I don't want the supply of product to go away, I cannot and will not condone the erosion of the moral argument against illegal filesharing.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> Gee, all of a sudden I invade privacy and federal computer laws by inserting a tracking method for a product?
> 
> Hmmmm, let's see what else does this...
> 
> ...




Yep. And those are equally problematic, IMHO. That's just one more reason to add to the long list of reasons why i won't use MSWindows, frex. Now, i don't know if it's illegal, but i do think it's reprehensible, in general.



> Now, how did I invade thier privacy? Are IP number private, or are they public information that the backbone of using your computer on the internet is based off of?
> 
> No copies of thier hard-drives. No identification of names. No information what so ever, at all.
> 
> ...




OK, i'm no expert on the relevant laws, but i was under the impression that tracking like that, *if you don't tell the consumer you're doing it*, is illegal. I don't think anyone was trying to libel you, rather, they were just pointing out that you'd have to explain how you had the info if you were to choose to press the matter in court, and that that would open you up for counter-accusations. Whether merited or not.



> And additionally, if you read it again, this is what was done...
> 
> I took the online "FREE SAMPLE", inflated the PDF and zip size, added my code to **PING** an IP address (the massive invasion of privacy I did, a PING! Oh my god, I know everything about them, and can now watch them in the shower! They've been violated by a PING! I could get more data with a _whois_ on mIRC!) edited the zipfile comments and file comments to match the illegal copies on KaZaA, Bearshare, Gnutella, eMule and others, and placed it in a folder.
> 
> ...




OK, now this part i missed before. So you're saying that the version you tracked didn't have any useful content? Or did the sample pages have complete bits to them (an entire spell, or entire class, or whatever)? 'Cause if it was pretty much unusable, i'm really entertained (and confused) by the number of people you had opening it multiple times for many months.



> I like how an attempt was made, both to discredit what I did, and to claim that I am a worse criminal than those who download the RPG material...




Um, i don't think anyone was trying to do that. I read it as simply pointing out why you couldn't take your data and make a court case out of it.



> Here's some data to consider...
> 
> Many companies are moving to no longer producing computer games. Why? Because you can download ISO CD files within days of the product hitting the shelf to copy the CD, complete with instruction for the stupid.
> 
> RPG PDF's are moving to the "Why bother? They'll just steal it." train of thought.



This is probably wrong, but i really wouldn't care if computer games (and console games) just completely disappeared. In fact, i think we'd be better off. But obviously pirating them out of business is the wrong way to get there. 



> Oh, and for those of you who were wondering, we will be inserting microchips within all hard-copy books that allow me to track you on my global sat-system and watch your sister take a shower.




As for the invasion of privacy angle: chips that merely track sales of products are not being used in the US right now because of that very concern. I know i won't ever knowingly buy a product with an active tracking microchip in it (unless that's a function of the product, such as a cell phone). Call me a paranoid if you want, but i do consider a computer file that tells some central server "hey! i'm here!" an invasion of privacy--whether it is legally defined as such or not. This is not the same as saying that what you did was despicable. I actually fully support it. The degree to which you invaded anyone's privacy is super-minimal, it was in pursuit of a goal that really couldn't be achieved without some invasion of privacy, it only targeted those who were doing something illegal and brought it upon themselves, and it was in pursuit of a goal that really merits pursuing (actual data on e-book piracy). It is, however, still too small of a sample, and too uncontrolled, to be conclusive. But it is definitely illustrative.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

FraserRonald said:
			
		

> The fact is simple: IP is important if we want art and literature. As a writer, my IP is as important to me as the Ford assembly line is to it. If you took away Ford's assembly line or even borrowed it for a weekend, is that acceptable? I get paid for writing most of the time--when I do it for pay. A doctor works for pay also. Should he work for free?
> 
> Honestly, if copyright expires within the creator's lifetime, is that fair? Should the investments made by private companies become public property after ten years?




That depends on what you mean by "investments". I'd certainly support anything that lessened the power and influence of big corporations, though i'm not sure limiting the duration of value of goods would do it. Heck, i'd absolutely love it if corporations were abolished, in favor of cooperatives. But i think i've gotten on a tangent here, and i'm not really addressing your comment, since i'm not suer what you mean by investments in this context.



> I know it is difficult to get our heads around IP, but it as much property to those of us who rely on it as your home is to you. I won't steal your home if you don't steal my IP.




Speaking as someone who hopes to make my living on IP, i disagree. IP and property feel very different to me: sharing IP creates more IP; sharing property creates less property (or at least divides up the same amount). Now, i'm not saying that IP creators don't deserve recompense and/or protection of their IP. But i think it is inaccurate to say it is "just like" material property, and laws/principles based on that belief will, i believe, end up flawed.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

scott-fs said:
			
		

> To print up a supplement that has been downloaded will often cost as much if not more and you'll end up with a lower quality product.  PDF's are fine for reference on the computer, but not much beyond that.  I've determined that if I were to print about 60 pages, it would use half of a black cartridge.  $40+paper for approximately a 128 pages.  It is cheaper to simply purchase it at the store.




That's why i don't have an inkjet. A good laser printer will give you 5k-10k pages for one toner cartridge, costing $50-$100. Or on the order of $0.01 per page, plus paper. Thus, legitimate e-books are much more appealing to me. I consider the printing a non-cost (which, for most of them, is reasonable--it's certainly less than $1), so the cost is just the PDF plus, maybe, binding at Kinko's. Tangent over.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> To the oft-made response "Well, I didn't like enough to buy it", if the individual in question had no interest in it, then why take it?




Actually, the usual response is (or would be if the responder were speaking precisely): "Well, i didn't like it enough to buy it at any price i could find it at." Obviously, the individual in question has some interest in it. Though, it could be just the collector's interest of having it, with no use intended. And the interest could, legitimately, be near-zero. Not saying this justifies the piracy in a legal sense, but it can explain how someone can be consistent when claiming it "wasn't worth it" while still pirating it.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Yes, the material has been copied.  Material that was in the store for the purpose of sale was removed from the store without the sale occuring.  The difference between this case and one where the book itself is shoplifted is immaterial as far as whether stealing has occured.  Sure, someone could claim that no "material" has been stolen, similar to someone claiming that nothing was lost if a thief shoplifted a book and there were a lot of other copies, but I don't find this meaningful.  The thief removed the material offered for sale as he now has a copy outside the door that he can use that he didn't pay for.




Situation before theft:
5 books on shelf.
Situation after theft:
4 books on shelf, one book in thief's hands.

Situation before piracy:
5 books on shelf.
Situation after piracy:
5 books on shelf, 1 book in pirate's hands.

They are clearly not identical situations. And that's where this whole dillemma comes from. Our standard theft laws are predicated on the notion that the total quantity of goods is a constant, so if one person gains, another must lose. With IP, this isn't necessarily so. _Something_ has happened, because the pirate has a copy. But something else _hasn't_ happened, because the producer hasn't lost a copy. There is, quite literally, no loss: nothing is missing/gone. So the question then becomes, what does this mean? Is (1) the thief/pirate getting a copy without paying the part that is the crime, and it doesn't matter whether or not the producer has lost a copy? Or is it (2) the loss of the copy that is the real crime, and where that copy went is immaterial? Or is it (3) some combination/balance of the two? 

If (1), then piracy is just as bad as theft. And, arson is no crime because the arsonist hasn't gained anything from it.

If (2), then piracy isn't a crime.

If (3) (as i believe), then it's still unclear exactly what the balance is. I have trouble accepting that piracy is as severe of a crime as theft. But, at the same time, i have trouble accepting that it isn't a crime at all.


----------



## scott-fs (May 19, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> That's why i don't have an inkjet. A good laser printer will give you 5k-10k pages for one toner cartridge, costing $50-$100. Or on the order of $0.01 per page, plus paper. Thus, legitimate e-books are much more appealing to me. I consider the printing a non-cost (which, for most of them, is reasonable--it's certainly less than $1), so the cost is just the PDF plus, maybe, binding at Kinko's. Tangent over.




Quite true.  Laser printers have become much cheaper, so I may look into that option.  I have a lot of legitimate* pdfs that I'd like to print out.

* Legitimate as in the 70 or so Harn fanworks that I have.  For those who care.


----------



## woodelf (May 19, 2004)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Another little tidbit for folks to chew on - the RIAA has said that it has lost revenue to filesharing.  But, oddly, the number of records actually passing out the doors of record stores has _increased_ in the past year.  It's an odd bit of accounting, described in this article.
> 
> The thing is this - pirating software and files is illegal.  And we have a perception that this is hurting the industry through lost sales.  But the only folks I know of who have tried to prove this sort of thing has been the RIAA, and they're using really screwy bookkeeping to do it.  We have a _perception_ that it hurts the industry, but no solid statistical proof.
> 
> That's not a good basis upon which to have this sort of conversation, is it?




Actually, someone *has* done an actual study of this. I'll post the link again: http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf . Short version: "downloads have an effect on sales which is statistically indistinguishable from zero." Mind you, this is just one study, but that's better than we had before. At least it's from an impartial observer.


----------



## Thanatos (May 20, 2004)

And the Oscar goes to...



			
				Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> ...SNIP...




No, inserting a tracking method in a product is not an invasion of privacy.

Its the whole providing a product to an end user (free or not) with no notification that it will communicate to a third-party server and not giving the end user any kind of accept/decline authorization for it to do that is an invasion of privacy.

The other programs you mentioned, require you to check mark a EULA. Check out point 7 of this EULA as an example: http://liveupdate.openwares.org/EULA.htm

It is irrelevent that all it does is ping another server.

I'm not sure why my opinion says that to you. It's a complete misrepresentation of what I typed. I am not sure how declaring I wouldn't buy one of your products equals the whole cookie jar scenerio.



> Thanks for the accusation that I invaded people's privacy and broke federal computing laws. Thanks for the libel. I appreciate your devotion to the facts, as well as the intent and scope of what I did.
> 
> Remind me, if I ever regain the ability to really care about things, to reread the section on how I'm a criminal.




Actually, it was my _opinion_, not an accusation (stated as though it was a formal charge or stating it as though it were fact). Additionally, to prove libel (a false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation), you'd need to show my opinion was made with maliclous intent, reckless disregard or show it to be a false statement. 

as to the section on the criminal activity, I think it is http://cybercrimes.net/98MSCCC/Article4/section4082.html but IANAL. 

In any event, as the EULA example I posted above shows, there is legal precedent for the necessity of allowing an end user the ability to authorize or decline communication with a 3rd party server within regards to software on their own pc. There was actually a pretty big case on this years ago. I'll see if I can find the caselaw.



> And additionally, if you read it again, this is what was done...
> 
> ...SNIP...
> 
> ...




Doesn't matter that it was free, incomplete or that you didn't capture their data. It's irrelevent what your program did or that it was benign. It is the same effect as placing a benign virus in a product and distributing it. 



> I like how an attempt was made, both to discredit what I did, and to claim that I am a worse criminal than those who download the RPG material...




Funny, I thought I said 'same league' not 'a worse criminal', but I suppose you could take it how you like as it was abstract. Where did I attempt to discredit what you did? with my opinion again? oh please *LOL*.

It was your admission of your actions that formed interpretation and opinion of you, so I stand by my belief in my own opinion. I don't expect it to hold weight for anyone other then me.

I apologize if you feel I have somehow slighted your character, reputation or product with my _opinion_. I don't believe I have ever said you didn't have a right to be angry or that you didn't have a right to pursue justice over the downloads. By all means, the law is on your side in that regards.

I am sure facts all bear out you are ethical, moral, honest, honorable and a wonderful fellow who has been wronged and is now filled with righteous might over the illegal downloads of your product.

Unfortunately, you only have 1 chance to make a first impression with someone -- and that was what I posted my opinion about in regards to you.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 20, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> i am skeptical of your claim that you are under-reporting cheating, just because i can't conceive of cheating exceeding, or even approaching, 35% in academia as a whole.




   To be proper, I caught 1/3 the class engaged in what I would consider serious cheating during the semester; since I can conceive of a number of ways in which cheating could have been done that were undetectable by what I was doing, it is only proper to note that the number is the absolute minimum; there may have been more cheating that I was unaware, although I cannot, of course, confirm that.



> as for take-home exams: only professor i had who used those extensively did so precisely to make them different from conventional exams.




  My logic as well, especially in summer classes.  I'd like to test the students on the ability to use the material, not on how quickly they can work their calculators.


----------



## The Sigil (May 21, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> To be proper, I caught 1/3 the class engaged in what I would consider serious cheating during the semester; since I can conceive of a number of ways in which cheating could have been done that were undetectable by what I was doing, it is only proper to note that the number is the absolute minimum; there may have been more cheating that I was unaware, although I cannot, of course, confirm that.



Cheating, stealing, fraud, and dishonesty in general is now more or less ingrained in the fabric of students today - speculating why will take me too far into the realm of the political but as someone who teaches a religion class to high school students (where they are graded almost entirely on simple attendance - which they CAN'T fake or cheat on), suffice it to say that the high school students with which I'm familiar confirm that not only is cheating the norm, it's the very rare student that DOESN'T cheat (again, most will tell me that they don't know ANYONE in their class that DOESN'T cheat... which tells me that they do know everyone in their class cheats).  I have been told the same about colleges by "those on the inside" after graduation - that the percentage of students cheating is fast approaching unity.  

There will always be those of exceptional moral fiber that hold out and do not cheat, but I would suspect that in the current environment, the number of students who will not cheat during the course of their academic careers will be close to the number of students who remain virgins over the course of their academic careers or those who never take a taste of alcohol over the course of their academic careers (whether these three categories overlap as which students fall into them is a matter for the philosophers).

--The Sigil


----------



## Kalanyr (May 21, 2004)

Crud, I'm missing out on ALL THAT ? Bleah, and here I am having been up approaching 36 hours now on a programming assignment.


----------



## Adonis (May 21, 2004)

I think pdf filesharing of 3e books compares to filesharing of games and music. People generally download stuff they would never buy anyway.

For example, ill be candid. I have practically every book printed between the 3e PHB and the Fiend Folio. I DLed them just to read for fun, and i can say for SURE that i never would have bought a single one of those books. The people who need them will buy them. I cant imagine seeing someone show up to a game with 50 pages printed out of a PHB PDF


----------



## woodelf (May 21, 2004)

Back sort of on topic, ran across an interesting tidbit at http://www.kensei-news.com/bizdev/publish/factoids_us/article_23902.shtml :


> CD buyers who also used an online music subscription service, such as Rhapsody, in the past twelve months purchased an average of 11 CDs last year; those who had paid for a music download from legal download site, like iTunes, purchased 10 CDs; those who used a P2P file-sharing site purchased eight CDs; and those who did not download or stream music from the Web bought six CDs.




Now, this could be read to imply that those who pirate CD tracks therefore buy fewer CDs. But it could also be seen as showing that those who have easy access to music, on-demand, and only what they want (as opposed to whole-album-for-one-song), buy more CDs, and the greater ease of the commercial sites eclipses their greater cost, causing an even stronger effect. Or, as the article concludes, it could just mean that the more you're into music, the more you're willing to pay to get it--IOW, filesharing doesn't cut into sales, so much as only satisfy those who don't buy much anyway.


----------



## trancejeremy (May 21, 2004)

Well, it also seems to me, that how much money you have plays a big role. If you can afford to belong to a subscription program for music, then you probably have a fair amount of money.

If you use Itunes, then you also must have money, because while it's fairly cheap, you really need an Ipod or Windows XP for your computer, neither of which is cheap.

Conversely, those that don't download or stream music probably can't, because they are on dialup, which makes it impossible to stream music and makes downloading music very very very very very very very very slow. 

To make an analogy, very few Rolls Royce drivers steal gas from gas stations. Unless they want a thrill.


----------



## Rel (May 21, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> To make an analogy, very few Rolls Royce drivers steal gas from gas stations. Unless they want a thrill.




Very few college students steal gas from gas stations either, even though college students don't tend to have a lot of money.  Perhaps this is because they are decent people who understand that taking things without paying for them is wrong.

Or perhaps it is because it is a lot easier to get caught stealing gas than it is to get caught illegally sharing files and there tend to be consequences for the one and not for the other.


----------



## Henry (May 21, 2004)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> Well, it also seems to me, that how much money you have plays a big role.




I have to disagree here. Most people who download unlicensed recordings have access to a computer and CD-Burning software to make use of it. The Itunes or other service really makes little difference in this case, since access to these things takes some money in itself. The extra money spent on an itunes subscription really makes little difference, because they HAVE to have the PC and portability of material anyway.

And people with money will steal JUST LIKE people without money; the difference is in the difficulty of being caught, whether rich or poor, because money is still irrelevant to the pull of human nature. The weekly news has examples of this every day.



			
				Adonis said:
			
		

> I cant imagine seeing someone show up to a game with 50 pages printed out of a PHB PDF.




They don't need to - all they need is that sentence or paragraph or so of text to put on their character sheet. If we want to be technical, that's "use" of the product. I agree with Rel in that a value IS attached to the item by its downloader and user; but the school of thought that says, _"I can pay what I want for this"_ versus _"If I want ANY of it I'll pay what the seller agrees to sell it for"_ is in serious conflict.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 21, 2004)

I'd just like to point out the flaw in the if you took the time to download it, its worth the seeling cost to you argument.

Sure there is a value of anything someone downloads (space on hard disk, the internet time is hecka harder to calculate since a lot of the time you get if you pay for a month provision is unused you could argue "Meh, not doing anything may as well download something.") but the cost of this is miniscule (you already own the hard disk BEFORE you download and even assuming you didn't the cost of each book is going to be around $5 or so tops) compared to what they sell for, so there's no conflict between having it and not buying it anyway, you might have bought it if it was the price you downloaded it at, but it never is, the cost of an RPG book is about $AUS 60-80, the cost of around 75 MB of hard disk space and a few hours of net time, isn't even going to approach that.


----------



## Henry (May 21, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Sure there is a value of anything someone downloads..but the cost of this is miniscule...compared to what they sell for, so there's no conflict between having it and not buying it anyway...




That I can't agree with, because the conflict is inherent between the existing model (pay what the vendor and consumer agree on), and the model that the downloader is trying to create (pay what the consumer values it as). Taken to its ultimate extension, the creators/vendors will put as much into it as they get out of it - which is to say, nothing.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 21, 2004)

Yeah there's a conflict between it and the economical model society uses but there's no internal conflict between the two I said. I'm basically saying if I have $20, I will not buy a $40 book, this is undeniably true, now however if I can download it for $2, I may do so.

 The existing model doesn't work perfectly becaue of this, many sales are lost because customers can't afford to buy the book (even thoug they would for some fraction of the price) so money is potentially lost , the only way to effectively get the maximum out of it would be to do as Sigil suggested and gradually lower the price, but thats not going to work on the long term because eventually even people who can pay $x will wait to pay $x/2 because people don't like spending more than they can, a perfect model just isn't going to happen I guess, since the extrapolation of the customer model results in everyone paying $0 (as you said) and the produced then making nothing.  

But back to my original point the book published clearly hasn't lost $40, because he never would have gotten it anyway. While he's still lost some amount of money (potentially $20) if he'd reduced the price later, its not exactly fair to say its equivalent to stealing a $40 book (in which case the author won't get $40 from the thief and he won't get however much he could have legitimantly sold it for either (potentiall $40)).

 (Of course  since even if I do download it for $2 I may buy it later when it drops to $20, so the end result is that the seller has lost absolutely nothing to me (I couldn't have paid $40, and in the end I paid the $20 I might have paid (I've actually lost $2 for the privellege of seeing it before I could afford it) , gets kinda wierd really, because there's no physical object taken.)

Edit - 3 AM maths.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 21, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Situation before theft:
> 5 books on shelf.
> Situation after theft:
> 4 books on shelf, one book in thief's hands.
> ...




  But are they different in a meaningful way?  What if the bookstore burns down that night, or if the thief is arrested much later, after the bookstore goes out of business with two copies of the book still on the shelf?  Is the thief less cupable if no "loss" is incurred by the store?



> And that's where this whole dillemma comes from. Our standard theft laws are predicated on the notion that the total quantity of goods is a constant, so if one person gains, another must lose. With IP, this isn't necessarily so.




   At the very least this is theft in the sense of "theft of services".  If I sneak my garbage into your apartment building's trash bins, what are you "losing"?  But it is still considered a form of theft.  Additionally, I disagree with the last sentence quoted.  The author invested work which was produced for a commercial product, and the source of the commercial material set a price for it.  The product was removed without the price being paid.
   The seller has the right to assign a cost to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property.  If the thief does not provide that amount, the amount is considered the value of the theft, even if the one stealing it does not consider the value of the object as that high.  If one were to steal a physical game book from a bookstore, it would not work to say "Well, to me this only has a value of $2.00, because that's all that I was willing to pay for it" for two reasons: the price of the object was not the decision of the thief, and that the crime is only loosely associated with the value of the object.  There is a difference between stealing something worth $2,000 and something worth $200, but there is not a legal difference between stealing something worth $200 and $20.



> _Something_ has happened, because the pirate has a copy. But something else _hasn't_ happened, because the producer hasn't lost a copy. There is, quite literally, no loss: nothing is missing/gone. So the question then becomes, what does this mean? Is (1) the thief/pirate getting a copy without paying the part that is the crime, and it doesn't matter whether or not the producer has lost a copy? Or is it (2) the loss of the copy that is the real crime, and where that copy went is immaterial? Or is it (3) some combination/balance of the two?
> 
> If (1), then piracy is just as bad as theft. And, arson is no crime because the arsonist hasn't gained anything from it.
> 
> ...




  Let's think of it as two acts, thing (1) and thing (2).  The difference with electronic copies is that we have considered (1) and (2) as linked for so long that if thing (2) doesn't come into play, there are plenty of people (some of whom have posted elsewhere on this thread) who see the lack of (2) as permission to do (1) to their heart's content - as long as "they wouldn't have bought it, otherwise".  After all, we can have a legal code with more than one crime one it, so we don't have to stop prosecuting for arson, et al.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (May 21, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> Which brings me full circle to my point. While for many centuries, the cost of moving from Step 2 to Step 3 was the biggest part of creating a copyrightable work, that is no longer the case. Now, it is MUCH harder to find someone who can do an eloquent/quality job of using language/music/other media to convey a "raw idea" (i.e., transition from Step 1 to Step 2) than it is to move from Step 2 to Step 3. Because moving from Step 1 to Step 2 is a purely intellectual and creative process, it CANNOT be automated. Now, the greater value is in moving from Step 1 to Step 2, because the skills and expense moving from Step 2 to Step 3 are very low.





It scares me that eliminating the effort of moving from step 2 to step 3 may eventually make moving from step 1 to step 2 obsolete, as I am one of the creative monkeys. Which was probably the point of this quote:



> Because one day the infinite number of monkeys will have nothing else to write except the complete works of Shakespeare. And they would probably rather not know that when it happens."






What happens when there are too many creative monkeys? It's a kind of intellectual inflation. 

Eight hundred billion creative monkeys + eight hundred billion stairmasters = too many transcribed ideas ----> "idea" subsidies (like farm subsidies but with ideas.) 

The government pays people not to be a creative monkey. (It'll probably just be cheaper to let us monkeys starve.) 

Egads!   





.
.
.
That will probably happen about the same time that DnD v57.09 comes out.


----------



## James Heard (May 21, 2004)

Hmmm. That would be sort of cool. Being paid to not voice opinions and ideas...It's like Heaven and Hell, all mixed up in one....


----------



## The Sigil (May 21, 2004)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> What happens when there are too many creative monkeys? It's a kind of intellectual inflation.



You're getting close to the point.  The problem is that eventually the monkeys will only be able to type Shakespeare because _anything else they type will be infringing upon copyrighted material_ (and the only reason they're not infringing on Shakespeare was that ol' Willy had the great misfortune to be born too early to benefit from perpetual copyright, thus his works are in the public domain).

As the original story mentions, when the day comes that the human race realizes that there is NOTHING new to create and any attempt at doing so makes them legally liable, they will go into a collective psychic shock, because we all create every day as we communicate with each other.  The inability to express our ideas for fear of being sued for infringement (with ever-increasing penalties, it might be noted; at the current rate of escalation, the punishment for infringing in 2025 will probably approach the GNP of the entire world throughout the entire history of the world) -- this will be a tremendous shock to a race that finds great joy sharing its discoveries with other people (c.f., any group of 8 teenage girls) as we suddenly realizes thanks to draconian IP laws, we have to sit in the corner and not talk to anyone.  Ever.

--The Sigil


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (May 21, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> The seller has the right to assign a cost to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property.




Example one:
1) I own an apple tree.
2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to an apple.
3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
4) You go buy a competitor's apple for 20 cents.

Example two:
1) I own a copyright to the phrase, "I Eat Cheese at Midnight! (R)"
2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to that phrase.
3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
4) You cannot use that phrase unless you pay me 5 million dollars.



I guess my point is that sellers should not have a perpetual and omnipotent "right" to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property in the case of IP, *because it destroys the whole concept of competition.*

Since a seller can place whatever price he wants, regardless of market conditions, I, as the consumer feel powerless and angry that I cannot turn to a competing business for the exact same product.

Thus I (the consumer) rebel.
.
.
.
1) This, of course, is besides the fact that sellers only have that "right" if we (the public) allow them to have that power.

2) I do not have a solution to the above dilemma without using a little bit of copyright, as is illustrated in one of The Sigil's previous posts.


----------



## ConcreteBuddha (May 22, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> You're getting close to the point.  The problem is that eventually the monkeys will only be able to type Shakespeare because _anything else they type will be infringing upon copyrighted material_ (and the only reason they're not infringing on Shakespeare was that ol' Willy had the great misfortune to be born too early to benefit from perpetual copyright, thus his works are in the public domain).
> 
> As the original story mentions, when the day comes that the human race realizes that there is NOTHING new to create and any attempt at doing so makes them legally liable, they will go into a collective psychic shock, because we all create every day as we communicate with each other.  The inability to express our ideas for fear of being sued for infringement (with ever-increasing penalties, it might be noted; at the current rate of escalation, the punishment for infringing in 2025 will probably approach the GNP of the entire world throughout the entire history of the world) -- this will be a tremendous shock to a race that finds great joy sharing its discoveries with other people (c.f., any group of 8 teenage girls) as we suddenly realizes thanks to draconian IP laws, we have to sit in the corner and not talk to anyone.  Ever.
> 
> --The Sigil




I think long before all of that happens, people will rebel and start throwing IP tea in Internet Bay. (Which is the idea you had in a previous thread.) 
.
.
.
Moreso, I am afraid of the prediction that one day all of the "good" ideas will already be thought of and retained by the collective memory of the society. 

That future, regardless of the state of copyright, scares me because then I (an ideamaker) will not have a function anymore.




But then again, do people have worth without a function? It seems like the future is a place where people must exist without functions (as is the theme in a lot of computer/robot stories.) Do we have a place in our own future?

That is beyond the scope of this thread, of course...


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 22, 2004)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> Moreso, I am afraid of the prediction that one day all of the "good" ideas will already be thought of and retained by the collective memory of the society.




  I don't think that the pool of ideas is necessarily finite.  This pops up every now and then "History is over", "everything has been done".  Consider that "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." was written about 2300 years ago.

   I think - and this at least reinforced in my philosophy by my training as a scientist - that as we do more and/or discover more, then more of the new will open up to us.  I do not think that there will ever a point at which we know everything, or have done everything.

  On an different line of thought, I was considering how complicated reasonable copyright laws are.  For a single work, setting some period of time - let me just grab the random number of (roll, roll, roll) ten years - seems reasonable, but there are a number of cases where this seems unjust.  Consider an ongoing work; the Harry Potter series, or the Batman comic, or the Peanuts strip.  By having copyright expire in these cases, then J.K. Rowling loses the income from the first book in the series about the time the last one will come out; anybody can put out a Batman comic, and Charles Schulz would only have been in control of a tiny fraction of his work.

   It would seem reasonable to differentiate between the ability to copy material and the ability to use the characters, though I can see some limitation based on a requirement to keep in characters in play to keep the rights protected.

  And since I'm talking about Peanuts ...

http://www.fantagraphics.com/peanuts/peanuts.html


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 22, 2004)

ConcreteBuddha said:
			
		

> Example one:
> 1) I own an apple tree.
> 2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to an apple.
> 3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
> ...




   As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are ways to address a ludricrously overstated price.  In the case of example #1, this does not give one the "right" to steal an apple from you, and - in this case- the value of the apple will not be held by a judge to be equivalent to your price.  I know of nothing in gaming that is remotely comparible to your example.  For example, while I have heard a number of people speak well of Dragonomicon (by WotC), but to me the perceived value is not worth the $35 (or whatever).  This means that I haven't bought, not that I have the right to steal it, nor that there is no foul if I steal it, "since it wasn't worth the price to me".  That is the choice, not "what should I buy and what should I steal?"

  In the case of Example #2, the U.S. courts would only uphold that (though IANAL) if you had established "I eat cheese at midnight" as having some identity value to you that another person/entity was trying to infringe upon.

My example #1:
Tom Servo: "To infinity ..."
Crow: "Disney. Lawsuit."
Tom Servo: " ... and some other places!"

  My example #2:
  FOX news sued Al Franken to prevent him from using the phrase "fair and balanced" as part of the extended title of his book * Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right*.  This was thrown out of court, and the judge ordered the FOX lawyer to be given a wedgie.  (Although I might be mis-remebering that last part.)




> I guess my point is that sellers should not have a perpetual and omnipotent "right" to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property in the case of IP, *because it destroys the whole concept of competition.*




   What does this have to do with anything?  Is there someone in this thread who is arguing for perpetual and omnipotent?  In any event, I fail to see how your point holds up.  The seller has the right to set the price for his/her work.  If you don't want to pay that, _don't buy it_.  This establishes the whole concept of competition.  You are not being forced to buy any gamebook, and you or I have no *need* of the Dragonomicon, or the PHB3.5, or whatever.



> Since a seller can place whatever price he wants, regardless of market conditions, I, as the consumer feel powerless and angry that I cannot turn to a competing business for the exact same product.
> 
> Thus I (the consumer) rebel.




  There is no gaming material that you have a *need* for.  You are not powerless - you have the power to express your disapproval by _not buying them smegging thing!_.  You have the right to rebel by choosing what you will spend your money on.  Since no one is forcing you to buy the Super book of Fighters, or whatever, saying that you download the book as a rebellion would just be a weak rationalization for stealing the material.


----------



## ph0rk (May 22, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are ways to address a ludricrously overstated price.  In the case of example #1, this does not give one the "right" to steal an apple from you,




No, overpriced merchandise doesn't give anyone the -right- to take it, but if the general perchasing group has the perception that an item is overpriced, it is sure is more likely to be stolen.

if gaming book X costs $100, sure i'd pirate a copy well before i bought one. Likewise a movie, or an album. No guilt, no shame, thats just how it is.  Ideally with music I prefer to try before I buy, and I enjoy being able to listen on a whim - I dislike services like iTunes music store because I prefer to have the music on disc, in case some hot new encoding scheme comes along.

Movies I've snagged copies of, by chance flicks I've already seen more than once in the theatre, and I've bought copies of each when they became available.

If versions of these things existed cheaply enough, then those who wished would buy them (as was evidenced by the amazing sales iTunes Music Store had when it opened.)  A $3-4 pdf file floating around on a sharing network is like music to me; were I so inclined I'd read through it then decide if I wished to purchase.  I doubt I would though, I hate pdf files.

Piracy, be it with music, movies, or books, is just the free market system at work; though not the way the sellers intend.

People can rationalize it how they wish, and other people can discredit any rationalizations, but it doesn't matter in the end.  Some people want X. X costs more than they're willing to pay.  There is an easy way to snag X for free. Bam.  

A lot of people feel that there's no sense buying the cow when they can get the milk for free.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 22, 2004)

ph0rk said:
			
		

> No, overpriced merchandise doesn't give anyone the -right- to take it, but if the general perchasing group has the perception that an item is overpriced, it is sure is more likely to be stolen.




  That might be how one rationalizes it as one steals it (as you boast that you have), but I think that the bigger effect is the ease involved in stealing a copy and the perception of limited risk.  An item perceived of as overpriced might have a higher apparent theft threshold as it has a lower number of copies sold, and perhaps as having a higher cost, it is seen as a bigger prize to steal.  It is quite easy to steal material on-line, and I propose that one of the reasons that the record industry's action engendered such a large reaction is that it reached out and grabbed individuals in the perceived anonymity of the net.  The shock that the risk is not zero sent quite a jolt.



> Movies I've snagged copies of, by chance flicks I've already seen more than once in the theatre, and I've bought copies of each when they became available.




  And y'know what?  If you were pegged for doing this, all that wouldn't matter - even if it's true - nor do I think that it should.



> Piracy, be it with music, movies, or books, is just the free market system at work; though not the way the sellers intend.




  Saying that piracy happens is not to say that it should happen, that it should be encouraged, that it should be accepted, or that it does no harm.

  To enforce the law does not require that the criminal show guilt or shame.


----------



## Numion (May 23, 2004)

I didn't bother to read the whole thread but I'll still chime in about filesharing. I've used it massively for two years now, for movies, games, music .. to the point I've not bought any of those for the time. Luckily here in Finland the law backs me up - I've not done anything illegal as long as I don't upload them. Downloading is ok. For once the law profits the small guy, so sure as hell I'll take advantage. 

RPGs are different. I like to have a real book to use it. PDFs aren't that handy. I stopped buying books because of 3.5e, not piracy. My 3.0e game is doing pretty good, so I'll not bother buying more books. I've DLed some books, but haven't used them in game, so I would've not bought them otherwise.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 23, 2004)

> And y'know what? If you were pegged for doing this, all that wouldn't matter - even if it's true - nor do I think that it should.




And that is the most ridiculous part of copyright enforcement, in this case the author's lost absolutely nothing but they are still trying to get someone for their null loss. Does that make any sense at all ? If they potentially lost something even if only a sale to that customer, yes its a crime, sure, but in the case where they've lost nothing the fact it can still be treated as a crime seems silly to me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2004)

Noob to the board- found this thread and had to weigh in.  For the record, I'm an attorney who deals with copyright issues, largely in the entertainment (music) industry, currently working on an MBA in Sports & Entertainment Marketing issues.

So, here is my $0.02 on the matter.

Just because the form of the product is different doesn't mean the rules about what theft is should differ.  If it is a good, then it has a price.

1)  Apply Kant's Universality principle- before you act, ask if it would it be good for society if you would want everyone else to act similarly in the same or an analagous situation.  So, if YOUR work were available in electronic form for anyone to take without paying you, would you want them to be able to do so without legal recourse?  Of course not-that is money out of your pocket.  And if everyone downloaded the products, sales would decline precipitously, and the companies die off, unable to pay to produce the product.

Lets examine that further:  You write a report on gizmos for your company, but go to lunch before printing it.  While you're away, someone downloads your report and submits it as his own work, have you been harmed?  The original is still on your hard drive.

Perhaps you did print it before lunch, and your boss likes it.  He submits the work to a client, but the client has already recieved the info from the person who downloaded your work.  Is the client going to pay?

You're already seeing some of this in the music industry.  The RIAA has shown that while sales are down (according to a variety of indices) in general due to the economy, sales are down much more at retailers located around institutions that have high-speed internet access and a large number of online users (certain kinds of businesses, but especially universities). 

The problem is that the form of property at issue is intangible.  The property isn't the book, but the ideas the book contains.  To reiterate, the book is not the property, it is the method of transmitting the property (namely, the ideas) to end users.

2)  To the argument that you can't "try it before you buy it" so you'll download anyway just to see what the product is- BUNK.

Look at the copy in the store.  Decide there if there is something in the book worth buying.  Name another product you coud potentially get the FULL VALUE from before purchase and not be required to pay.

Or read a review of the product.

3)  Whoever it was who bought the multiple copies of the Metallica albums (all destroyed or lost) and felt entitled to download a freebie-BULL.

If I bought a Volvo and it was destroyed, and I bought a similar one from the same manufacturer, and IT was destroyed, and so forth, at what point in this cycle am I allowed to just simply walk onto a Volvo lot and just drive off with a new car?

4)  "They haven't lost anything."/"Its not worth it to me..."-GARBAGE.

It is obviously worth something to you- you have taken efforts to acquire it.  The author has lost the ability to control his intellectual property and the sweat of his labors.  Sure, there are still the same number of books on the shelf available for sale, but you have everything in that book available on your computer.  His IDEAS are in your posession, and it is only your whim or twinge of conscience that will find him receiving recompense.

By downloading it, you have cost them a sale, even if its in the retailer's extreme markdown bin- "Everything in this bin 70% off!!!"  You have cost your game store a little bit of its ability to cover its overhead.  You have cost the company and industry a chance to show profitability to future investors.

If you downloaded something without paying for it and found something of use to you ONE TIME, you owe that product's creator something.

5)  "Its too expensive" -SO WHAT.

I like prime rib and lobsters, but that doesn't entitle me to steal them when I only have $5 in my pocket.  Even if you're a fan of _Les Miserables_ (the book), stealing because you're hungry is excusable only insofar as you are stealing food for survival.  Stealing exclusively from 5-star restaraunts is only going to get you negative responses from the jury- there's hunger, and then there's greed.

If the current price is too high, don't pay it.  Eventually, if the product is a slow seller, it will wind up in the discount bin.  Buy it then.

A product of any kind has its price set, at least in part, by considerations of raw materials breakeven points, shipping costs, storage costs, promotions costs, paying the talent (authors, artists, and design teams), layout costs, proofreaders (for press copy or actual product), markups along the supply chain, and shrinkage.  If you don't know, shrinkage covers things like damaged product being returned, product returned for lack of sales, and theft or general loss.

If illegal downloaders actually bought the products they stole, that would enable the companies to make more accurate predictions as to all of the above listed costs and set a more accurate initial price because shrinkage would decline on 2 related fronts (lack of sales; theft).

Furthermore, as products sell more, they decline in price over time- simple supply & demand.  When CD's were introduced, they cost $800+ for a single-disc player.  Now you can buy a changer for under $250, and a portable for under $100.

The books are still too expensive?  Then tell your game companies to use cheaper paper, print softcover only, use black ink and white paper (or cardboard for the boxes), and get rid of the interior and cover art.  Then all of the game books can look alike and be extremely cheap, like they were printed at Kinko's, not unlike the old Metagames rulesbooks or the current Cheapass Games rulesbooks.

However, since there has been a nearly universal flow towards more attractive and better packaging in our hobby- better art, hardcovers for durability, etc., we have to pay for that improved quality.

Still not cheap enough?  Have your game group pool your money and buy the books co-op style.

6)  "It destroys the concept of competition"- UNTRUE.

The core of capitalism is competition.  If you can come up with a better way to do something, you can compete better and make more money than your competition.

At no stage in the history of capitalism has competition included the right to use someone else's ideas without paying them-industrial espionage has always been a crime.  Why?

Because the legalized theft of intellectual property is a very real deterrent to creativity.  If I come up with the proverbial "better mousetrap" and it cost me 1Mill to do my research and initial production run, I had better have the right to be able to recoup my money before some guy can buy one of my mousetraps, retroengineer it, and be in competition with me within a week with startup costs of, essentially, ZERO.  If not, I'll be out of business and broke while the second guy gets rich.

Now, if that same guy came up with substantially the same idea, he's free to compete, as long as he doesn't use any of the unique ideas or processes I used for my product.

The seller CANNOT just arbitrarily set a price.  If he does, he will either underprice his product, and thus, not cover expenses and go out of business, or overprice his product which will not sell and could be undercut by a competitor who will set a lower price.  The free market will drive the price to a level that people are willing to pay.

That is why in the transportation industry, there are Kias and there are Bentleys, there are trains and planes, but the only free transportation is your own feet.


----------



## Planesdragon (May 23, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> And that is the most ridiculous part of copyright enforcement, in this case the author's lost absolutely nothing but they are still trying to get someone for their null loss. Does that make any sense at all ?



 Yes, because it isn't "absolutely nothing."  It's a nonmonetary loss--exactly the same as if I tresspassed upon your lawn, or used your image to make money without your permission (when your image attributed nothing to my work).


----------



## Henry (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Noob to the board- found this thread and had to weigh in.  For the record, I'm an attorney who deals with copyright issues, largely in the entertainment (music) industry, currently working on an MBA in Sports & Entertainment Marketing issues.
> 
> So, here is my $0.02 on the matter.




Danny,

First of all, welcome to the boards!

Secondly, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. It's interesting to me to see arguments from someone directly involved in the matters at hand.


----------



## ph0rk (May 23, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> That might be how one rationalizes it as one steals it (as you boast that you have),




It was an anecdote, not a boast.  I don't need to rationalize a thing; any media I have copied I did because there is virtually no penalty for doing so - I have yet to hear of someone getting nailed for downloading media *who was not stockpiling or archiving or distributing it.*



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> It is quite easy to steal material on-line, and I propose that one of the reasons that the record industry's action engendered such a large reaction is that it reached out and grabbed individuals in the perceived anonymity of the net.




I don't agree: it was the fact that people were able to download music long enough to get used to the idea that caused the reaction.  They had done it long enough that they felt entitled.




			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> And y'know what?  If you were pegged for doing this, all that wouldn't matter - even if it's true - nor do I think that it should.




True enough. But it hasn't yet, and they're still a far ways away from nailing those that download the rare bit of media.  I'm not particularly worried.  Technically I should get a ticket for traveling 3mph over the speed limit, but I do not.  Like speeding, it would be nearly impossible to enforce the current copyright laws EVERYWHERE and with EVERYONE without a monumental expense.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Saying that piracy happens is not to say that it should happen, that it should be encouraged, that it should be accepted, or that it does no harm.




I did not say any such thing.  I didn't put words in your mouth to argue against, so please don't do the same to me.

It happens, and will continue until the items actual cost is more in line with their perceived cost.  Theft will probably never go away completely, but will be aggravated when the discrepency between actual cost and perceived cost is great. 

In other words, we are very near the point at which discussing whether or not piracy of electronic media -should- happen will be academic; if we aren't already.



			
				Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> To enforce the law does not require that the criminal show guilt or shame.




And your point?  Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase.  The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads.

There are several more serious hurdles to be overcome than the public showing guilt, not the least of which is DRM that doesn't muck with fair use, or penalize persons whose physical hardware was stolen and then used for distribution.

To proclaim it is illegal won't fix the issue; in fact I would argue it is probably too late to fix the issue: too many people consider electronic copies of media have no actual value.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2004)

> Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase. The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads.
> 
> There are several more serious hurdles to be overcome than the public showing guilt, not the least of which DRM that doesn't much with fair use, or penalize persons whose physical hardware was stolen and then used for distribution.
> 
> To proclaim it is illegal won't fix the issue; in fact I would argue it is probably too late to fix the issue: too many people consider electronic copies of media have no actual value.




1)  You could be right.  If everyone gets into illegal file swapping, Hasbro may kill off D&D as being unprofitable, sticking to board games that don't have as much of problem (there are still pirate knockoffs of boardgames, but its still a minor problem).  Then there will be nothing AT ALL to purchase.

While we may yet move to a 100% electronic distribution process, that does not equate with non-payment.  There is no economic model for a competitive business that must compete with its product having mass free availability.

Sure, Gygax and Cook and all the others would probably still have done what they did for fun, but if they weren't paid for their efforts, the RPG hobby would either be limited to a couple of houses in Wisconsin or having a different game system in every block as each club creates their own-we as a hobby would have no common ground or history.

2) Fair use is for teaching, that is, academic purposes.  If you are using D&D as a teaching tool, you can use portions (NOT the whole product) free of charge beyond the cost of making the copies.

3) All we can do is educate people that electronic products are still somebody's work, and thus, worthy of pay.  THAT is a question of upbringing, personal morality, and civic duty.

I have cousins who USED to download music all the time- heck, even I have an old bootleg tape or two.  But when I pointed out that the past success (sales) of a particular artist's product affects both how much royalties he'll get (now and on subsequent releases) and whether the company will keep him on or fire him, they realized that downloading was a factor in whether their favorite artist of today was going to release an album ever again.

The game industry is no different.  The percieved lack of impact may just be because of the size of the industry.  I daresay that even at $0.15/album (typical for a rookie artist), a single successful album nets the artist who recorded it more money than a second tier RPG release does for its author.  Thus there is no economic interest in there being an agency to accurately track in-store sales or losses due to downloading in the RPG industry.  All we have is anecdotal evidence.

4)  Lack of guilt and anonymity are probably equal partners in this problem.  There are some famous psychology studies that show that anonymity increases the likelyhood of violence.  Most study participants who were assured of anonymity followed orders to inflict pain (no pain was actually inflicted, just actors writhing around and screaming on the other side of the one-way glass) either without question or with "minimal" delay, even after the actors seemed to pass out from pain.  Similar results came from studies with masked participants, or even those wearing mirrored sunglasses and uniforms.  The same can be said of mass/mob action studies in which people act differently (less inhibited by law or social mores) when acting in large groups-like the massive number of downloaders out there.  And who of us is not aware that people online are more likely to use inappropriate language online relative to face-to-face communication.  Anonymity in any form relaxes the grip of civilization's taboos upon our behavior- when our identities are concealed, we are more likely to act inappropriately.

And the taboo against violence is much stronger than the taboo against theft.


----------



## Yair (May 23, 2004)

I haven't read the whole thread, but from the ending it seems the consensus is that file sharing does indeed hurt the industry; I am sorry to hear that.

For myself, I download many books but purchase the ones I use (sometimes just ones I like). I consider it a "right" way to act, and though I'll have to agree that it is illegal - I don't at all think it is immoral, and no amout of law will make me think otherwise.
I am sorry that it seems most people will not pay for work they can download freely (if I read the thread's conclusion correctly). Some of my friends are like that - I try to show them the error of their ways...

BTW I don't download songs much, but I don't pay for the few songs I do donwload. I figure the artists who made them make enough, far more money then I'll see in my lifetime, and don't feel like giving money to huge corporations. I *purchase* only from small artists, ones that aren't millioners so could actually use the income. 
I don't subscribe to the point of view that I should make these guys richer just because they own stuff I want and can charge me for its use by law. I judge they were given more than a fair pay for their work already.
I know it isn't legal, and probably won't be acceptable to most, but that's me...


----------



## Kalanyr (May 23, 2004)

Planesdragon said:
			
		

> Yes, because it isn't "absolutely nothing."  It's a nonmonetary loss--exactly the same as if I tresspassed upon your lawn, or used your image to make money without your permission (when your image attributed nothing to my work).



 Right, and I suppose trespassing on your lawn is worth a few billion dollars ? Considering the number of times people walk on their neighbours lawn, this still isn't any kind of rational argument. If its a non-monetary loss, why should the compensation be massive amounts of money ?


----------



## woodelf (May 23, 2004)

Bit of a tangent up ahead.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 1)Sure, Gygax and Cook and all the others would probably still have done what they did for fun, but if they weren't paid for their efforts, the RPG hobby would either be limited to a couple of houses in Wisconsin or having a different game system in every block as each club creates their own-we as a hobby would have no common ground or history.




I just wanted to contest this. The shared history we have as RPers has much more to do with the parts of RPing that transcend any particular system, than the parts that are unique to a particular system. In part, this is because almost all the commercial RPGs out there are basically the same, mechanically, just with minor differences in widget labels, number range, etc. But in part, this is because the mechanical elements, while very important to some in actual play, are really fairly insignificant in the overall experience, in the sense that the overall experience is still recognizably "the same activity", regardless of the system you use. In short, a D&D player and a V:tM player have much more common experience to talk about than an Axis & Allies player and a Monopoly player, or a chess player and a mankala player (frex). Our shared culture would probably more-readily recognize this commonality if we'd grown up with lots of poorly-distributed small-press games and more homebrews, rather than one massively-dominating game and a bunch of second-stringers.

And, certainly, at this state in the game, if D&D/WotC were to go away, i'm not sure it'd be that bad for the hobby as a whole. It'd massively change the culture, but i don't think it'd kill it, or prevent new recruits.



> 3) All we can do is educate people that electronic products are still somebody's work, and thus, worthy of pay.  THAT is a question of upbringing, personal morality, and civic duty.




Agreed. The problem isn't people illegally downloading, or even sharing, and the problem isn't them not paying. It's them not paying what they feel the product is worth. If people were honest about the degree to which they valued their downloads, and actually thought about the long-term consequences of widespread behavior, we'd probably be fine. Even if everyone paid what they thought something was worth, rather than the asking price, i suspect things would reach a healthy equilibrium. 10k people paying $0.25 for a song is better than them paying nothing, and better even than 200 of them buying the full album at $12 and the rest not getting anything--especially if the 200 who bought it are disappointed because, after listening to the whole album, they only liked that one song, and are now disinclined to buy any further albums from the group.



> 4)  Lack of guilt and anonymity are probably equal partners in this problem.  There are some famous psychology studies that show that anonymity increases the likelyhood of violence.  Most study participants who were assured of anonymity followed orders to inflict pain (no pain was actually inflicted, just actors writhing around and screaming on the other side of the one-way glass) either without question or with "minimal" delay, even after the actors seemed to pass out from pain.  Similar results came from studies with masked participants, or even those wearing mirrored sunglasses and uniforms.  The same can be said of mass/mob action studies in which people act differently (less inhibited by law or social mores) when acting in large groups-like the massive number of downloaders out there.  And who of us is not aware that people online are more likely to use inappropriate language online relative to face-to-face communication.  Anonymity in any form relaxes the grip of civilization's taboos upon our behavior- when our identities are concealed, we are more likely to act inappropriately.




Maybe i'm mis-remembering the study (about inflicting harm), but i understood the conclusions to be not that anonymity was the significant factor, but that orders and thus societal structure were--the herd mentality, in short.


----------



## Bards R Us (May 23, 2004)

For me, a downloaded PDF or photocopied stuff just isn't the same as having a nice hardbound book in my hands.  IMHO, I don't think it affects the RPG companies to the same degree that it does to music or PC gaming industry.  Not sure about movies (although I do know of people who have d/l'ed movies and anime off the net).


----------



## woodelf (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Noob to the board- found this thread and had to weigh in.  For the record, I'm an attorney who deals with copyright issues, largely in the entertainment (music) industry, currently working on an MBA in Sports & Entertainment Marketing issues.
> 
> So, here is my $0.02 on the matter.
> 
> Just because the form of the product is different doesn't mean the rules about what theft is should differ.  If it is a good, then it has a price.




See my previous posts (and ongoing discussion with Dr. Harry, among others): i'm not convinced that is true. First, i've not yet seen convincing evidence that IP is inherently "property" or even a "good", as opposed to a legal construct as such. That doesn't mean it isn't wrong to take it [without recompense] if the creator is expecting to sell it, just that it might be a different kind of wrong.



> 1)  Apply Kant's Universality principle- before you act, ask if it would it be good for society if you would want everyone else to act similarly in the same or an analagous situation.  So, if YOUR work were available in electronic form for anyone to take without paying you, would you want them to be able to do so without legal recourse?  Of course not-that is money out of your pocket.  And if everyone downloaded the products, sales would decline precipitously, and the companies die off, unable to pay to produce the product.




I have. My conclusion is that if everyone stole from, and otherwise made business impossible for, large corporations, while simultaneously being scrupulously honest in dealings with small, operator-owned or cooperative, businesses and government entities, the large corporations would cease to exist, and the world would be a better place. I can conceive of illegally downloading a couple of the latest American Idol's songs. [Well, that one's purely hypothetical, given the style of music they're going for, but we'll just go with it.] But i'd never even look for, much less download if i found it, a recording from someone on an independent, artist-friendly label--like, say, Ani DeFranco's label. 

You can't simply assume that those who behave in a way you find despicable haven't thought through the consequences. Sometimes they have, and they like, or at least accept, the very same consequences you consider apocalyptic.



> Lets examine that further:  You write a report on gizmos for your company, but go to lunch before printing it.  While you're away, someone downloads your report and submits it as his own work, have you been harmed?  The original is still on your hard drive.
> 
> Perhaps you did print it before lunch, and your boss likes it.  He submits the work to a client, but the client has already recieved the info from the person who downloaded your work.  Is the client going to pay?




Excellent examples. Someone has clearly done something wrong. I'm not convinced, however, that they've done the _same_ something wrong as theft. Take the first example: it's misrepresentation, not theft, that is the error. If the coworker submitted the completed report, _properly attributed to you, and with no claim of authorship or contribution_, no harm would have been done, despite the taking.



> You're already seeing some of this in the music industry.  The RIAA has shown that while sales are down (according to a variety of indices) in general due to the economy, sales are down much more at retailers located around institutions that have high-speed internet access and a large number of online users (certain kinds of businesses, but especially universities).




Actually, if you look at the article i linked to a page or so ago, you'll see that sales of CDs are _up_. What is down is quantities shipped. IOW, the quantity by which record labels are misjudging their sales, and thus wastefully overproducing, has been reduced, in the same period when sales has gone up. IOW, if there is a causal connection, perhaps downloading has increased CD sales. (I know it has for me and every person i know personally in RL.)

 I don't have any response on the issue of regional sales.



> The problem is that the form of property at issue is intangible.  The property isn't the book, but the ideas the book contains.  To reiterate, the book is not the property, it is the method of transmitting the property (namely, the ideas) to end users.



But copyright law is about the method of transmission, not the idea. Trying to apply it to stop idea transmission is, at best, ineffecient, and at worst misguided.



> 2)  To the argument that you can't "try it before you buy it" so you'll download anyway just to see what the product is- BUNK.
> 
> Look at the copy in the store.  Decide there if there is something in the book worth buying.  Name another product you coud potentially get the FULL VALUE from before purchase and not be required to pay.




Broadcast TV. Radio. Both are built around a use-now-pay-later-or-never paradigm. Public broadcasting is the original shareware: use it now, pay us what you feel it's worth later. Commercial TV and radio allow you free use, in return for the assumption you'll buy the products advertised, thus enabling the advertisers to afford advertising on the network, which actually pays for it.  In the realm of ideas, consumption-without-pay is a long-established tradition.

As for looking at a copy in a store: what if you're using the downloaded copy *like* a copy in the store? IOW, you're engaging in the same level of browsing as you do (or would) with a store copy. The only difference becomes where you do it (at home, rather than the store). 



> 3)  Whoever it was who bought the multiple copies of the Metallica albums (all destroyed or lost) and felt entitled to download a freebie-BULL.
> 
> If I bought a Volvo and it was destroyed, and I bought a similar one from the same manufacturer, and IT was destroyed, and so forth, at what point in this cycle am I allowed to just simply walk onto a Volvo lot and just drive off with a new car?




However, it's not as clear-cut as that. It is blackletter law that you are allowed to make an MP3 rip of a CD you've legitimately purchased. AFAIK, the law has never established that, should you lose the CD through mishap, you are required to delete the MP3s. So, if the person ripped a copy before losing the CD, they're in the clear, but if it never occurred to them to do so before hand, and they download the MP3s after they lose the CD, they've broken the law? Things start to look iffy to me any time identical results through different means produce different legal consequences. Not saying this situation is obviously flawed, or that all such situations are, just that i want to look closer at the rationales, to figure out whether the supposed distinctions have merit.



> 4)  "They haven't lost anything."/"Its not worth it to me..."-GARBAGE.
> 
> It is obviously worth something to you- you have taken efforts to acquire it.  The author has lost the ability to control his intellectual property and the sweat of his labors.  Sure, there are still the same number of books on the shelf available for sale, but you have everything in that book available on your computer.  His IDEAS are in your posession, and it is only your whim or twinge of conscience that will find him receiving recompense.
> 
> ...




All of this i agree with. But i take all those statements and come to, apparently, a very different conclusion. I conclude that the important element is recompense for ideas, not regulation of the flow of ideas or even necessarily of products. [It's important to regulate the flow of physical products for other reasons, however.] That recompense is not necessarily identical to paying the asking price for a commercial copy of the idea. Now, illegal downloaders aren't providing that recompense in any way, directly. They might be doing so in secondary ways: buying albums from groups they otherwise wouldn't have heard of, frex. But i think there is a third way, neither the RIAA's model, nor the "download everything and pay for nothing no matter how much i like it" model, which is better than both, and has significant elements of the latter. But i also think the current distribution model for music does a lousy job of that recompense: in large part, the record company, not the artist, gets the recompense. I don't think the RIAA has the clear moral high ground at all on this. So i buy from small, creator-owned imprints, or at least directly from the artist.



> 5)  "Its too expensive" -SO WHAT.




Agreed. This is not a legitimate moral or legal defense. It is, at best, an explanation of causes.



> The books are still too expensive?  Then tell your game companies to use cheaper paper, print softcover only, use black ink and white paper (or cardboard for the boxes), and get rid of the interior and cover art.




I wouldn't want all game books to look like that. But i'd love it if more of them offered both versions--like the Stingy Gamers Editions of some of the GoO books.



> 6)  "It destroys the concept of competition"- UNTRUE.
> 
> The core of capitalism is competition.  If you can come up with a better way to do something, you can compete better and make more money than your competition.
> 
> ...




Agreed. We cannot eliminate all protections for IP. That's not the same as saying that IP is substantively identicaly to physical property when determining what those protections should be, however.


----------



## woodelf (May 23, 2004)

ph0rk said:
			
		

> if gaming book X costs $100, sure i'd pirate a copy well before i bought one. Likewise a movie, or an album. No guilt, no shame, thats just how it is.  Ideally with music I prefer to try before I buy, and I enjoy being able to listen on a whim - I dislike services like iTunes music store because I prefer to have the music on disc, in case some hot new encoding scheme comes along.




Um, are you aware that the music you buy via iTunes is free for you to do whatever you want with, including burn to CD?  It's a heck of a lot more usable than the nominally-unrestricted .wma format.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 23, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> My conclusion is that if everyone stole from, and otherwise made business impossible for, large corporations, while simultaneously being scrupulously honest in dealings with small, operator-owned or cooperative, businesses and government entities, the large corporations would cease to exist, and the world would be a better place.




I don't recall that I've ever seen you express this opinion before, but having now seen you express it once, I'm unlikely to take any of your future opinions very seriously. 

Large corporations are able to achieve things, by economies of scale, that small businesses cannot, and efficiencies that government operations will not, and society is benefitted thereby. 

Apparenly you're enamored with some sort of medieval pre-industrial pseudo-socialist fantasy-- which is great, within the context of a game such as Dungeons and Dragons; meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world.

Someone with a grudge against capitalism-- of which incorporation is a cornerstone-- doesn't really have any business in a discussion such as this (or at least should be much more up front about it).

Wulf


----------



## HeavyG (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The problem is that the form of property at issue is intangible.  The property isn't the book, but the ideas the book contains.  To reiterate, the book is not the property, it is the method of transmitting the property (namely, the ideas) to end users.






			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 3)  Whoever it was who bought the multiple copies of the Metallica albums (all destroyed or lost) and felt entitled to download a freebie-BULL.
> 
> If I bought a Volvo and it was destroyed, and I bought a similar one from the same manufacturer, and IT was destroyed, and so forth, at what point in this cycle am I allowed to just simply walk onto a Volvo lot and just drive off with a new car?




Am I the only one who sees a huge inconsistency in those two statements ?


----------



## BryonD (May 23, 2004)

HeavyG said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who sees a huge inconsistency in those two statements ?




No, you most certainly are not.


----------



## BryonD (May 23, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't recall that I've ever seen you express this opinion before, but having now seen you express it once, I'm unlikely to take any of your future opinions very seriously.
> 
> Large corporations are able to achieve things, by economies of scale, that small businesses cannot, and efficiencies that government operations will not, and society is benefitted thereby.
> 
> ...



Brillantly stated.

It is funny to me that both sides of this current debate have some valid points but they have also each managed to extrapolate into great disconnects with reality.


----------



## Yair (May 23, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Someone with a grudge against capitalism-- of which incorporation is a cornerstone-- doesn't really have any business in a discussion such as this (or at least should be much more up front about it).
> 
> Wulf



Capitalism doesn't equate incorporation (in the "international megacorporation" sense of the word). I'm all for capitalism, when it serves its purpose. When the golem rises on its maker, however, we have a problem. When the goal of the "capitalist" becomes producing capital in opposition of the social goods it is supposed to promote, we have a problem. I suggest that the US patent laws and to an extent the copyright laws as they stand can be constured to do just that - serving the interests of raising capital at the expense of minimizing the intellectual goods in the public domain. Or at least that it is not absurdly rediculous to make such a claim, while still advocating capitalism.

All that has very little to do with file sharing, however. Except perhaps WotC (Hasbaro), I don't think any corporations are involved here.
And for the record, I make absolutely no exceptions with WotC for the purposes of filesharing - I buy their goods if I use them, like I do anyone else's. 

I do have an issue with excessive profit, even if it is legal, but this is a private pet peeve that isn't germane to the discussion here.


----------



## ph0rk (May 23, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> Um, are you aware that the music you buy via iTunes is free for you to do whatever you want with, including burn to CD?  It's a heck of a lot more usable than the nominally-unrestricted .wma format.





Of course. Niether format is lossless, and the quality of a CD is arguably better than either (whether a human can tell is a different story).

I prefer owning a CD (or DVD, or book) because it is a physical copy; I can make copies for general use without damaging the originals.

I haven't researched it, but what happens if you have a hard drive crash (or two) and you lose your downloaded (and payed-for) music? Do any of the services allow a re-download?




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 2) Fair use is for teaching, that is, academic purposes.  If you are using D&D as a teaching tool, you can use portions (NOT the whole product) free of charge beyond the cost of making the copies.




Using materials for teaching varies (I believe).  In academia lecturers are usually required to get permission to provide copies of journal articles to students, and thats a whole level removed from a book.  (Articles are -supposed- to be disseminated, etc).





			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 3) Whoever it was who bought the multiple copies of the Metallica albums (all destroyed or lost) and felt entitled to download a freebie-BULL.
> 
> If I bought a Volvo and it was destroyed, and I bought a similar one from the same manufacturer, and IT was destroyed, and so forth, at what point in this cycle am I allowed to just simply walk onto a Volvo lot and just drive off with a new car?




You are equating intellectual property and physical property; they are not the same.

Intellectual property (especially software) just doesn't work the same as physical property.  There is a large debate (legal and otherwise) over whether you are purchasing the chunk of plastic, or the music, or the right to listen to the music, etc.

I suggest you find another analogy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2004)

> ... if everyone stole from, and otherwise made business impossible for, large corporations, while simultaneously being scrupulously honest in dealings with small, operator-owned or cooperative, businesses and government entities, the large corporations would cease to exist, and the world would be a better place... But i'd never even look for, much less download if i found it, a recording from someone on an independent, artist-friendly label--like, say, Ani DeFranco's label.




Do the record companies shaft new artists?  Oh yes.  However, realize that 90% of all albums released NEVER SHOW A PROFIT.  One mega-hit album, _Thriller_ being the best example, enables a company to subsidize a host of new artists.  Most bands don't have the money it takes to do a professional sounding recording.  Studio time costs hundreds of dollars an hour, some even charge more than most of my colleages do.

So, in stealing the popular stuff, you're keeping those labels from distributing albums,  paying the artists they have signed, and from signing other bands.  You're hurting the company, yes, but you're hurting the artists too.

Ani DiFranco rocks, but it is the rare artist who can parley years of work into a successful recording career (note-not musical career- there are plenty of successful professional musicians who never record an album).  The advantage of the big company system is its worldwide distribution system.

Is there a better way?  Probably, but the transition will take time, and it is still not an excuse for theft.  In fact, I know of at least one system in the works that could make the record store (and the videogame store, and the movie store) completely obsolete while still maintaining the goods in their present form- cover art, liner notes, etc.  But you'll STILL have to pay for the music.

Destroying companies is anti-capitalistic.  Perhaps you're a socialist (I'm not using this as a perjorative, just a descriptor) who thinks Marx had it right that companies screw humans.  The problem is that human beings want to be paid for their labor, and destruction of capitalism runs counter to the best way humanity has found (SO FAR) to exchange goods and services with each other with a minimum of transaction costs.  Capitalism allows for economies of scale, international distribution, task specialization, and so forth.  Every small company "dreams" of being larger, if for no other reasons than the benefits of economies of scale and the ability to weather economic changes.

Without big companies, you (assuming you're an average US citizen) wouldn't be able to afford a car or the gas that goes in it; a TV, a computer; and you DEFINITELY wouldn't have most of your utilities.

Your enemies aren't the big companies, but the people who run them unscrupulously.  

Besides, your assertion is internally inconsistent.  If Ani DiFranco's label became as big as Bertelsmann, would it then be OK to steal from her?

And to drag this back to the original point-name an RPG game company that would qualify as big enough to be worthy of your "stealing from them is OK" test.



> Excellent examples. Someone has clearly done something wrong. I'm not convinced, however, that they've done the same something wrong as theft. Take the first example: it's misrepresentation, not theft, that is the error.




_The above was in response to my example about someone taking a report from your computer and submitting it as their work_

Trust me- you try that argument in court, your client is going to jail.  To make it more clear, assume that the person who took the report was a "hacker" who worked for another company.  That is INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, and that is definitely a theft-style crime.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 23, 2004)

> You are equating intellectual property and physical property; they are not the same.
> 
> Intellectual property (especially software) just doesn't work the same as physical property. There is a large debate (legal and otherwise) over whether you are purchasing the chunk of plastic, or the music, or the right to listen to the music, etc.
> 
> I suggest you find another analogy.



_Re: my Volvo analogy_

I know about the debate-like I said, I deal with copyright as part of my job.  I'm in the trenches.

The only difference between IP and physical property is ease of theft.  Because of the ephemeral nature of many forms of IP, they are EXTREMELY easy to steal.

IP (and the theft thereof) has been around as long as there has been language to transmit abstract ideas.

The first guy to write down his engineering notes?  Those notes are IP.

The first guy to write down his song?  Those musical notes are IP.

There is a reason the Library of Congress and the Patent office require physical copies-PROOF.  Proof that you were the originator of the idea that the physical object is evidence of.

But, you want a different analogy.

OK, change the Volvo in my analogy into a copy of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's _War & Peace_, clearly a form of IP in physical form.  I buy 5 copies in 8 years, each gets destroyed or stolen.  At what point can I walk into a store and say "Oh, I already bought one of these, but mine are all gone- I'll take THAT one to replace my lost copies.  Chow!"  The answer?  Never.

Why?  In purely economic terms, each copy's price was based on things like paper costs, ink costs, salaries, etc. that affect how much it cost to do *that particular print run*, plus a little profit for the publishing house.  The copies you bought before did nothing to defray the costs of that current run, unless it is in exactly the same form, and even then, there are distribution costs, store overhead, and other salaries to cover.  By stealing that 6th copy, you have hindered the ability of the printer and the store to recoup their costs.  Those unrecouped costs will be figured into FUTURE printing projects as a projected cost of shrinkage, which will keep the book's cost higher than in might otherwise be.

Its THEFT.

Or say you have an eidetic memory.  You buy a ticket and go to a performance of either music or comedy (any kind of entertainment that can be reproduced by a solo performer).  You memorize their entire performance.  Do you have a right to reproduce that performance in its entirety without paying a royalty?  NO.  (You might not get caught, but that's a different issue.)  If you get in an accident and recieve a head trauma that causes you to forget that performance, do you have a right to go see that show again for free?  NO.

Your purchase of a CD or a Book is like buying a ticket.  You are buying the right to enjoy that performance.  It is just that in the case of a book or CD, the performance media may last longer than your lifetime.


----------



## ph0rk (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> _Re: my Volvo analogy_
> But, you want a different analogy.
> 
> OK, change the Volvo in my analogy into a copy of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's _War & Peace_, clearly a form of IP in physical form.  I buy 5 copies in 8 years, each gets destroyed or stolen.  At what point can I walk into a store and say "Oh, I already bought one of these, but mine are all gone- I'll take THAT one to replace my lost copies.  Chow!"  The answer?  Never.




it may be picking nits, it may not:

http://www.gutenberg.net/etext/2600

The full text for _War and Peace_ can be found here.  No, you cannot re-aquire a physical copy from a store without restitution, but you certainly need not pay for an electronic copy.

Several book publishers have begun to experiment with making electronic copies of some books free, and have not had any serious troubles (AFAIK).




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Your purchase of a CD or a Book is like buying a ticket.  You are buying the right to enjoy that performance.  It is just that in the case of a book or CD, the performance media may last longer than your lifetime.




I don't think you can state that is the sum total of one's rights (or lack thereof) when purchasing a book or CD; fair use seems to be redefined relatively often.  

It was at one time legal to make copies of a CD or even perhaps a book for personal use, and to store the original in a safe place.  If both the original and copy are destroyed, why can you not obtain a copy from a friend provided you can prove you purchased a copy at one time?  Note this is not walking into a store and nicking another copy, this is making a copy from an already paid-for original. Let us say for the sake of argument you still have the book spine or CD case w/fragmented original.

Then again, I beleive there are publishers who feel that loaning a book or CD to a friend is wrong; and this is why IP should not be treated like PP. Volvo will tell me I cannot loan my Volvo to a friend.

I personally take issue with the recent copyright extension, as I think anything greater than life of auther or perhaps author+20 stifles creativity; but that personal opinion should have no bearing on this discussion.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 23, 2004)

Yair said:
			
		

> I do have an issue with excessive profit, even if it is legal, but this is a private pet peeve that isn't germane to the discussion here.




Who decides when a corporation is "too big" or that their profits are "excessive?"

In the first place, if it's government deciding things such as whether and how much profit is "legal," that can hardly be called capitalism. 

More importantly, there's no such thing as "excessive" profits. Either the product meets a demand, and it sells; or it does not. The purpose of business is to make the most possible profit while balancing that equation.

You are of course free to take issue with what corporations do with those profits afterwards, and this is part of the "demand" equation.

Wulf


----------



## Sledge (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz I think you are missing the point.  If I buy a car and lose it, I can refind it.  If it gets broken I can fix it.  At the very least after years of usage I can sell it for scrap.  If I lose my second copy of a book I own maybe I can find it.  If it falls apart, then I have been deprived of my "right to enjoy" it as you said.  If that right is something that may last longer than my lifetime, wouldn't a product that falls apart be theft from me?  If I have already purchased a book, and the store expects me to buy a second book because the first will fall apart eventually I think I would feel justifiably ripped off.  I know that most RPG companies I've dealt with do not expect people to buy a new copy of the same book every X years.  That is why they make changes.  If the purchase is only the same as a ticket to a perfomance that never ends why shouldn't I be able to continue enjoying the perfomance I paid for without paying for it again and again.  A live performance has a date printed on the ticket.  Last I checked my gaming books didn't have a "Valid until:..." printed on them.  Which of your RPG books have a limitation date on them?  To use your example of a person with eidetic memory.  IF they had bought a ticket without any limitations for a performance that played continually they could of course go and see it some more.  This principle occurs in smaller forms in real life venues.  When you go to see a convention and get your hand stamped they let you in after leaving.  That is because the "performance" was still going that you paid for.


> OK, change the Volvo in my analogy into a copy of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's War & Peace, clearly a form of IP in physical form. I buy 5 copies in 8 years, each gets destroyed or stolen. At what point can I walk into a store and say "Oh, I already bought one of these, but mine are all gone- I'll take THAT one to replace my lost copies. Chow!" The answer? Never.
> Why? In purely economic terms, each copy's price was based on things like paper costs, ink costs, salaries, etc. that affect how much it cost to do that particular print run, plus a little profit for the publishing house. The copies you bought before did nothing to defray the costs of that current run, unless it is in exactly the same form, and even then, there are distribution costs, store overhead, and other salaries to cover. By stealing that 6th copy, you have hindered the ability of the printer and the store to recoup their costs. Those unrecouped costs will be figured into FUTURE printing projects as a projected cost of shrinkage, which will keep the book's cost higher than in might otherwise be.



However the pdf as a replacement does not cost the store any overhead.  The store already has my money once.  (Or 5 times in your example)  I find it hard to believe that any store would actually expect someone buying a book six times.  In the end the store would only suffer if a PHYSICAL copy was taken.  However a pdf is not taken.  It is merely copied.
Websters defines theft with this note:
"Note: To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."
Copyright infringement should not be directly called theft.  Call it Copyright infringement it you want, but don't call it theft.


----------



## Yair (May 23, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Who decides when a corporation is "too big" or that their profits are "excessive?"
> 
> [snip]
> 
> Wulf



I do .
I do not subscribe to this point of view. I know it is the basic capitalistic spiel, but I just (can't.... resist... pun...) don't buy it.
As the consumer, I am the one paying the money and so I am the one determining its price. I do not accept the premise that the seller has a monopoly on setting the price (and yes, I am quite aware the law does). I consider that a monopoly, and I think monopoly is _not_ in the interest of society. 
Not purchasing the product is a possibility. So is purchasing it illegally. So is purchasing it illegally and compensating the producer in another way, by some other sum. I refuse to flat-out advocate one position as morally superior; I find it depends too much on circustances.
With the rpg buisness in mind, I personally think the margins of profit are so low that I do indeed purchase the products at full price, even if I bulk at some of the prices. This has to do with me wanting to reward the people who make the work, not with any abstract economic model (capitalism or any other).

Again, "excessive profit" to me is a pet peeve. I believe me and you differ on the definitions here (or, I suspect, me and any economy textbook on the planet). I doubt its discussion will be conductive to the issue at hand.
If you wish to know, as a PS note, to *me*, excessive profit has nothing to do with the corporation's *size*, the market demand for the product, the legality of the whole affair, or anything like that. It has to do with what is a fair compensation for time, effort, and talent spent. I have no set formula, but I do believe I can tell when someone is making WAAAY above and beyond what I consider to be fair compensation, and I refuse to "compensate" him further. 
For example, making a record is an enormous investment in time and effort, not to mention talent. But, say, Britney Spears sold over 50 million records of "Hit Me Baby One More Time"; do you seriously contend she was not aptly compensated for all the hard work it took to produce it? The capitalist answer would be "since people are still willing to buy it, obviously she deserves more!"; I beg to differ. For me, she has already been compensated, and then some. Collecting more money at this point is sheer greed.
This is a personal choice, not a social system, certainly not an economic system. I am not saying an economic model where everyone pays as much as he thinks the thing deserves will work. I am saying it works for me.
[And if you wanna Kant me: yes the world will be a better place if everyone payed what the work deserves; they just won't in practice.]


----------



## HeavyG (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But, you want a different analogy.
> 
> OK, change the Volvo in my analogy into a copy of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's _War & Peace_, clearly a form of IP in physical form.  I buy 5 copies in 8 years, each gets destroyed or stolen.  At what point can I walk into a store and say "Oh, I already bought one of these, but mine are all gone- I'll take THAT one to replace my lost copies.  Chow!"  The answer?  Never.
> 
> Why?  In purely economic terms, each copy's price was based on things like paper costs, ink costs, salaries, etc. that affect how much it cost to do *that particular print run*, plus a little profit for the publishing house.




You keep using bad analogies.

It's more akin to borrowing a friend's copy, then photocopying the whole book at *your* expense using *your* time.


Funny, I'm usually on the pro-RIAA side in those debates.


----------



## BryonD (May 23, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> _Re: my Volvo analogy_The only difference between IP and physical property is ease of theft.




I just dropped out of another thread over this because it got boring real fast, so I'm not going to go round and round over it here.

But this statement is flat out wrong both rationally and philosophically.

While copyright infringement and theft are both very wrong things there are vast differences between the two.

If I steal your Volvo you lose a tangible thing.  You have less.
Not objectively true of infringement.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

> Websters defines theft with this note:  To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."




That Webster's quote is OK, but it still won't fly in a court of law.  If I render your car undrivable by, say, shooting my 45 through the engine, I have still committed a theft, called conversion.  You still have full possession, but I have denied you at least one of the rights in the bundle of property rights called your car.  If I take your car without your knowledge or permission for a joyride, but return it-I'm still guilty of grand theft auto.

Similarly, if I'm walking through a grocery store, and take a bite out of an apple without the store's permission (some do allow sampling) and without the intent of actually buying an apple, I have comitted a theft called shoplifting.  The store still has the rest of the apple, but I'm liable for the whole price.  In fact, you are guilty of shoplifting the MOMENT you exert control over the apple with the intent to take or damage it- you don't even have to complete the act.

There are many kinds of theft that have specialized names (embezzlement, fraud, conversion, shoplifting, larceny, burglary, robbery, industrial espionage, copyright infringement, and so on).  Some have been supplanted by other crimes-if I had lit your car on fire instead of shooting it, I would be charged with vandalism or arson or some other crime depending on jurisdiction.  I'd still be guilty of conversion, though I might not be charged with it if it is not considered to be as serious a crime.   But they are all THEFT- the taking of property without the owner's consent (exerpted from Black's Law Dictionary).

The property is the set of ideas in the book.  By downloading an unauthorized PDF of the book, you have acquired that set of ideas, and thus have taken 1 sale from the author, publisher, and bookstore.



> The full text for War and Peace can be found here. No, you cannot re-aquire a physical copy from a store without restitution, but you certainly need not pay for an electronic copy.




OK, I chose the wrong book.  The difference here is that the Gutenburg Project put that there _with permission_ of the current copyright holder.  Where permission is granted, there is no theft (except in the most esoteric case where someone was actually trying to steal something being given away and charges are actually found-rare as hen's teeth).

So, remove _War and Peace_ from that example, and instead insert the title of the next book to be released by WOTC or Malhavoc.  These aren't big companies-you won't find legal entire-text freebie PDFs of those books anytime soon.  They have costs to recoup.



> I know that most RPG companies I've dealt with do not expect people to buy a new copy of the same book every X years. That is why they make changes.




There are many reasons RPG companies make changes.  Accumulated errata.  Accumulated alternatvie rules.  Player's requests.  But the #1 reason for changes (as an industry, not for a particular product) is money.  The concept is called "planned obsolescence".  Does GM NEED to put out a new version of every car they make every year?  Yes and No.  We don't need a new version, but a new version drives sales by making the previous version somehow less valuable.

To put it this way, If WOTC doesn't release a new version every so often, making us go buy versionX, WOTC goes out of business.  Its even worse for a smaller RPG company.  How many years will a company be around if they sell 5000 copies of a $30 book in 10 years?

I mean, AD&D and 2Ed are still playable, aren't they?  Then why did you buy 3.0? 3.5?



> If it falls apart, then I have been deprived of my "right to enjoy" it as you said. If that right is something that may last longer than my lifetime, wouldn't a product that falls apart be theft from me?




Like getting the car repaired at the shop, you can try to have it rebound at Kinkos or any similar copy shop.  I do that with my sheet music books.  Pretty cheap.

*Clarification*:  Your "right to enjoy" is the right to enjoy THAT PERFORMANCE in THAT FORM.  If you buy the ticket to see Cheap Trick at Budokan, you don't have the right to wave your ticket at Tower records and pick up a freebie CD of that performance.  Nor, if you had a time machine, could you buy the CD and then get into the performance.  It isn't the right that may last longer than your lifetime, it is the form- books or CDs may last longer than a human lifetime.

Even so, all things are affected by entropy.  The center cannot hold, things fall apart.  The fact that something you own falls apart doesn't give you a right to freebie replacement.  WARRANTIES may give you a right to free replacement, but not the phrase "It broke."



> Then again, I beleive there are publishers who feel that loaning a book or CD to a friend is wrong; and this is why IP should not be treated like PP. Volvo will tell me I cannot loan my Volvo to a friend




Only if you're in posession of the car on a lease program, and there its because of a contractual clause.  Under a lease, you aren't an owner-Volvo is, so THEY control who can drive it.  You are paying them for the USE of their car, not transferring the ownership of it.  I'm buying my car.  I loan it out to _certain_ people all the time.  Volvo has ZERO say in the matter.



> If I steal your Volvo you lose a tangible thing. You have less.
> Not objectively true of infringement.




Black's Law Dictionary:



> Copyright: An intangible, incorporeal right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby he is invested, for a specified period, with the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them.




By definition, you have stolen 1 copy, admittedly only an electronic one, but still a copy.

In the world of IP, if you loaned the person ALL of your copies of the IP, no problem.  Only one person has access to it.

The problem is that, by there very nature, most IP can exist in multiple forms all over the world simultaneously, all essentially identical in relevant content.  That is why, like in the Volvo case, software companies (at least the business software people) don't sell software-they LEASE it.

Another industry feeling the pinch is music publishing.  There are hundreds of thousands of unauthorized song transcription PDFs out there, each costing the songwriter a couple of bucks.

Everything counts in large amounts.

HeavyG felt my book analogy was bad, but it isn't.  It was directed at Bendris Noulg, who wrote on p1 of this thread:



> Of course, I've seen this from the other side, as well. For instance, I've bought several copies of Metallica's Ride the Lightning. Two cassettes, both eaten, one vinyl, destroyed at a batchelor party, and two CDs, one stolen and the other scratched up by my idiot brother. So here I am, a person that has bought the album 5 times, but without a single copy. So I download 3-4 of the songs from that album that I really really really liked. But then I turn on the news and here I've got Lars the Whiney pouting over how Napster deprives him of his due earnings and that everyone using it are thieves.
> 
> Sorry, Lars, but I done paid you 5 times for your work. I've earned it.




Bendris' loss of 5 copies of Metallica's _Ride the Lightning_ comment is all about justifying the downloading of an electronic media version of copyrighted material after losing 5 physical copies, as is my book comment.

His loss is lamentable-that album turned me on to Metallica-but it does not make downloading the songs justified.


----------



## BryonD (May 24, 2004)

> By definition, you have stolen 1 copy, admittedly only an electronic one, but still a copy.




Um....  Not by the defintion YOU just quoted.

I agree with the defintion you quoted.  And running contrary to that defintion is infringement.  Not theft.  Theft removes a real value from the possession of the rightful owner.  Not a word in the definition you provided leads to the word "stolen".




> His loss is lamentable-that album turned me on to Metallica-but it does not make downloading the songs justified.




Agreed.

But, returing to your definition, there is that sticky word "AND" in it.  Not "or" but "and".

If I buy ONE copy of ride the lightning, I have an infinite priviledge to use that IP for myself.  I can copy it to cassette to listen in my car or toss it to my MP3 player for my own use. 
Now, if I start giving away or selling copies, I have breached the "and" in your defintion and I am a criminal of some degree.  But not before.

Granted, if I failed to make copies for myself and then my orginal died, according to the law I would be SOL.  Downloading is not "ok" even then.  But that is really beside the point.

Anyway, just as in the other thread, all you have done is show that copyright infrigment is bad.  I agree 100%.

Then you wave your hands in the air and claim that magic has happened and the words "theft" and "stolen" suddenly apply to this particular wrong.  Sorry, but the magic doesn't work.

Robbing banks is not insider trading and copyright infringement is not theft.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

*Reality Check, Please*

Yair wrote:


> For example, making a record is an enormous investment in time and effort, not to mention talent. But, say, Britney Spears sold over 50 million records of "Hit Me Baby One More Time"; do you seriously contend she was not aptly compensated for all the hard work it took to produce it? The capitalist answer would be "since people are still willing to buy it, obviously she deserves more!"; I beg to differ. For me, she has already been compensated, and then some. Collecting more money at this point is sheer greed.
> This is a personal choice, not a social system, certainly not an economic system. I am not saying an economic model where everyone pays as much as he thinks the thing deserves will work. I am saying it works for me.




OK, I hate Miss Spears "music," too.

But the fact is she probably negotiated a deal for between $0.12-to $0.20 per copy sold (standard range for a new artist at the time), which using your sales figure would get her $6-10 million.  Her agent and attorney take cuts, say, 30% total, reducing her takehome to 4.2-6.7M.

(Her actual sales of that album were about 1.3 Million copies- her take-home was $156-260K before agent/attorney costs cut that to $104.5-174.2K.)

Then there's the taxes.  Top bracket with all the possible penalties, etc.-38-40%.

In other words, that first album didn't make her a millionaire.  The subsequent merchandising, however, did.

She's not your favorite performer (nor mine), but she didn't write that contract-the company did.  You didn't give her the money, people who liked her stuff did.  I mean, I understand your frustration that SHE got paid while many more talented musicians toil in poverty and obscurity, but what is your solution?

Who would you prefer get that money from the album sales?  The record company?  Somebody else who didn't earn it at all?

If she had started off by doing what Ani DiFranco does and still sold that many copies (an impossibility for a variety of reasons), she would have taken home even more...

Are you going to mandate each child take music appreciation so they don't make bad choices?

Are you going to make a law that only good music is allowed to be sold in amounts over 1 million copies?

Are you going to say its legal to steal from somebody after they make a certain amount of money?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

*This is SERIOUS*

Black's Law Dictionary:


> Copyright: An intangible, incorporeal right granted by statute to the author or originator of certain literary or artistic productions, whereby he is invested, for a specified period, with the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them.




Which I then said that downloading an unauthorized PDF is theft.

To which ByronD wrote in reply



> Um.... Not by the defintion YOU just quoted.
> 
> I agree with the defintion you quoted. And running contrary to that defintion is infringement. Not theft. Theft removes a real value from the possession of the rightful owner. Not a word in the definition you provided leads to the word "stolen".




To which I respond that my quote was not complete- the actual definition goes on longer than one of my posts.  However, "*the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them*" implies as much.  If the copy you download is unauthorized, you have cost the author his sale by taking his property as surely as if you had snatched it hot off of the photocopier.  That is THEFT.

And if you check out the STATUTES, not the definition, you will see that copyright infringement has legal penalties including fines and imprisonment, depending on the egregiousness of the infringement, that are based on various theft statutes.  Infringement varies from merely appropriating a bit of this or that, in which case you may just be asked to pay a royalty, to complete misappropriation of the entire work (commonly known as bootlegging) which may net you a couple of years and a few hundred K in fines...per violation.  Its all considered theft in the eyes of the law, the only difference is how much of a penalty you'll pay, which is controlled by how much you stole.

Go look at the penalties the Verve had to pay when frontman Richard Ashcroft lifted a portion of an obscure Rolling Stones track for their _Bittersweet Symphony_.  He just infringed a little bit from a Stones song nobody would remember...except when the song shot up the charts, the Stones' legal team swung into action.  The band sacrificed ALL of their royalties from that song to the Stones and supposedly had to credit the Stones with a writing credit on future pressings of the disc (read that as ADDITIONAL costs).  The band broke up because they couldn't afford to stay together.
===

EDIT:


> If I buy ONE copy of ride the lightning, I have an infinite priviledge to use that IP for myself. I can copy it to cassette to listen in my car or toss it to my MP3 player for my own use.
> Now, if I start giving away or selling copies, I have breached the "and" in your defintion and I am a criminal of some degree. But not before




That is absolutely correct.

However, if you buy a copy of RtL, and lose it and have no copies of your own already made, you don't have the right to grab an unauthorized copy off of the internet.

In fact, there is no fact situation involving the phrase "I downloaded an unauthorized copy" that will survive a legal test.  Stolen property, regardless of method, belongs to the original owner regardless of the passage of time (one and only one exception-the doctrine of adverse posession, which only applies to land).  That unauthorized copy on the net is considered stolen property by the law.  If you download it, you are in possession of stolen property, same as if you'd pickpocketed someone or paid for it with a counterfeit $20.

Of course, this is the perpetual nightmare for museums, but that's another discussion.


----------



## BryonD (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> To which I respond that my quote was not complete- the actual definition goes on longer than one of my posts.  However, "*the sole and exclusive privilege of multiplying copies of the same and publishing and selling them*" implies as much.  If the copy you download is unauthorized, you have cost the author his sale by taking his property as surely as if you had snatched it hot off of the photocopier.  That is THEFT.




No. It is NOT.

It is a bad thing that is different than theft.  That is why it is called infringement and not theft. 



> And if you check out the STATUTES, not the definition, you will see that copyright infringement has legal penalties including fines and imprisonment, depending on the egregiousness of the infringement, that are based on various theft statutes.  Infringement varies from merely appropriating a bit of this or that, in which case you may just be asked to pay a royalty, to complete misappropriation of the entire work (commonly known as bootlegging) which may net you a couple of years and a few hundred K in fines...per violation.  Its all considered theft in the eyes of the law, the only difference is how much of a penalty you'll pay, which is controlled by how much you stole.




It is considered a bad thing in the eyes of the law and the punishments are frequently based on equilvalences to actual theft of property values the same as the claimed value of the IP.

If you can't follow that then we get into the you don't get it round and round that gets real boring real fast.



> Go look at the penalties the Verve had to pay when frontman Richard Ashcroft lifted a portion of an obscure Rolling Stones track for their _Bittersweet Symphony_.  He just infringed a little bit from a Stones song nobody would remember...except when the song shot up the charts, the Stones' legal team swung into action.  The band sacrificed ALL of their royalties from that song to the Stones and supposedly had to credit the Stones with a writing credit on future pressings of the disc (read that as ADDITIONAL costs).  The band broke up because they couldn't afford to stay together.
> ===




SIGH

Again, because they commited copyright infrigment.  Showing me that someone got in a LOT of trouble for doing the bad thing called copyright infringement does not provide a single DROP of evidence that copyright infringement is theft.  Just that it is against the law and they will punish you for it.

Honestly, if you are paying attention to the point I am making I can not see why you would even waste time typing that out because it does not even REMOTELY address the matter I am speaking to.



> EDIT:
> 
> That is absolutely correct.
> 
> However, if you buy a copy of RtL, and lose it and have no copies of your own already made, you don't have the right to grab an unauthorized copy off of the internet.




I already said that.



> In fact, there is no fact situation involving the phrase "I downloaded an unauthorized copy" that will survive a legal test.  Stolen property, regardless of method, belongs to the original owner regardless of the passage of time (one and only one exception-the doctrine of adverse posession, which only applies to land).  That unauthorized copy on the net is considered stolen property by the law.  If you download it, you are in possession of stolen property, same as if you'd pickpocketed someone or paid for it with a counterfeit $20.




Agreed.  But we do agree that making a copy of IP that I have purchased IS legal as long as I don't cross the "and" part of your stated definition.
If I make 1000 copies of a CD and store tham in a box because I am a paranoid freak it is still legal.  

Same if I scanned my copy of War and Peace or Complete Divine.  

If I steal $10 from you and get away with it, all you need is good enough accounting to know that you were stolen from.  If I infringe against a $10 IP of yours one time and get away with it, you will never know.

Does that make it a lesser crime?  That is a philisophical question.  In my opinion, no.  It is no less of a crime.  

If I steal $1,000,000 from someone and get away with it, they will likely be financially destroyed.  If I distribute 100,000 copies of your $10 IP, then you will NOT be financially destroyed.  You can claim that you potential to realize earned value from your IP has been destroyed.  And you will be correct.  But the extent is unknown.  If you do catch me and prove it, then you can have me punished for $1,000,000 worth of infringement.  That is fine, because that is what I did.  Would I deserve the same penalty as if I actually stolen $1,000,000.  I dunno.  I don't much care, I won't waste time feeling sorry for criminals whether they are infringers or thieves.

The point being that both theft and infrigment have a negative financial impact on the victim.  And in both cases the criminal should be punished.  But the nature and objective, measureable magnitude of the impact on the victim are very different in the two cases.  Because the two actions are different things.


----------



## James Heard (May 24, 2004)

In any case, just because the law says something is such doesn't automatically make an ethical or logical argument that makes sense. People interpret and disobey laws that don't make sense to them all the time, and are in fact somewhat encouraged to do so by our culture. Regardless of some misappropriated legalism or rabid assertions by the people who assert that they've been victimized, until some sort of compromise or police state powers are suddenly granted to destroy what fair use and IP ownership rights of a consumer there's going to be a major and catastrophic disconnect. I mean, you can say that some students in a college have somehow cause several billion dollars in damages by dissimenating illegal copies of IP and even produce a settlement to the effect of 'winning' the debate. You're not connecting that with your consumer though, anymore than the gentleman who committed the felony in his pursuit of tracking his IP being infringed. You simply can't conduct business by outlining your customer base as criminals, potential criminals, and criminals who were cowed by your ability to sue them into homelessness. Even if those are your actual assumptions, and perhaps even the truth of the matter, you can't maintain a good relationship with people buying a luxury item that depends on their goodwill and your branding. Branding yourself as "a set of lawyers with no interest in the public domain" or "willing to overstep the bounds of the law in acts of vigilantism" doesn't put a consumer into a stance of goodwill with your product anymore than shop owners who beat shoplifters to death in full view of the other customers (even if they had the full support of the law behind their actions). Add in the fact that major IP and copyright issues are probably only lobbied for by the people with the most funding and stake in the matter (there's no hundreds of billion dollars cartel defending the public domain and fair use) and it's no wonder that there's chaos.

For me, whatever legal arguments made must be weighed against the responsibility to enhancing the public domain and not the IP owner/creator. Whatever expectations of profit you wish to assign to the monopoly of copyright must always be first weighed against the profit of the public who grant that monopoly. That responsibility is being severely abused and misinterpreted currently, in my opinion. It has led to guilds that were the very institutions that copyright was created to remove, and a sense of property and ownership where Jefferson clearly didn't intend.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

Re:Theft = infringement



> It is a bad thing that is different than theft. That is why it is called infringement and not theft.




Check your local penal code or ask a judge or an attorney in your area.  *Theft* is the umbrella term that covers things like conversion, larceny, robbery, fraud, larceny by trick, burglary, embezzlement, counterfeiting, and yes, copyright infringement.  Copyright infringement is one of many subtypes of Theft.  It is called Copyright infringement to distinguish it from other forms of Theft, thereby making it easier to look up relevant cases and statutes (especially with online legal research tools).

I don't have this in front of me, but look at 17 U.S.C.A. § 502 et seq.; 18 U.S.C.A. § 2319 for the Federal injunctive, impoundment, civil damages and criminal penalties from copyright infringement.  It should also include legislative notes that will clarify the heft = infringement question.

To put it differently:

Not all Theft is copyright infringement, but all copyright infringement is Theft.
(Can anyone on here post an appropriate Venn diagram of this?)

Compare:

Black's Law Dictionary

Theft:  ...any of the following acts done with the intent to deprive the owner permenantly of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) *Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property*; (a) Obtaining by deception control over property; (a) Obtaining by threat control over property; (a) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another._(emphasis mine)_

Infringement:...*Unauthorized use of copyrighted material; use without permission of copyright holder.*_(emphasis mine)_



When you download an unauthorized copy of copyrighted material, you are 1) exerting *unauthorized control* over 2) the copyright holder's *property*, which is infringement, and thus, theft.

The law is clear.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> And that is the most ridiculous part of copyright enforcement, in this case the author's lost absolutely nothing but they are still trying to get someone for their null loss. Does that make any sense at all ? If they potentially lost something even if only a sale to that customer, yes its a crime, sure, but in the case where they've lost nothing the fact it can still be treated as a crime seems silly to me.




  You have not made the case that the author has lost nothing.  There are quite a number of posts arguing exactly the opposite, and to ignore all of those - and the rest of the post that you are quoting - to revert to simply a proclamation that nothing is stolen if no paper leaves the store it not reasonable.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The law is clear.




LOL! That's a good one. The law is anything but black and white. Ask any lawyer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

Ogrork the Mighty-I AM one, who as stated above, works in this field (Tx Bar 1996); member of the Dallas Bar Association's Intellectual Property division.  The people who argue that the law isn't clear usually aren't lawyers, or are arguing for clients trying to wiggle around the law.

James Heard, there is no reason to defend the public domain because there are no rights there.  Anything within the public domain is free to be used by anyone, any way they wish.  For example, while you couldn't use Jay-Z's _Black Album_ as the soundtrack to a low-rent ripoff version of _GGW_ (without his permission), you could use Beethoven's 5th.

As for fair use, there ARE people who are litigating on that aspect of the law-mostly universities and researchers.

Simply put, though, in a question of Fair Use, the Court must weigh the right of the copyright holder to control his property versus the extent to which the property will be devalued and the needs of society.

So, how is society improved by being able to download a $35 game book in its entirety for free under "fair use" when the company that produced it projects only 5000 units sold worldwide?  That company has a serious argument that a ruling in favor of downloaders would ruin them.  Goodbye Bob's RPG-Co., and Bob has to get a haircut and a real job.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

ByronD wrote


> If I steal $1,000,000 from someone and get away with it, they will likely be financially destroyed. If I distribute 100,000 copies of your $10 IP, then you will NOT be financially destroyed. You can claim that you potential to realize earned value from your IP has been destroyed. And you will be correct. But the extent is unknown.




Absolutely incorrect.

If I can prove that you distributed that you distributed 100,000 copies of my $10 IP without my permission, then I have proven my prima facie case and could even rest it.  My damages are calculated by multiplying the 100,000 copies you sold by $10 each (assuming that was MY price, not yours).  However, not only would you be liable for the $1M, which you'd have to surrender directly to my client, but I'd have the option of asking for punative damages (which can be assessed on a per-violation basis) and jail time.  What you've described is a typical small record piracy case.

As for me not being financially destroyed by your actions, how can you claim that?  If the projected market for my IP was 100,000 sales, I'm ruined.  I have an essentially worthless IP and no way to recover my development costs.

200,000 unit potential market size?  The remaining 100,000 sales probably won't allow me to break even.

300,000 unit potential market size?  Breakeven achieved with the remaining sales, but I'll never reach a big enough profit to venture into this particular field again.

Profit margins in many fields are quite small- companies in highly competitive fields keep going on .5-2% profit margins.


----------



## woodelf (May 24, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> I don't recall that I've ever seen you express this opinion before, but having now seen you express it once, I'm unlikely to take any of your future opinions very seriously.
> 
> Large corporations are able to achieve things, by economies of scale, that small businesses cannot, and efficiencies that government operations will not, and society is benefitted thereby.
> 
> ...




The "large" in front of "corporation" in my post wasn't an accident, or redundant emphasis. I honestly see little or nothing that Disney, Time-Warner, Haliburton, Sony, WalMart, or other megacorporations--the sort with the power to push gov'ts around--has done that is a massive good, or necessary to society. Feel free to enlighten me--i could very well be overlooking things, due to ignorance of the accomplishments, or the accomplishers, that would change my POV on the matter. But, currently i am aware of a *lot* of ill that those size corporations have done to society, and very little good. Particularly those built around IP. If large corps used their economies of scale to raise wages, rather than lower prices, i'd be much mor sympathetic, frex. I'm much more sympathetic to the economies of scale argument when it comes to things that clearly benefit society, even if the means are less than desirable--medical research, frex.

So, yes, i'm fully aware that large corporations can achieve things that small ones can not. I'm not fully convinced they are more efficient than gov't organizations--i think they have different sorts of inefficiencies. The drive of profit causes inefficiencies in much the same way that the lack of profit-drive causes inefficiencies in many gov't activities. 

Pre-industrial? Not a chance.  Pseudo-socialist? Maybe. Canada doesn't seem to work any less well than the US does. To be clear, i'm not saying that we could've gotten where we are without free-market capitalism. But i'm also not convinced that it's the pinnacle of societal development, and no future changes could ever improve on it.

As for capitalism: in the strictest sense (absentee ownership, via investment) i *do* have questions as to its value. But i haven't seen (or come up with) a better solution. The fact that it's the least-evil economic model is not the same as saying it's a good economic model. The biggest flaw in capitalism is that the corporation is beholden, first and foremost, to the stockholders. Not the consumers. Not the producers (the employees). Therefore, there are market forces that can drive a company to do something that is good for neither the employees nor the consumers or, more often, not good for the employees. I'm not against capitalism, per se, i simply don't blindly accept that it's the be-all and end-all of economic structures. 

And, in any case, i really don't see what this has to do, one way or the other, with a discussion of the state of the RPG industry as a whole (Hasbro is the only player that *might* fall into the "too big" category by my standards), or the nature of IP vis-a-vis piracy, or with my fitness to have a valid, reasoned, and/or reasonable opinion. Are you really going to now discount any statements i previously made that you thought were reasonable (assuming there were any) just because you consider a different opinion of mine ludicrous or foolish? Should'nt you judge ideas and arguments on their own basis, not the basis of who uttered them?

Oh, and looking back at my post, there is one things that was rather unclear: i don't actually download RPGs from WotC "because they're the bad guys", i have simply tried to reason through the consequences and decided that, _if_ i were to only download from the megacorps, i'd be doing more good than harm, and if everyone followed my standard, likewise. Likewise, _if_ i were to download from small, creator-owned companies, i'd be doing more harm than good. Given that, AFAIK, piracy affects the biggest producers the most, i see it distinctly targeting exactly the right people, for the most part, and thus the "if everyone did it" argument does not clearly argue against it, on consequences alone (it may argue against it, but it does not *clearly and unambiguously* argue against it). There are, however, other legal and moral arguments that do argue against free-for-all downloading. I just don't think that's necesasrily one of them.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

ph0rk said:
			
		

> It was an anecdote, not a boast.  I don't need to rationalize a thing; any media I have copied I did because there is virtually no penalty for doing so - I have yet to hear of someone getting nailed for downloading media *who was not stockpiling or archiving or distributing it.*




  Now, here at least we can possibly clear up one source of confusion.  Later in the post that I am responding to, you said "I did not say any such thing.  I didn't put words in your mouth to argue against, so please don't do the same to me." Your accusation that I was putting words in your mouth was from my response which could be read to imply that your perceived position was that piracy:

1. should happen
    This is what I got from your declaration that piracy was just the free 
    market system at work.

2. should be encouraged
    This one might perhaps be an over-extension of your endorsement of the 
   practice.

3.  should be accepted
   Are you not saying this?

4. that you claim that no harm is done by piracy.
   I might be inaccurate here; it might as easily be your position that there
  is harm done, but that is not enough of a reason for you not to do it.  In fact, your moral compass in this matter (from the quote above) seems to be that piracy is acceptable (that you have nothing to rationalize) if you're not likely to be caught.

  It's acceptable if you're not likely to be caught.

  This represents a fundamental difference in philosphy between us, although this would not be nearly as interesting or fecund as an area for discussion as the difference (if I understand the difference correctly) between The Sigil and myself about where the most basic rights are based in the creator/social relationship.



> I don't agree: it was the fact that people were able to download music long enough to get used to the idea that caused the reaction.  They had done it long enough that they felt entitled.




   I would say that this is an extension of the two incentives I mentioned, as the illegal downloading became so common as to make those involved feel that they were completely safe from prosecution for their crime.  I grant that the perceived safety was strongly enhanced by the time that people were able to download without consequences.




> ... Like speeding, it would be nearly impossible to enforce the current copyright laws EVERYWHERE and with EVERYONE without a monumental expense.




  I am not convinced of this, but that does not mean that the effort should not be made.





> It happens, and will continue until the items actual cost is more in line with their perceived cost.  Theft will probably never go away completely, but will be aggravated when the discrepency between actual cost and perceived cost is great.




  The perceived cost difference might be an excuse for the downloader to try and make their stealing "noble" -- Ooh, I'm like Robin Hood -- but I still hold that it is:

1. The ease of the act

2. The perception that there will be no prosecution for the act.

  that makes it likely.  If game hardcovers cost $1.00, then I predict that the excuse would be "Well, they're not losing very much to me."




> And your point?  Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase.  The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads.




   My point is that it is already illegal, and that if you don't feel that there is anything wrong with that won't mean a whit if you ever get called on it.  If enough people choose file-sharing over purchase, there won't be any new material to steal.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 24, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> As for the invasion of privacy angle: chips that merely track sales of products are not being used in the US right now because of that very concern.



The reason you haven't seen it _yet_ is that the technology is still being tested in real-world field conditions, a set of industry standards has yet to be adopted across the board (some international standards do exist, mainly for such specialized things as tracking animals), and the cost of the chips themselves needs to drop very much lower (for the supplier), as does the cost of the readers (for the retailer), for things to become truly ubiquitous. These are for the passive RFID systems that are the rage; the active ones have been used for the past several years in some larger inventory systems, generally with many different competing software platforms. 

Wal-Mart has mandated that its 100 top suppliers incorporate the chips on cartons and pallets by January 2005, but at least some suppliers are talking about problems they're having with that compliance. Most center around the cost, reader confusion, interference from certain goods (usually ones that contain a lot of metal  or water), and unreliability - some suppliers are reporting as high as a 20% failure rate when most agree that even a 1% failure rate will put them in a worse position than they are now with barcodes. 

So, it'll probably still be some time coming.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

Yair said:
			
		

> For myself, I download many books but purchase the ones I use (sometimes just ones I like). I consider it a "right" way to act, and though I'll have to agree that it is illegal - I don't at all think it is immoral, and no amout of law will make me think otherwise.
> I am sorry that it seems most people will not pay for work they can download freely (if I read the thread's conclusion correctly). Some of my friends are like that - I try to show them the error of their ways...




  You say that you download material freely, especially music, and you say that your friends are in error by not paying for work they can download freely.  How does that track?


----------



## James Heard (May 24, 2004)

> James Heard, there is no reason to defend the public domain because there are no rights there. Anything within the public domain is free to be used by anyone, any way they wish. For example, while you couldn't use Jay-Z's Black Album as the soundtrack to a low-rent ripoff version of GGW (without his permission), you could use Beethoven's 5th.



I'm sorry, that's dumb. Every copyright extension ever made has infringed upon the public domain, the potential public domain of the moment and perpetual property rights of IP are a direct assault upon the public domain. Copyright is a GRANTED monopoly, without it you'd only be able to assert the most basic of material property rights upon your ideas. That grant is with the understanding that the ideas would eventually enrich the public, you can't enrich the public and hold their culture hostage at the same time. Let's make it clear, when you create something you're not not making a new thing...ever. You're building upon your background and culture, the public domain of thought that the current trend of legislation seems inclined to diminish. Basically, you're saying it doesn't matter because there's still some public domain without addressing the fact that the public domain is a process and that process is being slowly strangled. It's like saying that since there are endangered species in zoos that it should be ok to hunt them in the wild. I don't buy it. I don't think there's an argument there. Regardless of what the law is right now, it's wrong and counter to the public interests and even the interests of the entities that have lobbied for the laws in the first place.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> But copyright law is about the method of transmission, not the idea. Trying to apply it to stop idea transmission is, at best, ineffecient, and at worst misguided.




   I suggest using The Sigil's terminology of "processed idea" to avoid the image of a paranoid fantasy of stopping "idea transmission."  I.e., if you think that a prestige class using battle-doughnuts would be cool, that's one thing, but if you post or download "The Quintessential Baker" (assuming that you do not own the copyright for it), then that is absolutely something else.



> As for looking at a copy in a store: what if you're using the downloaded copy *like* a copy in the store? IOW, you're engaging in the same level of browsing as you do (or would) with a store copy. The only difference becomes where you do it (at home, rather than the store).




   This gets into the point I make below, but if you shoplift a copy of a book at the end of the work day, look at it, and have the intention of looking at it and sneaking it back the next morning, and you get caught with it that night, you will get pegged as hard as a more straightforward thief.

  Please see below.



> Things start to look iffy to me any time identical results through different means produce different legal consequences. Not saying this situation is obviously flawed, or that all such situations are, just that i want to look closer at the rationales...




  But the means matter.  The means are all we have to go by when constructing laws.  The courts cannot look into your heart or mind to legislate based on your motives, but on the action that you take.  The rationale does not matter for the determination of whether or not a crime was committed.  It might possibly matter in the sentencing phase, possibly, _if_ you can convince the judge that you are being honest about the rationale for your theft.



  Actually, I'm not quoting anything, I'd just like to thank Danny for getting involved in the discussion.


----------



## James Heard (May 24, 2004)

> If enough people choose file-sharing over purchase, there won't be any new material to steal.



Of course. That's certainly demonstrable, since we have so many centuries of human progress where we created absolutely nothing of redeeming cultural value because we had no centuries long expectations of profit built into the act. Sorry, you're wrong. There might be LESS material available, but _none_? Puh-leeze. In fact, since the OGL there have been MORE creative works in the RPG industry. There's a direct relationship showing that LESS stringent controls mean MORE creative endeavors. How many creative works are shelved each year because they'd simply cause the creator to be sued? I mean, with a few exceptions I don't know if I'd even want to join the ranks of a RPG publisher just from the taint of association now -after listening to some of the mostly frothing rants that I assume I'd have for company in the field. "Mine! All Mine!" When everything is based off of other people's work in the first place it just seems particularly ironic.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

The Public domain isn't being strangled.  The Public domain is constantly increasing in size, daily.  Once something falls into the public domain, it can NEVER be copyrighted again.

Copyright is not perpetual.  While extensions are permitted, even the longest extension is still finite.  Eventually, the guy who got successfully sued by Disney for trying to do an animated Mickey Mouse ripoff porno movie will be able to do so.  Well, probably not THAT guy, but anyone who still wants to do that could.

The ability to make the first economic use of IP is the essense of copyright.  Instantly dumping IP into the public domain does no one any good.

OGL (the Open Gaming License) is what it is- a LICENSE- not the wholesale release of IP into the public domain.  Licensees are still subject to rules and restrictions- you can't just use something produced under OGL for ANY reason.  You violate the license, it can be yanked.  It can even be the basis for a lawsuit.  In other words, there are still copyright holders with their hands on the wheel controlling what gets used for what.

As for its affect on creativity- like it though I do- the OGL has probably stifled creativity more than it has stimulated it.  Sure, there are plenty of D20 based games out there, but they're* all *D20 games.  It used to be that if you bought a new game, you got a new system with it.  GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller are still holding their own, but I haven't seen but a couple of completely new game systems actually hit the shelves recently.  Looking at my bookshelf, I can see more than 60 different RPGs.  All of the ones pre-D20 are different from the ground up- character generation, combat, spell system, etc., even the ones that were trying to rip off D&D.  Since D20...lets just say that there are a lot of D20 versions of already extant good games from many companies- Traveller, Deadlands, Call of Cthuhu, Legend of the 5 Rings, The Trinity System, Silver Age Sentinels...  When was the last major diceless RPG system released?  Quite simply, new non-D20 games are handicapped in the current RPG market.  How is the critically acclaimed D6 WWII superhero game GODLIKE doing?  Green Ronin's Spaceship Zero?  In Nomine?  You should be able to find most of them in discount bins.

With that homogenization, we have gained conceptual portability-learn 1 game, learn them all.  However, lots of character has been lost.  Example, Traveller didn't use a decimal numeric system-it used hexidecimal (those silly math-heads!).  It was also the only game system I know of that had the chance of PC death during character generation.  Traveller D20 loses all of that.

As for the availability of material in a world with unfettered downloading, my conclusion was not as harsh as that other poster.  There will still be material available, possibly even lots.  Quality, however, will suffer.  Anyone who has a quality game will keep it in house because he knows he won't get any cash for trying to go commercial.

In a world where theft of IP is legal, there is no economic incentive to disseminate IP, only altruistic ones, and very few people are prepared to produce IP exclusively for altruistic reasons.  Artists, authors, designers, etc. all have to eat, clothe themselves, house themselves.


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> You say that you download material freely, especially music, and you say that your friends are in error by not paying for work they can download freely.  How does that track?



I do not download "freely", only occasionally (my friends download "freely"). But that's immaterial.
The difference is that (with RPG downloads) I do purchase the things I download, if and when I use them. My friends do not (some of them); they seem to think the people who produce these things don't deserve their money. I consider that to be a big difference.

Let me give a real example. Suppose I wanted to purchase a book on dwarves. In an ideal world I would go to a shop, see a horde of appropriate books at various prices, and be able to purchase the ones I want - free competition and all of that.
Now for the real world. My "FLGS" is 2 hours drive away, in the center of the largest city in the country. That's 4 hours + parking + lots of hussle to visit. It also has an appalingly miniscule selection; I am fairly certain NO books on dwarves are available. So I go to read reviews online, and see there are a few books (with their price not so wide spread). I read reviews, but that ain't like browsing. So I download and skim. And in fact, I did - and very much enjoyed Hammer and Helm, so I purchased it (even though I never used it, or got it - it got lost in the mail). I purchased it becuase I liked it, because I wanted to support the people who wrote and produce it; if I knew the book wouldn't reach me I probably would have tried to donate to them directly. It has nothing to do with the fact they legally demanded I purchase the book at set price and never download it; the price, for me, was just a "this is what I would like to get payed for this" sign, so I payed it. As a show of appreciation and support. Not as a  purchase of goods. I already had the goods I wanted (I didn't even bother to reorder the book from Amazon, which would have been free - as far as I am concerned, I already got what I wanted).
For another example - there have been many cases where I could have walked away from a store without paying. I didn't, not because I feared the law but because I think I ought to pay for the stuff I took from the store - the shopkeeper has to make a living, and all of that. 

As for music - for some brands I am not paying, yes; I do not believe this hurts the artists or producers, as I believe they have made a fair profit of it already. That has nothing to do with "paying for work they can download freely", it has to do with "paying for work that has already been paid for". (For the record: in practice I often do purchase music that I like; it's just that I don't think I really should - I do so because I am lazy, not because I think it is right. I think it is wrong.)
I guess what I am saying is that when a work was rewarded enough, it should be released into the public domain. But I am not proposing a method of doing that, because I can't think of any system to measure this. No system at all.


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yair wrote:
> 
> (Her actual sales of that album were about 1.3 Million copies- her take-home was $156-260K before agent/attorney costs cut that to $104.5-174.2K.)



I believed it was 50 mil, but it seems you know what you are talking about 



> She's not your favorite performer (nor mine), but she didn't write that contract-the company did.  You didn't give her the money, people who liked her stuff did.  I mean, I understand your frustration that SHE got paid while many more talented musicians toil in poverty and obscurity, but what is your solution?
> 
> Who would you prefer get that money from the album sales?  The record company?  Somebody else who didn't earn it at all?
> 
> ...



I am not saying I have a solution; I don't. I am not saying I have an economic model to replace supply and demand, I don't.
I am saying that I PERSONALLY consider 150K$ sufficient pay for the amount of effort and talent spent, and do not see it as a moral imperative that I give her more money. (I do not see it as WRONG to give her more money - just not morally required.)
Frankly, if I would get 150K$ worth for the same amount of work, I would be very pleased. Now, I am not as talented (supposedly, or I would MAKE that much money, and setting artistic tastes aside here), so I am willing to give her more than I would expect for the same work. But I think 150K is enough. (For the record, I make approximately 12K a year, pre-taxes, at best.)
Is it "fair" that a poor person like me (relatively to little Ms. Spears) will judge her by his own standards? Actually, I think it is.
(Of course, one also has to take into account producing the album, not just the money the artists gets; but I suggest the with those sales the producers have been adequately reimburced for their efforts and hard work.)

It is certainly not legal to steal from someone if they are rich enough. Moral, now? Well, Robin Hood is not generally thought of as evil. It depends.
In any case, I am not stealing; I am just not paying for something the law says I should. IThat is a different matter, and has different moral standards. Using D&D Alignments, I think it is actually Neutral to download her music without paying - a truly Good person would give the money instead to the needy, perhaps a budding artist; a truly Evil person would refuse to purchase any products and do what he can to subotage her income. I contend myself with feeling OK about not paying some of the time, and purchasing a rare album here and there (even though they are often deriving excessive profits as well).

Perhaps it is my upbringing. My family is exempt from some taxes, for example; my father pays them as charity instead. My parents have a lot of savings (relatively) and some real estate; but we do not have much in the way of products (though lately we did purchase some pretty expensive geriatric equipment - but that's antoher matter altogether). Honestly, living above a certain standard of living is to me a minor sin - it is indulgence. And I am not too keen to support it.
Conviniently, that standard of living is my family's standard of living... perhaps I am just hypocritical.


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In a world where theft of IP is legal, there is no economic incentive to disseminate IP, only altruistic ones, and very few people are prepared to produce IP exclusively for altruistic reasons.  Artists, authors, designers, etc. all have to eat, clothe themselves, house themselves.



Consider the academin world, where plagarism is a virtue and IP is unheared of. It has existed for hundreds of years and produced a fair amount of quality IP, thank you.
Preservation of IP is not the only model to feed yourself. In a world without IP, other institutions could be established to support its production - from the patronage of the wealthy to trust funds.
I do not think, however, anyone is seriously contending that IP should not be preserved; it is just that IP should not be draconically enforced or extended. Even in a world where file-sharing was perfectly legal, I am certain there will be lots of people that will prefer to purchase the books, and others who would be willing to pay for the pdfs (even when they can download them legally for free). And if the circustances were right, there would be others still that would be willing to set up funds to the support of the production of IP (for a similar real-world example, see strange horizons ). 
To a large degree, we lived in such a world for a time - a world where file-sharing was illegal, but not punished. To a large degree we still do. 

That is not to say I am not sorry people are not getting paid for their hard work in producing the IP. Some way or another, they need to get paid for producing IP or they will indeed slow down if not stop completely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

> My "FLGS" is 2 hours drive away, in the center of the largest city in the country. That's 4 hours + parking + lots of hussle to visit.




Boo hoo.  When I got into gaming, I lived in Denver.  A couple of months later, I moved to Manhattan...Manhattan, Kansas, pop. 10,000.  I could go to the KSU bookstore and buy the DMG, PHB, & MM and Dragon Magazine.  Anything else I wanted I had to go to Kansas City to get, and we could only make that trip 1/month.  (Yes, barefoot over mountains through snow fighting off cyborg-demon alligators  )  The only reason I played Traveller or Star Fleet Battles was because I had a buddy (named Buddy) who already had the games when he moved into town.



> As for music - for some brands I am not paying, yes; I do not believe this hurts the artists or producers, as I believe they have made a fair profit of it already. That has nothing to do with "paying for work they can download freely", it has to do with "paying for work that has already been paid for". (For the record: in practice I often do purchase music that I like; it's just that I don't think I really should - I do so because I am lazy, not because I think it is right. I think it is wrong.)




You don't believe you're hurting the artists so its OK?  They've already been paid enough so its OK?  Other people already paid for it so its OK?  How arbitrary is that?

As one of my law profs would say, "That doesn't even pass a sniff test."

What you believe is not backed up by empirical evidence.  Artists who don't make expected sales are in trouble.  If INSERT NAME OF BAND HERE doesn't cover the expenses of producing its album and whatever videos are made, that band gets a smaller budget next time around, or gets dropped.  In fact, if sales are miserable enough, the band will not recoup its costs, and will wind up owing the record company money.  That happened to Mark Sandman's first band, Treat Her Right.  His second band Morphine, did much better, but produced only a handful of videos because they never sold enough to warrant the record company taking that risk.  Did you or anyone you know download Morphine's stuff?

What other products do you treat this way?  "GM has already made enough money from its Pontiac Ram Air Firebird, so I'll take that one."  "I don't need a ticket to see this movie because its already set a box office record."  "Doctor, you've already seen a whole bunch of patients this year, so I'm not paying your bill."  Just because the harm may be relatively small does not mean it is nonexistent or justified.  See my first post about Kant.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

> Consider the academin world, where plagarism is a virtue and IP is unheared of. It has existed for hundreds of years and produced a fair amount of quality IP, thank you.
> Preservation of IP is not the only model to feed yourself. In a world without IP, other institutions could be established to support its production - from the patronage of the wealthy to trust funds.




I have freinds who teach.  I have family who teach.  Plagiarism is NOT a virtue.  It is, in some places, grounds for dismissal from the school.

IP is the bread and butter of professors who must "publish or perish."  You steal their IP and publish it before they can, they lose their jobs because then THEY look like the plagiarists.

Patronage of the wealthy as a support model got you some amazing art...of whatever the patron wanted.  If the Church (THE major patron of the middle ages) said "Paint angels" you painted angels.  Protected IP at least allowed creators to control what they were creating.

The closest thing to a trust fund in the USA is the NEA, and you've seen how well THAT works over the past 10 years.  The only good, supported art is that which passes conservative muster.  Nothing challenging the status quo will ever come out of the NEA as long as there is a morality board overseeing the process.

Holland also attempted to subsidize art.  At one time (I don't have current data) you could apply to be a Nationally Accredited Artist for Holland by applying and paying a fee.  You got a salary in exchange for producing a number of pieces per year as determined by your favored medium.  Result-warehouses of really crummy art that will never see the light of day.

Under a free-market stystem, the creator of IP is free to produce whatever he wants and the public is free to not buy it if they think its worthless.  But they need to have their IP protected against misappropriation of all forms.

Here is something to consider.  No one sane takes efforts to acquire something they feel is worthless.  Someone acquiring illegal downloads values those downloads, even if it is $0.01.  If it is of value, the producer needs to be compensated.  If it is valueless to you-*leave it alone and don't download it*.

Perhaps a happy medium for the Internet Age is releasing samples for people to judge the work.  Send the seller a bid of sufficient value, and he sends you the rest, kind of like an auction.

I'll say this, though- auctions tend to lead to higher prices than competition.



> Even in a world where file-sharing was perfectly legal, I am certain there will be lots of people that will prefer to purchase the books, and others who would be willing to pay for the pdfs (even when they can download them legally for free).




I know I don't tend to pay for things I have gotten for free, and I get free stuff (legally) all the time.

But, I may be the exception.  Perhaps someone should do a poll.

"Do you pay creators for things that you can get for free on the internet?"

Wait!  The RIAA already has data on that, and the majority of material initially downloaded for free is NEVER paid for in any form.

To be fair, that IS the music industry, a well-known sea of sharks (it REALLY is).

Perhaps our hobby has more ethical types.  But people are people, so why should it be that ...um...the ethics of downloading differ between IP fields?


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Boo hoo.  When I got into gaming, I lived in Denver.  A couple of months later, I moved to Manhattan...Manhattan, Kansas, pop. 10,000.  I could go to the KSU bookstore and buy the DMG, PHB, & MM and Dragon Magazine.  Anything else I wanted I had to go to Kansas City to get, and we could only make that trip 1/month.  (Yes, barefoot over mountains through snow fighting off cyborg-demon alligators  )  The only reason I played Traveller or Star Fleet Battles was because I had a buddy (named Buddy) who already had the games when he moved into town.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I know all about Kant.
And no other products.

I am not saying it works in general, I am saying it works for me. And again, this applies only when there is NO hurt to the artist - I do not consider LACK of sales of the truly successful artists a hurt, they have earned enough money to keep doing art for the rest of their lives unless they lead them excessively. 
I am not taking their money, their goods, or their time. I am just making a copy of something they have already made. Electronic goods are special this way.

Of course your law professor would smirk at it. At no point did I claim this mindset would be acceptable in any legal system whatsoever.

It is extremely arbitrary, but it isn't unfair. Not as far as I am concertned, anyways. These people already got what they derserve; anything else is sheer greed. And I am not taking anything from them, just copying something without any material loss to them. 
And again - when there is doubt, I do purchase.

Suppose GM did make enough profit from the Firebird - above and beyond the profit I consider reasonable. And suppose I could take one from the company lot, before it was delivered through middle-men. 
Would taking it be illegal? Certainly.
Would it be morally wrong, if I need a car? I believe not (I know most will differ). The car is there, the benefit to its current owner I consider to be negative (sinful, remember?), the benefit for me will be positive (I NEED a car), where is the harm? In taking away the rights of property? Sorry, like all rights I believe they should be restricted. If there is pressing need for someone else, and little to no benefit to the current owner, I do believe it is just to take property. (So do most people; I am just more relaxed about it - the old "steal to feed the hungry" shtick).

Now the fact is GM is NOT making an unreasonable profit from the Firebird. Excessive profit is excessive by an order of magnitude - if, for example, I would find out that GM is making 700% profit on each car sold, then maybe I'll say it is excessive. I do not believe this is the situation.

Compare with Ms. Spears. She already made more than 150K from the record; I consider a reasonable pay for time spent perhaps 60K. Me downloading it will cost her nothing (unlike the production cost of the lost Firebird). With all due respect, I am not about to feel bad about downloading it. 

But this argument is getting out of hand; this is not the topic of this thread, and I am quite aware I will not convince anyone in my rather esotetic views on morality.
I do not wish to continue debating this point; I do not feel it is conductive to this thread.


----------



## James Heard (May 24, 2004)

> The Public domain isn't being strangled. The Public domain is constantly increasing in size, daily. Once something falls into the public domain, it can NEVER be copyrighted again.



At a much decreased rate thanks to the constant extensions and self-serving legislations that narrow it. I don't know what important point you were trying to make with the emphasis on the not being able to copyright the public domain. That's the entire point isn't it? To move the intellectual into a format that makes it reusable as reinterpretation by society at large as quickly as possible while still balancing a short term of monopoly to fund the creative process? It's not a way to print money and it shouldn't be a squatter's market thanks to the economic needs of a few of the most wealthy IP holders. Neither my daughter or my granddaughter needs nor deserves to make money off the sale of my IP, and even I myself would be better off serving the public domain by being rationed in my ability to make money off of my own works. So you've got a trickle of content dripping into the public domain, so what? That's better than stifling creativity with IP lawyers entirely? 


> As for its affect on creativity- like it though I do- the OGL has probably stifled creativity more than it has stimulated it. Sure, there are plenty of D20 based games out there, but they're all D20 games.



I disagree with this entirely. The different substructures may have changed but there is still an awful lot more individual products on the shelves and available than even 6 years ago. The fact that there are a lot of d20 games out there is more of a function of entrance costs, control and quality. If White Wolf were to open up the Storyteller system in a similar sense I imagine that they too would see a similar jump in Storyteller products on the shelves. I remember when licencing (I assume) was cheaply available in the early 80s for gaming products and there were dozens of associated lines adding into Traveller and D&D via Judge's Guild and other tiny presses. MP3.Com had more artists out there than you'd EVER see in a big label catalog, because while the problems with distribution are different the effect is similar - there is absolutely no shortage of monkeys willing to create and share their efforts, only an artificial barrier to commerce built by the various entertainment industries by their own sabotage of efforts they don't control and judicious usage of copyright law to maintain as high of a wall around the elite club where the money is as possible. The monopoly of copyright, built to serve the public, now serves the wealthy few who can hope to influence and maintain as rabid protections as possible. The entire dialogue with the original intent is false now, people function as if copyright were something given to the public by the creators instead of something that the public grants to the artist. That was not the intent and it's wrong to legislate as if it were.


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I have freinds who teach.  I have family who teach.  Plagiarism is NOT a virtue.  It is, in some places, grounds for dismissal from the school.



You are correct, of course, I should have been more precise. 
IP is NOT reserved in the academic world; attributing it is. If I publish an article on general relativity, no one should quote it and say its his work. But if someome quotes it and says it is my work - all is fine.



> Patronage of the wealthy as a support model got you some amazing art...of whatever the patron wanted.  If the Church (THE major patron of the middle ages) said "Paint angels" you painted angels.  Protected IP at least allowed creators to control what they were creating.



Correct. I never said it was a perfect model, I said there are other models. Pretending that the only possbile model is IP-protection is folly.
And for the record, I do not believe IP-protection allows artists to control what they are creating. They still get paid by patrons; it is just that in our times the patrons are more intersted in selling the artist's goods to the public, and so the nature of the works has changed.



> The closest thing to a trust fund in the USA is the NEA, and you've seen how well THAT works over the past 10 years.  The only good, supported art is that which passes conservative muster.  Nothing challenging the status quo will ever come out of the NEA as long as there is a morality board overseeing the process.



I wouldn't know; what is the NEA? (not american, here)




> I know I don't tend to pay for things I have gotten for free, and I get free stuff (legally) all the time.
> 
> But, I may be the exception.  Perhaps someone should do a poll.
> 
> ...



I do not believe most people will pay for what they are getting for free, nor did I suggest it. 
I simply noted that I and others DO pay for some products we can get for free, and pointed out that there are organizations that provide free services with voluntary costs.
I DID state the people should be rewarded for their work, and without it IP development would slow down. 
My only goal in my post was to clarify that in a world where IP-theft is legal there will still be economic reasons to produce IP, not just altruism, and that economical institutions that encourage IP production can be established on a basis that is not IP-protection. That is all.

As for auctioning - an interesting idea. I think it impractical, however - surely WotC could not haggle with every customer that wants to purchase the PH.
Again, I am not advocating any reform in any economical system, nor did I attempt to claim that supply and demand should be repalced by another system. I think it is the best of all possible evils - much like democracy. I simply attempted to note that in a world devoid of IP-protection there will still be economic incentive to produce IP.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 24, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I honestly see little or nothing that Disney, Time-Warner, Haliburton, Sony, WalMart, or other megacorporations--the sort with the power to push gov'ts around--has done that is a massive good, or necessary to society. Feel free to enlighten me--i could very well be overlooking things, due to ignorance of the accomplishments, or the accomplishers, that would change my POV on the matter.




_Honestly? Nothing?_

I can only imagine you don't know because you don't bother to find out, because of your bias against corporations. Google for "[company name here] charitable contributions" and away you go.

http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/news/newsbyid.asp?id=13326

Here's a larger list for the intellectually lazy. Lots of telecom and oil "demons" on that list.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2078472/


Need we mention Rockefeller and Carnegie?

But let's talk about your favorite target. One (just _one_) of Hasbro's charities is "Operation Smile." The operation to repair a cleft palate costs as little as $700. A pittance to Hasbro, a world of difference to children in poor countries.

http://www.operationsmile.org/

Boundless Playgrounds is a pretty cool Hasbro charity, too. They build equal access playgrounds for children with disabilities to play alongside other children of all abilities.

http://www.boundlessplaygrounds.org/

Hasbro's corporate culture is extraordinarily civic minded. Employees are given paid leave for charitable work, and Hasbro matches all employee charitable contributions dollar for dollar.



> If large corps used their economies of scale to raise wages, rather than lower prices, i'd be much mor sympathetic, frex.




If corporations strive to lower prices, your wages go further.

Wulf


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> _Honestly? Nothing?_
> 
> [snip a lot of good deeds]
> 
> Wulf



I agree that megacorporations often do good stuff. It is just that very often they do harm, or do self-serving "good acts" (like nikey contributing to sports - but only when its logo is prominent). I believe this results in a general resentment against megacorporations, which is not entirely unjustified.

The mere size of a company is not to be held against it. However, I tend to think of it like one of the "seven deadly sins": none of them were actual SINS, let alone things you ought to die for. Rather, they were seen as atitudes that will LEAD to sin. Likewise, being huge tends, I believe, to encourage "wrong" corporate behaviour, but is not an indication thereof.

[Edited to remove needless bashing.]


----------



## WayneLigon (May 24, 2004)

Really, though, the contorted logic and weird nitpicking semantics in this thread that are used for justifications for people's _theft_ is just amazing to watch.


----------



## Yair (May 24, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> On the planet I live on, that's still stealing. Interesting that you keep bringing up the 'sin' of it, since the last time I looked it read 'Thou Shalt Not Steal',  not, 'thou shalt not steal except in these circumstances, which are blah blah blah.'
> 
> Really, though, the contorted logic and weird nitpicking semantics in this thread that are used for justifications for people's _theft_ is just amazing to watch. Yair's is just the most blatent example.



Thanks.
I was going to write a reply to that, but on second thought I deleted it. Your bashing of my moral views really has nothing to do with the thread at large; it's highjacking, and I hate that.
So you know what? You're right. I'm wrong. Can we move on now?


----------



## WayneLigon (May 24, 2004)

Yair said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> I was going to write a reply to that, but on second thought I deleted it. Your bashing of my moral views really has nothing to do with the thread at large; it's highjacking, and I hate that.
> So you know what? You're right. I'm wrong. Can we move on now?



You are correct; original post edited for snarkiness. I apologize.


----------



## Henry (May 24, 2004)

MODERATOR HAT ON

We've seemed to go through this thread without direct attacks or insults on posters; let's let that trend continue, please, as long as the thread's going to last.

If it doesn't, I'll have to shut the thread down post-haste. Thanks, all!

MOD HAT OFF


----------



## Spell (May 24, 2004)

*long post... sorry!*

I download a lot. And I buy a lot.
As somebody else on this boards, I download because I want to check out the product before I buy. If I like it, I set the price that I want to pay for it. If I am thinking of using (or if i'm already using) more than half of the product, I buy it full price immediately. Else, I try to buy it second-hand, or at discount, or when I have enough money.
By doing so, I was able to discover that my prejudices towards GURPS, HackMaster, Bob Dylan, Franz Ferdinand and others were just misconceptions.

Am I doing something legal? No way.
But, you see, sometimes, that's not really the point.
I'm not a solicitor. Nevertheless, I think that codified laws were invented (some 5 thousand years ago) to avoid that those stronger and bullier that then average Joe could take advantage of him. I also seem to remember that the principle that the punishment must be adequate to the crime was accepted some 500 years ago, when mr. Cesare Beccaria wrote the seminal book "On Crimes and Punishment".

I go on-line. I download a new album. Even if you compare that to actually stealing the CD from a shop (it is not: where is the booklet with art, pictures and lyrics? where is the superior CD quality?), please tell me why the theft of a $20 CD could cost me $150,000 PER SONG.
You could argue that I was offering the file to other users to steal... But how can you prove it? How can you say _precisely_ that I was offering it, and that X number of people was downloading it from me?

Please explain me how can anybody accuse me of being a thief and an immoral person while:
1) the RIAA has lied to the congress and to the media (according to numerous studies, the sales of CDs are _not_ down because of downloading; and check this out, too: http://slashdot.org/articles/04/05/14/0051258.shtml?tid=126&tid=141&tid=188&tid=95)
2) some of the major labels have misused the license of the CD media offered by Philiphs by making their CD impossible to play and copy (even for fair use!) in computes (i cannot find the article right now... it would be somewhere on www.boycott-riaa.com)
3) BMG was actually paying for the development of Napster while blaming it and its users for "theft"
4) some of the majors labels are in court, accused of stealing profits from their own artists (http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/5111, for example... this means that my favourite artist could never see a penny even if I buy his album 500 times).
5) RIAA pays the radio stations to get airplay for their albums, so that the music that is played is decided by dollars, not by the actual value of music.
This and a lot more.

The average music fan, with an internet connection, is downloading music. I think the same applies to the average RPG gamer, to a lesser extent. Why RPG gamers download less? Sure enough, having the real book in your hands does feel way better. But I think that part of the issue is also that no RPG company has gone out of their way to paint the average customer as an immoral and coward thief.
As mr. Heard has pointed out in one of his posts, this attitude hardly wins more customers.
Being willing to spend time and money in court and to lob the government to advocate a draconian view of the existing laws: now that's immorality! That's precisely the attitude against which the laws should protect the average Joe from. Think again. Not in this world.

So, in my case, I know that the law is against me. But I also think that I am doing nothing morally wrong. I do not sell pirated books or CDs to anybody. I just take a good look at the real thing (a look I couldn't give in any shop, for various reasons), and then decide if I am going to use it (and so I buy it) or not.


A couple of other things, just to offer you a perspective.

I am a musician and a freelance author on my spare time. You could think that I had everything to gain, if the RIAA wins and downloads are wiped away from the face of earth. I would be damned if I do!

You see, I could give away all of my CDs for free, if I get the radio play that Metallica are getting. I could sent it to your homes (expenses on me!) if I could get the crow that Britney generates. The amount of money that I could generate for myself _just by selling records_ is minimal. Gigs. that's where real money is. And not just for me, a struggling youngster, but for metallica, and britney, too. Gigs, publicity, merchandising. That's where money is.

It is true that a professional recording costs a lot of money. In my experience, just the recording and the manifacture of the 1000 CD is $15,000 - $20,000.
You might be wondering how on earth I could have a professional recording with that amount of money. I tell you: my band mates and I are real musician. We record live in studio and make some overdubs.
If Michael Jackson or whoever has to play his parts 20 times to get it right, than it's his business. If he wants to hire an entire orchestra to do a 2 notes background to one song, then it's his business.

I could add a lot more to this, and explain my position even better... but this forum is still a RPG forum, not a music business one.

Now go on and trash my views, call me an immoral person, explain me why I am a communist, or whatever. I don't think this kind of attitude will convince me that I am one of those things.

Have fun.


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (May 24, 2004)

How does a store like Half-Price books fit into this discussion?
For example I go to my local FLGS see the Draconomicon book that WOTC just put out. I don't want to pay the 40.00 bucks for it, so I don't buy it. Later on I see the same book at Half-Price Books for 20.00 bucks and buy it.  WOTC didn't get my money, but I do have the book. Was the book stolen from WOTC because I didn't pay them for the book?

Another example would be if a friend of mine bought the book and didn't like it and gave it to me for free. The other side would be someone buys the book and scans it into the computer and then puts it up on a p2p site and i download it. In either case the book was purchased and yet I still got it for free. Would either case be considered stealing?


----------



## johnsemlak (May 24, 2004)

Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> How does a store like Half-Price books fit into this discussion?
> For example I go to my local FLGS see the Draconomicon book that WOTC just put out. I don't want to pay the 40.00 bucks for it, so I don't buy it. Later on I see the same book at Half-Price Books for 20.00 bucks and buy it.  WOTC didn't get my money, but I do have the book. Was the book stolen from WOTC because I didn't pay them for the book?
> 
> Another example would be if a friend of mine bought the book and didn't like it and gave it to me for free. The other side would be someone buys the book and scans it into the computer and then puts it up on a p2p site and i download it. In either case the book was purchased and yet I still got it for free. Would either case be considered stealing?



 Difference is very simple.

In the first case a hard copy was paid in full, to the copyright owner (WotC).  What happens with the original copy of that book after it is originally purchased (within reason, and barring making illegal copies) is immaterial.  You can re-sell it, give it away, whatever.  In any case, the originally buyer parts with their copy, and the copy goes to a new owner.

In the second case, the original buyer keeps their copy, but another person has a scanned copy they didn't pay for.


----------



## The Sigil (May 24, 2004)

Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> How does a store like Half-Price books fit into this discussion?
> For example I go to my local FLGS see the Draconomicon book that WOTC just put out. I don't want to pay the 40.00 bucks for it, so I don't buy it. Later on I see the same book at Half-Price Books for 20.00 bucks and buy it.  WOTC didn't get my money, but I do have the book. Was the book stolen from WOTC because I didn't pay them for the book?



No.  The legal doctrine in question is "Right of First Sale."

Basically, it states that once a copyright holder has been paid for a copy of the book, the person paying is allowed to do whatever the heck they want with that copy so long as they do not infringe copyright (i.e., you can use a razor to deconstruct the book into its component pages, but you cannot re-print the text and give the re-print to others).

This includes turning around and re-selling the book for whatever price they like (including free)... but they have to sell THE COPY THEY PAID FOR, and not "a copy of the copy they paid for" (see the difference).

In the case of a used bookstore, WotC probably got paid by the Distributor company.  The instant WotC takes that money, the fate of those copies of the books the Distributor paid for is now no longer WotC's to control.  The Distributor might sell some of them to your FLGS.  Your FLGS might sell them to your local used book store.  All of this is legal... but again, this applies only to "the copy of the work paid for" and not "a copy of the copy of the work paid for."



> Another example would be if a friend of mine bought the book and didn't like it and gave it to me for free.



Right of First Sale.  WotC loses control of what happens to THAT PARTICULAR COPY of the content when it is paid for (but not a copy of that copy).  Your friend is within his rights to give it to you.



> The other side would be someone buys the book and scans it into the computer and then puts it up on a p2p site and i download it.



Here, Right of First Sale does not apply.  You did not get the particular copy paid for, you got a copy of that copy.  Your copy (of a copy) was not paid for; copyright infringement has occured.



> In either case the book was purchased and yet I still got it for free. Would either case be considered stealing?



As others have said, the difference in the second case is that the p2p sharer still has a copy.

I think that's the essential thing to grasp with copyright.  Don't track the physical book.  Track the "copy of the material."  One book is one copy.  One scan is one copy.  *Copying/scanning a book makes an additional (unpaid for) copy of the material.*  The fundamental question in copyright is not "book" but rather the _arrangement of words and pictures it contains that communicate an idea_; if this arrangement is replicated, whether it be as a "book on tape" or a "scan" or "text file" or a "file on CD" or a "physical paper and ink book," that's *still* a copy.

The fundamental question then becomes: how many copies exist?  How many have been paid for?  Exclude, of course, "backup copies" that belong to a person with a "regular copy" (this falls under Fair Use, as it is assumed that the single person does not gain extra utility by using multiple copies simultaneously; the material is accessible to the person either way)

If the number of copies that exist is greater than the number that have been paid for, copyright infringement has occurred.  The copyright holder agreed to give one copy for X dollars, not two copies or ten copies.

Does that help clear up the differences among the scenarios above?  Legal scenarios are those that involve transfer of a single, "already-paid-for" copy.  Illegal scenarios are those that involve transfer of "not-already-paid-for" copies of a copy.

--The Sigil

IANAL, TINLA


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

Yair said:
			
		

> Consider the academin world, where plagarism is a virtue and IP is unheared of. It has existed for hundreds of years and produced a fair amount of quality IP, thank you.




    In the academic world, there exist direct rewards for publishing material.  Due to the importance of peer review in the scientific process, frequent publication is the ideal and there exist mechanisms to reward this that are quite separate from the idea of obtaining direct profit through the sale of the material.  For example, academic tenure depends strongly on the publication rate of a faculty member, thus rewarding the release of the material in a manner completely different from that in the commercial model.

   Furthermore, building your work on the work of others is a virtue, but this is not plagarism, and plagarism is most certainly *not* a virtue.  I do not recommend trying to copy someone else's paper and submitting it as your own work; you will find out quite quickly how plagarism is rewarded.  This could simply be sloopy use of language, but the sloppy use of language ("copyright infringement is not theft", "idea vs. processed idea", etc.) has already caused a great deal of difficulty in this thread.

   I am not going to address your political ideas, other than to note that your personal utopia, the absence of which seems to justify your actions in your own eyes, is radically different than any of the models that any of us are working in.



> I do not think, however, anyone is seriously contending that IP should not be preserved; it is just that IP should not be draconically enforced or extended.




   So IP should be preserved, but not enforced?



> Even in a world where file-sharing was perfectly legal, I am certain there will be lots of people that will prefer to purchase the books, and others who would be willing to pay for the pdfs (even when they can download them legally for free).




    I don't consider myself a grim or pessimestic person, but I am in awe regarding your optimism about human nature.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

*A Tiny, Tiny Tangent*



			
				Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> How does a store like Half-Price books fit into this discussion?
> For example I go to my local FLGS see the Draconomicon book that WOTC just put out. I don't want to pay the 40.00 bucks for it, so I don't buy it. Later on I see the same book at Half-Price Books for 20.00 bucks and buy it.




   Where are you at?  I'd pay $20 for the Dragonomicon; please don't tell me it was at the Corpus Christi Half-Price and I missed it!  (The Corpus Christi Half-Price does have a surprising amount of 3e.)


----------



## The Sigil (May 24, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The Public domain isn't being strangled.  The Public domain is constantly increasing in size, daily.  Once something falls into the public domain, it can NEVER be copyrighted again.



Bzzt.  Wrong. 



			
				http://research.yale.edu/lawmeme/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=392 said:
			
		

> (Justice Breyer) raised an analogy he would repeat with the Solicitor General. He asked whether under Eldred's argument it would be permissible to recopyright the bible, Ben Johnson, or Shakespeare.
> ...
> He also asked whether the government could recopyright Ben Johnson. The government did not say "no."





			
				http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/jassin-2000-11-all.html said:
			
		

> Beware! Many foreign works that were previously in the public domain for failure to comply with technical requirements of U.S. law (including copyright notice and renewal requirements) were restored to copyright in 1996 under the GATT and NAFTA international trade treaties. In order to be restored, the foreign work had to be under copyright in the "source" country and not first published in the United States. Revived works, which are no longer in the public domain, cannot be used without permission of the copyright owner.
> 
> Once upon a time, works published with an improper copyright notice (that is, the ©), went into the public domain upon publication. Many works now in the public domain are there because of inadvertent publication without notice. However, since March, 1, 1989, copyright notice is no longer required. Be aware, that if notice was omitted in error on copies distributed between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989, copyright was not automatically lost, if certain preventive measures were taken to cure the oversight.



Copyright CAN in fact be retroactively extended and take works out of the public domain.



> Copyright is not perpetual.  While extensions are permitted, even the longest extension is still finite.



You might think so.  Congress doesn't.


			
				Mary Bono said:
			
		

> Actually, *Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever*. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, *there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day*. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.



(Emphasis mine).

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks under the current regime that ANYTHING will ever fall out of copyright again, since the current methodology is simply:

IF Copyright Term of Steamboat Willie MINUS Today's Date is less than 2 years
THEN Extend Copyright Term.

Just because it nowhere states infinity doesn't mean it de facto IS infinity.



> The ability to make the first economic use of IP is the essense of copyright.  Instantly dumping IP into the public domain does no one any good.



You've hit on the essence of copyright.  The problem is, current media companies would adjust your statement to:

"The ability to make *any* use of IP is the essence of copyright."



> OGL (the Open Gaming License) is what it is- a LICENSE- not the wholesale release of IP into the public domain.  Licensees are still subject to rules and restrictions- you can't just use something produced under OGL for ANY reason.  You violate the license, it can be yanked.  It can even be the basis for a lawsuit.  In other words, there are still copyright holders with their hands on the wheel controlling what gets used for what.



Very true.  However, the restrictions are relatively minor and have the (to some, undesirable) stricture that anything you create through derivation must also be released with those same minor restrictions.  In other words, if you stand on the shoulders of those who came before, you must be willing to let others stand on your shoulders, too (most people and corporations involved in IP - hate that stricture, which is probably why we see such limiting PI declarations in an attempt to close down as much as possible).



> As for its affect on creativity- like it though I do- the OGL has probably stifled creativity more than it has stimulated it.  Sure, there are plenty of D20 based games out there, but they're* all *D20 games.  It used to be that if you bought a new game, you got a new system with it.  GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller are still holding their own, but I haven't seen but a couple of completely new game systems actually hit the shelves recently.  Looking at my bookshelf, I can see more than 60 different RPGs.  All of the ones pre-D20 are different from the ground up- character generation, combat, spell system, etc., even the ones that were trying to rip off D&D.  Since D20...lets just say that there are a lot of D20 versions of already extant good games from many companies- Traveller, Deadlands, Call of Cthuhu, Legend of the 5 Rings, The Trinity System, Silver Age Sentinels...  When was the last major diceless RPG system released?  Quite simply, new non-D20 games are handicapped in the current RPG market.  How is the critically acclaimed D6 WWII superhero game GODLIKE doing?  Green Ronin's Spaceship Zero?  In Nomine?  You should be able to find most of them in discount bins.



This may be a "chicken-and-egg" thing.  Why did games pre-OGL have "from the ground up" character creation rules?  Answer: Because you HAD to do it that way to avoid copyright snags.  Why is there so much d20 stuff post-OGL?  Because you DON'T have to build from the ground up and you can avoid potential copyright pitfalls.  If all I want to do is publish an adventure, why should I have to re-invent the wheel (a new game system) to do it?  The OGL allows companies to create small "add-ons" rather than re-design the whole game system from scratch.  This lowers the "intellectual" barrier of entry considerably.  That means people can more easily support the d20 system.  Because of all that extra support, "other systems" are headed for the discount bins, because they lack it... 

I'm not sure which is the cause of the other, but I am relatively certain that the reason other systems aren't seeing the same level of support as d20 is that they CAN'T (due to copyright nastiness).  If GURPS or Palladium or other systems opened up their rules under an OGL or similar agreement, I'm sure you would see them getting support as well.

It may be that those who are so desperate to hold on to "their precious" will wind up losing everything in the long run.  :/



> With that homogenization, we have gained conceptual portability-learn 1 game, learn them all.  However, lots of character has been lost.  Example, Traveller didn't use a decimal numeric system-it used hexidecimal (those silly math-heads!).  It was also the only game system I know of that had the chance of PC death during character generation.  Traveller D20 loses all of that.



Again, lack of support is due to "closed content."



> As for the availability of material in a world with unfettered downloading, my conclusion was not as harsh as that other poster.  There will still be material available, possibly even lots.  Quality, however, will suffer.  Anyone who has a quality game will keep it in house because he knows he won't get any cash for trying to go commercial.



I don't quite agree, and I'll show why in a moment.



> In a world where theft of IP is legal, there is no economic incentive to disseminate IP, only altruistic ones, and very few people are prepared to produce IP exclusively for altruistic reasons.  Artists, authors, designers, etc. all have to eat, clothe themselves, house themselves.



There IS economic incentive to disseminate IP... but it's a much tougher incentive.  You absolutely, positively must "get it right" the first time.  This is because there is always going to be some time lag between the time your product hits the shelves, and a "mass-produced copied substitute" is available.  If you do it right the first time, by the time the copied substitute is available, it's "too late" to put much of a dent in your sales.

Exhibit A: The first Freeport adventure.  It's 100% OGC (I believe including maps and all - I'm not sure, as it was sold out at my FLGS and I never got a copy); legally, therefore, it can be copied under the OGL. * But it hasn't been.*  Why not?  Because Green Ronin did it right the first time.  Anyone who wants one has already paid for one; if I were to put out a copy, I wouldn't get any sales.

To me, what that means is that quality would go up - people would make sure they did it right the first time, and not lazily rely on copyright to protect them, because they'd know it's "get it right or die" as opposed to "hey, even if we get it wrong, nobody can compete with us thanks to copyright."  Truly, honestly, I believe lack of copyright would lead to *higher-quality work* because of this principle.  And those who knew they could do it right would still do it.

Just a thought. 

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (May 24, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> this would not be nearly as interesting or fecund as an area for discussion as the difference (if I understand the difference correctly) between The Sigil and myself about where the most basic rights are based in the creator/social relationship.



A topic on which we agree to disagree, and can do so amiably.   Still, the exploration is fascinating.  I have found that in order to truly understand your own point of view, you must be able to effectively argue the opposite point of view.  In other words, you understand the argument, while rejecting one or more of the assumptions/principles on which it is founded.  I think Dr. Harry and I do that with each other's arguments... and this makes for a discussion which is both civil and stimulating. Thanks, Harry.  

--The Sigil


----------



## Lazybones (May 24, 2004)

It seems that this thread has schismed into a divide between those that view copyright infringement as simple theft, unjustified in all circumstances, and those who view that it is justified for various reasons (rationalizations, perhaps).  Yet I think that one of the original points raised by this issue is how various industries, including RPGs, are going to deal with the changing realities of digital media distribution as time goes on.  Some of the posters above assume that a tamper-proof DRM schema will come into play that will preserve the power of the current media producer/distributor monopolies.  I hope that this does not happen, for reasons that I and others have discussed above. 

I think that the direct-distribution model from producer of content to consumer of content will be a better alternative.  The media conglomerates will fight this tooth and nail, of course.  Ironically ENWorld, I think, serves as a prototype of the new model; here we have gamers exchanging content on a daily basis, and a community that includes numerous small companies that produce specialized content directly to a fan base and who are closely engaged with that base through this site. 

OGL (and IANAL, so I'll dispense with the discussion of terminology inherent in this "license" scheme) is another example of this.  By freeing up content, you have a greater exchange of ideas (and The Sigil has already offered a rebuttal to the point about OGL constricting the diversity of game content, so I'll let that be).  I view the strangehold of intellectual property inherent in the assault upon copyright by the media industry as a last-ditch effort by these conglomerates to resist the changes brought by the new century and new techologies enabling this direct distribution model.  I view file-sharing as an expression of resistance by consumers to the restrictions that inhibit their ability to exploit this new distribution model (i-Tunes's success, even in a format-limited and heavily controlled structure, is an example of the demand for this new way of distribution in the music industry).  Others will see p2p as a bunch of hooligans stealing stuff because they know they probably won't get caught.  

I suspect we're both right, actually.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> A topic on which we agree to disagree, and can do so amiably.   Still, the exploration is fascinating.  I have found that in order to truly understand your own point of view, you must be able to effectively argue the opposite point of view.  In other words, you understand the argument, while rejecting one or more of the assumptions/principles on which it is founded.  I think Dr. Harry and I do that with each other's arguments... and this makes for a discussion which is both civil and stimulating. Thanks, Harry.
> 
> --The Sigil




    You're welcome, and thank _you_.  I am also quite grateful to ENWorld for the opportunities to engage in stimulating discussions of this nature.

    I think that the basic ability to discuss different points of views, even (perhaps especially) those that differ at a fundamental, philosophical level depends upon two criteria: basic civility during the course of the discussion and the conviction that while the other person may disagree with you, that person's outlook is based upon a responsible attempt to construct a worldview based on some principles that you can respect, even if the final result is different due to choices of emphasis.
     Posting replies that are rude or dismissive clearly turns people off at point one, and posts that say "what I do is OK, but anyone who does more than I do is going too far and should stop" are just so far off by themselves that they're almost impossible to respond to.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 24, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> You have not made the case that the author has lost nothing.  There are quite a number of posts arguing exactly the opposite, and to ignore all of those - and the rest of the post that you are quoting - to revert to simply a proclamation that nothing is stolen if no paper leaves the store it not reasonable.



 Sigh. Fine then if the Author has lost something by a hypothetical person looking at something via download and then buying it later, then he's also lost something from said hypothetical person looking at it in the store and then buying it later. The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ? Heck come to that isn't it by this a worse crime to preview something in a store and then NEVER buy it, compared to download it at home, look at it and buy it ? How do you reconcile these things ? My view may be overly simplistic to you but to me your's is precisely as lacking.  

The location of the looking at things, really shouldn't make a difference and even if it does legally, whoopdy the relationship between moral and legal is often pretty much coincidental.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

> Once upon a time, works published with an improper copyright notice (that is, the ©), went into the public domain upon publication. Many works now in the public domain are there because of inadvertent publication without notice. However, since March, 1, 1989, copyright notice is no longer required. Be aware, that if notice was omitted in error on copies distributed between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989, copyright was not automatically lost, if certain preventive measures were taken to cure the oversight.
> Copyright CAN in fact be retroactively extended and take works out of the public domain.




That is not retroactive extension or removal of something from public domain. That is recognition that copyright arises at the moment of creation, and does not depend on your (or your packaging department's) ability to remember to put that little © on your product, and that works were ERRONEOUSLY placed in public domain.  This is law, not "Simon Says."




> Originally Posted by Mary Bono
> 
> Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.




That is not the law anywhere in the world, that is a proposal.



> I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks under the current regime that ANYTHING will ever fall out of copyright again, since the current methodology is simply:
> 
> IF Copyright Term of Steamboat Willie MINUS Today's Date is less than 2 years
> THEN Extend Copyright Term.
> ...




Amusingly put.  All you have to do to find out if you are right is challenge this in Court.  A court cannot, on its own motion, decide a case.  Once someone sues, then the Court can rule on the facts.



> You've hit on the essence of copyright. The problem is, current media companies would adjust your statement to:
> 
> "The ability to make any use of IP is the essence of copyright."




The media companies had nothing to do with it.  First use, under the law, is already considered to be any use as long as it is within the term of copyright.  That is what they mean in the statutes when they say "exclusive" rights.  But they also spell this out with a list of extant uses and a catchall at the end of the statutes worded something like- "and other such forms as may be developed."



> If all I want to do is publish an adventure, why should I have to re-invent the wheel (a new game system) to do it? The OGL allows companies to create small "add-ons" rather than re-design the whole game system from scratch. This lowers the "intellectual" barrier of entry considerably. That means people can more easily support the d20 system. Because of all that extra support, "other systems" are headed for the discount bins, because they lack it...
> 
> I'm not sure which is the cause of the other, but I am relatively certain that the reason other systems aren't seeing the same level of support as d20 is that they CAN'T (due to copyright nastiness). If GURPS or Palladium or other systems opened up their rules under an OGL or similar agreement, I'm sure you would see them getting support as well.
> 
> It may be that those who are so desperate to hold on to "their precious" will wind up losing everything in the long run.




There were other publishers of D&D modules dating back to 1st Ed- Judges Guild springs immediately to mind.  THAT was perfectly legal.  What they could NOT do is republish the entire set of rules with additonal material to create a different campaign or new game.  Under the D20/OGL regime, licensees can republish the entirety of the PHB with the changes that make the game different.  Look at Dragonstar, Call of Cthuhu, Wheel of Time, etc.

There is a DEFINITE loss of creativity.  Look at the contemporary games to 1st Ed- ideas from those other competing games helped shape 2Ed.  Games contemporary to 2Ed shaped 3Ed.  GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller survived because they were strong sellers before D20.  They offered an alternative, not just in campaigns, but in overall gaming experience.

By way of comparison, look at the 2 major forms of home computers, Apple and IBM.  In the beginning, IBM controlled 88+% of the market, Apple 5-12%, largely because IBM PCs used the same software that people used at work, wheras Apple offered something different.  But IBM didn't control its IP, whereas Apple did.  Result-Apple still clicks along at 5-12%, but IBM has no more market share than any other PC maker- IBM lost, not to Apple, but to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.



> Quote:
> With that homogenization, we have gained conceptual portability-learn 1 game, learn them all. However, lots of character has been lost. Example, Traveller didn't use a decimal numeric system-it used hexidecimal (those silly math-heads!). It was also the only game system I know of that had the chance of PC death during character generation. Traveller D20 loses all of that.
> Again, lack of support is due to "closed content."




That isn't lack of support-that is a wholesale change in the character of the game of Traveller by changing it INTO D20.  Transforming the game via OGL took a game that was very different and made it into...just another D20 sci-fi game.

Don't get me wrong, I thing D20 is awesome (my second favorite RPG system of all time).  But it isn't the ONLY way, or the BEST way to run an RPG.  With game designers of today not flexing their intellects to try something completely different, we are losing the ability to think about RPGs in a non-D20 way.  Why is this happening?  Because under OGL, it is next to impossible to sell a non-D20 game.  That homogenization is definitely NOT good for the creative side of game design. 



> There IS economic incentive to disseminate IP... but it's a much tougher incentive. You absolutely, positively must "get it right" the first time. This is because there is always going to be some time lag between the time your product hits the shelves, and a "mass-produced copied substitute" is available. If you do it right the first time, by the time the copied substitute is available, it's "too late" to put much of a dent in your sales.
> 
> Exhibit A: The first Freeport adventure. It's 100% OGC (I believe including maps and all - I'm not sure, as it was sold out at my FLGS and I never got a copy); legally, therefore, it can be copied under the OGL. But it hasn't been. Why not? Because Green Ronin did it right the first time. Anyone who wants one has already paid for one; if I were to put out a copy, I wouldn't get any sales.




If a hacker had gotten a copy of Freeport before release and put it on the web in full text form, at $1.00/copy or free, the Green Ronin Freeport release could have been a financial flop.

Can't happen?

There were copies of the _Incredible Hulk_ movie circulating on the net before its theatrical release.  Yes, the big green guy hadn't been CGI'd into the scenes, but anyone who wanted would have been able to watch the entire storyline from start to finish.

Similarly, Prince and other artists have had album masters stolen and released as bootlegs before the bands could release their legitimate versions.  In many cases, 100K's of those albums were sold, and the subsequent legitimate releases don't sell well.

It is SO much easier to steal and disseminate IP these days that some bootleggers can pump out 100K copies of an album they got a week before release.  That could be the difference between a copyright holder going Gold or going home.

PS-that is why some of those infringement fines can be so high- they are aimed at the bootlegger making money from pirated IP.  The casual IP thief will not likely face that kind of fine or prison time, but it is still within the court's range of punishments.  Each case is fact sensitive, and intent and amount of infringement matter.

===
Spell wrote:


> You see, I could give away all of my CDs for free, if I get the radio play that Metallica are getting. I could sent it to your homes (expenses on me!) if I could get the crow that Britney generates. The amount of money that I could generate for myself _just by selling records_ is minimal. Gigs. that's where real money is. And not just for me, a struggling youngster, but for metallica, and britney, too. Gigs, publicity, merchandising. That's where money is.
> 
> It is true that a professional recording costs a lot of money. In my experience, just the recording and the manifacture of the 1000 CD is $15,000 - $20,000.
> You might be wondering how on earth I could have a professional recording with that amount of money. I tell you: my band mates and I are real musician. We record live in studio and make some overdubs.
> If Michael Jackson or whoever has to play his parts 20 times to get it right, than it's his business. If he wants to hire an entire orchestra to do a 2 notes background to one song, then it's his business.




I can respect that, but I can also add a different perspective.

Metallica gets airplay because their records sell, and partly because of an illegal practice called payola.  Payola is the practice of paying DJs or higher-ups to play a particular artist's music-and it even gets down to college and internet radio stations.  Metallica probably doesn't need payola now-any station that would play their music would be crucified by fans if they DIDN'T play the latest single- but in their early days, somebody probably paid somebody something to get their first single played.

MC Hammer, in his early days, sold many $100K of his work out of the trunk of his car before getting signed- it gave him leverage in his negotiations.

Gigs and Merchandise are indeed where the money is for any performer- sometimes as much as $0.65 out of every dollar for some acts.

But if someone just took your CDs and sold them, leaving you with a $20k bill and no way to recoup, what kind of economic state would you be in?  (Assuming you're not getting Metallica-level airplay.)

PS-Michael Jackson gets $1.20/copy sold, so he can afford to spend forever in the studio.
_
Edited to put something in quote box._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 24, 2004)

> The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ?




2 possible differences.

Difference 1) If you download and do not buy but also do not get rid of the download.  You still have the property as surely as if it sat on your bookshelf.

If you do delete the copy, you're just a browser.  It is extremely unlikely a court would find you guilty of a crime.

Difference 2)  If the copy you download is not a legally posted pdf, you are in possession of a stolen copy.  This would be (very roughly) analogous to either looking at a copy someon had shoplifted just as the cops roll up on you, or looking at a physical pirated copy in a store.  In the latter one, though, the store would be in trouble.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 24, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Sigh. Fine then if the Author has lost something by a hypothetical person looking at something via download and then buying it later, then he's also lost something from said hypothetical person looking at it in the store and then buying it later. The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ? Heck come to that isn't it by this a worse crime to preview something in a store and then NEVER buy it, compared to download it at home, look at it and buy it ? How do you reconcile these things ? My view may be overly simplistic to you but to me your's is precisely as lacking.
> 
> The location of the looking at things, really shouldn't make a difference and even if it does legally, whoopdy the relationship between moral and legal is often pretty much coincidental.




   What this comes down to is the _*action*_, not the intention.  (Although the intention might have an effect on the penalty, if you can convince a judge that you are telling the truth.)   If you shoplift a book with the full intention of simply browsing through it that night to sneak it back in the morning, you are still going to be arrested if you are caught with it that night, or if you are found with a photocopy that you made that night in order to "browse through it some more".  The difference would only be between which form of theft you would be charged for, shoplifting or copyright infringement.

   Yes, your view does look overly simplistic.  You might be able to see my view in a more realistic light by moving away from the idea that it is feasible to set up a legal system in which it is what you planned to do that is more important than what, actually, you did.  Yes, when previewing material it *does* matter if it is in the store or not, as in the store the "previewing" is still with the implied consent of the merchant.  ("Hey you!  This isn't a library, y'know!")

   Additionally, if the person in question is downloading the material from someone commiting copyright infringement by posting it in the first place, then your scenario should be changed to someone taking an illegal copy of the material from a person in the parking lot with the assumption that you will throw the copy away if you don't want to buy the product.  If you were found with the material that night, good luck convincing a judge that you stole it for purely altruistic reasons to help the company involved!


----------



## Kalanyr (May 24, 2004)

1) Yup, this I can agree entirely on, but judging by many posts in this thread from Dana for example, they'd be entirely happy for said court to find me guilty, and would do everything in their power to influence public perception so that it would. After all Dana was all about multiple charges for multiple downloads whether or not said downloads is still in my possession, and they would do so under the guise that what they are doing is moral and striking back at the evil immoral people. 

2) I was going to respond to this but it involves the whole possession of stolen goods thing which would drag this off into a huge tangent. Suffice to say yup I can understand your point.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 24, 2004)

Re: Dr Harry's reply: 

Ah, right so this is coming down to practical legality now, NOW I fully sympathize with and understand your point. As long as its clear its from a practical and LEGAL perspective I can fully understand it. Its impossible to decide anything on intention without mind reading equipment. But to say that its IMMORAL is what ticks me off. My disagreement is that its IMMORAL and that it automatically hurts the producer, mainly for a whole bunch of points that the Sigil has already put forward.

Edit: Its Dr Harry not r Harry


----------



## Spell (May 24, 2004)

In response to my post...



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But if someone just took your CDs and sold them, leaving you with a $20k bill and no way to recoup, what kind of economic state would you be in?  (Assuming you're not getting Metallica-level airplay.)




First of all, you are comparing apples with oranges here. Are you saying that anybody who has downloaded music actually makes profit selling the stuff he downloads? That just doesn't happen!
Those that are actually directly making money with downloads are the minority, by far, as far as I can speculate (and, unless a new research ha come out, my speculation is as good as yours). You might say that _those_ are the immoral guys... but I won't say it: they are behaving badly, but they wouldn't have a market if the prices for CDs, books, whatever were lower, and/ or if their customers had some morality, too.

Second: let's say that I make a record with a label. Everybody get it for free, and I sell nothing. I owe nothing to the record label. Recupable doesn't mean that I have to put any money out of my pocket. It means that I don't get money until the sells pay out the expenses. I can sell nothing, and still make a lot of money making gigs, and selling t-shirts... and with publishing deals.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question: how can you tell that downloading is immoral and unexcusable, when you have the RIAA guys on the other end of the table?
I admit that the RPG industry is way better than the music industry in this aspect. I prefer to think that the reason for this is that we RPG people are "better"  

But the companies could do more. I would improve the PDF size of the market, offering out of print stuff at a discount, and lowering the prices even on new PDFs, where possible. I do believe that lower prices generates more buyers and more money, in the long run.






			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> PS-Michael Jackson gets $1.20/copy sold, so he can afford to spend forever in the studio.



I think that Michael can do that because his label thinks that his CDs will sell a lot. The fact that he gets a high royalty figure also reflect that.
My 2 pences.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Do the record companies shaft new artists?  Oh yes.  However, realize that 90% of all albums released NEVER SHOW A PROFIT.  One mega-hit album, _Thriller_ being the best example, enables a company to subsidize a host of new artists.  Most bands don't have the money it takes to do a professional sounding recording.  Studio time costs hundreds of dollars an hour, some even charge more than most of my colleages do.
> 
> So, in stealing the popular stuff, you're keeping those labels from distributing albums,  paying the artists they have signed, and from signing other bands.  You're hurting the company, yes, but you're hurting the artists too.




Here's the problem: i haven't seen a major label produce *anything* i want in, say, 15yrs. How long do i continue to subsidize them (as opposed to subsidizing the artists directly), while they continue to, as far as i can tell, studiously pass over the artists i want to hear from, because they won't make enough money? So, while i may not steal from them, because they're not producing what i want to hear, i also am not sure i should judge it a loss if others steal from them.



> Ani DiFranco rocks, but it is the rare artist who can parley years of work into a successful recording career (note-not musical career- there are plenty of successful professional musicians who never record an album).  The advantage of the big company system is its worldwide distribution system.
> 
> Is there a better way?  Probably, but the transition will take time, and it is still not an excuse for theft.  In fact, I know of at least one system in the works that could make the record store (and the videogame store, and the movie store) completely obsolete while still maintaining the goods in their present form- cover art, liner notes, etc.  But you'll STILL have to pay for the music.




I'm not advocating free IP. In fact, i'd argue that IP is too cheap in the current market. I'd gladly pay *more* for my IP, if the money were going to the artists rather than middlemen. Even though that'd mean i'd get less IP, because i'm a long way from flush with cash. I routinely pass up $12 CDs in favor of $20 CDs, in part because those are the ones i want to listen to, but also because i'm buying the $20 CD from the artist and they're getting the bulk of the profits, while the $12 CD is in a record store and the bulk of the profits are going to the producer (at least ,based on what i've heard of retailer profits).

Me, i'm one who strongly believes we need to change the distribution system. And i can't completely discount the possibility that the current "downloading wars" may be, either directly or indirectly, an agent in that change. IOW, in the long run, the piracy might do some good.



> Destroying companies is anti-capitalistic.  Perhaps you're a socialist (I'm not using this as a perjorative, just a descriptor) who thinks Marx had it right that companies screw humans.  The problem is that human beings want to be paid for their labor, and destruction of capitalism runs counter to the best way humanity has found (SO FAR) to exchange goods and services with each other with a minimum of transaction costs.  Capitalism allows for economies of scale, international distribution, task specialization, and so forth.  Every small company "dreams" of being larger, if for no other reasons than the benefits of economies of scale and the ability to weather economic changes.




I'm not sure that i'm anti-capitalistic. I know i'm pro-free market. Problem is, i think that large corporations (and, no, i don't know the exact threshhold) are an anti-free market force. I _like_ the idea of people being rewarded for their labors, and know that pure socialism wouln't do this. Problem is, unfettered capitalism, at least as it has shaped up in the US, doesn't do a very good job of this, either. Look at wage trends in the last 30 yrs.



> Without big companies, you (assuming you're an average US citizen) wouldn't be able to afford a car or the gas that goes in it; a TV, a computer; and you DEFINITELY wouldn't have most of your utilities.
> 
> Your enemies aren't the big companies, but the people who run them unscrupulously.




I'm not sure about all of that. First, utilities are, IMHO, a very different beast. At least around here, they are heavily regulated gov't-sanctioned oligopolies or monopolies, and, while they may be big in terms of capital or employees, they (1) aren't big by Disney standards and (2) can't behave in the ways that big companies do and that i think are abhorrent. But, you are right, it is unscrupulous behavior that i really have the problem with. Problem is, much of what i consider unscrupulous behavior is mandated for any company, and the bigger it is, the stronger the impetus: putting the stockholders' interests first. My gut reaction is to champion the cooperative model, but someone pointed out to me that it has a different flaw: at least with capitalism, if one company you're invested in fails you don't lose all your money, because you can have stock in other companies; with cooperatism, if the company you're invested in (and most people only work 1 or 2 jobs, so would only be invested in one or two companies) fails, you lose all your money. Still haven't figured out a solution to that dilemma.



> Besides, your assertion is internally inconsistent.  If Ani DiFranco's label became as big as Bertelsmann, would it then be OK to steal from her?



You got me. It is not a perfectly consistent argument, in the sense that it relies on subjective judgments, often using imperfect information. I do my damnedest to know about the companies that i buy things from, and choose them as much on their ethical record as their quality of product (with price coming in 3rd place, at best). If DiFranco's label started behaving like Sony, i'd probably stop buying from it. And, IME, the simple act of embiggenating has a tendency to change corporations in exactly that way.



> And to drag this back to the original point-name an RPG game company that would qualify as big enough to be worthy of your "stealing from them is OK" test.




I don't think there is one--maybe Hasbro. Maybe. I've simply not had to deal with the issue, by choosing not to use pirated PDFs. But i brought it up for a relevant reason: not only to address your "what if everybody did it" argument, but because i think it points up a very relevant difference between RPGs and music. As others in this thread have said in other ways, many arguments that are used to justify pirating music don't apply to RPGs, and, as several in this thread have said, they therefore pirate music but not RPGs.



> _The above was in response to my example about someone taking a report from your computer and submitting it as their work_
> 
> Trust me- you try that argument in court, your client is going to jail.  To make it more clear, assume that the person who took the report was a "hacker" who worked for another company.  That is INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, and that is definitely a theft-style crime.




I don't at all disagree that it is illegal and/or immoral. I only disagree on what flavor of wrong act it is. Again, if the actual producer gets full due credit, than i think no crime has been committed. And part of that credit is appropriate recompense. Clearly, if a rival company takes the material and thus gets the contract, the creator hasn't gotten full due credit, even if their name is left on the report.  In this case, it is when the wrong person gets credit that something wrong has been done--whether that is a rival in your company, or a rival company.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Sledge said:
			
		

> Dannyalcatraz I think you are missing the point.  If I buy a car and lose it, I can refind it.  If it gets broken I can fix it.  At the very least after years of usage I can sell it for scrap.  If I lose my second copy of a book I own maybe I can find it.  If it falls apart, then I have been deprived of my "right to enjoy" it as you said.  If that right is something that may last longer than my lifetime, wouldn't a product that falls apart be theft from me?  If I have already purchased a book, and the store expects me to buy a second book because the first will fall apart eventually I think I would feel justifiably ripped off.  I know that most RPG companies I've dealt with do not expect people to buy a new copy of the same book every X years.




But why? Why are books still considered a durable good (like a house or car), while [just about] everything else is not? I'm not saying i *like* the situation, but it seems a bit inconsistent to simply _expect_ a book to last "forever" (especially the way a lot of gamers treat their books), while not complaining in the least about how often your lightbulbs burn out (especially given that technologies have been developed that could allow longer-lasting lightbulbs, but which aren't used in part because they'd decrease sales too much). Why don't you get to walk into a store and demand a replacement lightbulb when yours burns out? Why must you meet certain standards (less than X old, you didn't hit it with a baseball bat, etc.)?



> However the pdf as a replacement does not cost the store any overhead.  The store already has my money once.  (Or 5 times in your example)  I find it hard to believe that any store would actually expect someone buying a book six times.




If the product is poorly made, and thus expires before its time, then, yes, the producer should provide a new one. If it is well made, and the user is abusive or stupid, then, no, the producer should not. Of course, this is partly a judgement call. 

As to your argument about non-physical copies of purchased physical products: i'm not sure. I understand what you mean--so long as you only get the digital copy if you have purchased the physical copy. And maybe that's the way it *should* work. But it most definitely isn't the way it *does* work--and maybe it _isn't_ the right solution.


----------



## The Sigil (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That is not retroactive extension or removal of something from public domain. That is recognition that copyright arises at the moment of creation, and does not depend on your (or your packaging department's) ability to remember to put that little © on your product, and that works were ERRONEOUSLY placed in public domain.  This is law, not "Simon Says."



 Let me re-quote, with emphasis... the two paragraphs in question were referring to different sets of works; the first to foreign-published works, the second to domestic works...

_Beware! *Many foreign works that were previously in the public domain ... were restored to copyright in 1996*._

The claim was that nothing can ever be restored to copyright once it hits the public domain.  I was refuting that point with a counterexample.  It is a point of fact that some foreign works were at one time in the public domain in the United States and were later restored to copyright status.  Thus the claim, "nothing in the public domain can ever go back to copyrighted" is necessarily false by counterexample.  

Regardless of the justification used in restoring something's "copyrighted status," (even if it is on technicalities), the point is, there IS precedent for returning public domain works to copyrighted status.   That was all I was trying to point out. *shrugs*



> Amusingly put.  All you have to do to find out if you are right is challenge this in Court.  A court cannot, on its own motion, decide a case.  Once someone sues, then the Court can rule on the facts.



I refer you to Eldred v. Ashcroft, only one of the most high-profile copyright cases of the last decade.  The case was a challenge of the validity of the retroactive extension of copyright; i.e., it did not challenge that new works should receive the Sonny Bono Act copyright term of life+70 years, but challenged the validity of adding 20 years to the copyright term of existing works (prior to the Bono act, life+50 years); basically stating that extending copyright term on works already in existence was in effect "changing the rules of the game" ex post facto and specifically pointing out that a 20-year extension every 20 years was effectively the same as "in perpetuity."  The Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny Bono act, extending copyright for existing works by an additional 20 years, WAS Constitutional.

Thus, that very point HAS been challenged in court... and the challenge was lost.  The ruling means that copyright is for all intents and purposes perpetual, so long as perpetuity is only claimed one finite chunk at a time (say, a 20 year extension every 20 years). 



> The media companies had nothing to do with it.  First use, under the law, is already considered to be any use as long as it is within the term of copyright.  That is what they mean in the statutes when they say "exclusive" rights.  But they also spell this out with a list of extant uses and a catchall at the end of the statutes worded something like- "and other such forms as may be developed."



The media companies had everything to do with it, as it was the lobbying of Walt Disney Co. that has directly led to the past two copyright extensions.  As for the claim that the media companies would like to amend the statement to "any use of material constitutes infringment," I suppose you are unfamiliar with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act... this statute states that it is illegal to break the encryption mechanism that protects a copyrighted work for ANY reason.  Even though you may be attempting to use that 3-second cut of "Return of the King" for "Fair Use" purposes, the act of circumventing the encryption on the DVD to get your 3 seconds of footage is illegal.  The law is designed and intended to lock out ANY use of material, infringing or not.

I'm not making these statements lightly, do some research on the law.  Currently, a bill is in committee (introduced by Rep. Boucher of VA, if I recall correctly) to insert into the DMCA an exception for Fair Use; essentially, a clause that "circumventing encryption for non-infringing use shall not be illegal" (the wording is very close to that) and the media conglomerates are fighting this tooth and nail.  That they don't want even NON-INFRINGING use to be allowed tells me that it's not about infringement, it's about complete lockdown of the material.



> There were other publishers of D&D modules dating back to 1st Ed- Judges Guild springs immediately to mind.  THAT was perfectly legal.  What they could NOT do is republish the entire set of rules with additonal material to create a different campaign or new game.  Under the D20/OGL regime, licensees can republish the entirety of the PHB with the changes that make the game different.  Look at Dragonstar, Call of Cthuhu, Wheel of Time, etc.



I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case.  Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine?  Did they use THAC0s?  I don't know, so I can't address this one.



> There is a DEFINITE loss of creativity.  Look at the contemporary games to 1st Ed- ideas from those other competing games helped shape 2Ed.  Games contemporary to 2Ed shaped 3Ed.  GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller survived because they were strong sellers before D20.  They offered an alternative, not just in campaigns, but in overall gaming experience.
> 
> By way of comparison, look at the 2 major forms of home computers, Apple and IBM.  In the beginning, IBM controlled 88+% of the market, Apple 5-12%, largely because IBM PCs used the same software that people used at work, wheras Apple offered something different.  But IBM didn't control its IP, whereas Apple did.  Result-Apple still clicks along at 5-12%, but IBM has no more market share than any other PC maker- IBM lost, not to Apple, but to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.



I fail to see how the parallel works to illustrate your point.  Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. are and were all "PC Compatible."  It is also of note that IIRC, the "3rd-party platform makers" did not come into their own until Microsoft released MS-DOS and software and hardware were "decoupled."  The 3rd-party platform makes did not come up with their own OS.  

If anything, Dell, HP, Gateway etc. are the "3rd party" d20 publishers of today, eating share from WotC.  In fact, widespread acceptance of PCs did not occur until IBM lost its dominance - when it did, and you got competition for equivalent machines, and thereby lower prices, THAT is when the PC boom hit (at least, if my remembrances are correct).

Maybe I'm interpreting your analogy the wrong way... would you please elaborate?



> That isn't lack of support-that is a wholesale change in the character of the game of Traveller by changing it INTO D20.  Transforming the game via OGL took a game that was very different and made it into...just another D20 sci-fi game.



Is this a d20 failing?  Traveller did not need to transform the game to d20.  *All they had to do was release the old "Traveller" system under the OGL... which they were unwilling to do*.  I would wager that had they done so, they would see 3rd party product supporting the "old Traveller System."  It's pretty simple, actually... *game systems that have a low barrier to entry in order to support them will by definition have more third-party support than those that don't*.  The barrier to entry to support the d20 System is OGL compliance, and that's it.  Right now, I couldn't support the old Traveller System if I wanted to without contacting them, jumping through licensing hoops, and (probably) paying a hefty licensing fee!  Given those two options - "follow these free instructions and use our stuff free" versus "contact, negotiate, pay" which will you choose?  Most will choose "follow these instructions and use our stuff free." 



> Don't get me wrong, I thing D20 is awesome (my second favorite RPG system of all time).  But it isn't the ONLY way, or the BEST way to run an RPG.  With game designers of today not flexing their intellects to try something completely different, we are losing the ability to think about RPGs in a non-D20 way.  Why is this happening?  Because under OGL, it is next to impossible to sell a non-D20 game.  That homogenization is definitely NOT good for the creative side of game design.



*chuckles* You're preaching to the choir as to game systems.  I cut my teeth on D&D, but GURPS holds a special place in my heart.  Unfortunately, I can't publish products in support of GURPS.  I like some aspects of the Palladium system... and I can't publish products in support of Palladium.  That's not a failing of game designers' creativity so much as it is a concession to the current litigious IP atmosphere.

Note that I agree with you - homogenization is BAD.  But I ask you - if you have to get an RPG product out the door, do you want to have to build up something from scratch, run it by a lawyer (and hire one) to make sure it doesn't infringe on any of a hundred systems out there, and that just to START your product line... or simply use the d20 system as is and make sure to update your Section 15, WHICH WILL YOU CHOOSE?  It's the path of least risk and least resistance.



> If a hacker had gotten a copy of Freeport before release and put it on the web in full text form, at $1.00/copy or free, the Green Ronin Freeport release could have been a financial flop.



Of course it COULD have been, but you're changing the game here.  I said, if you do it right the first time, it will be too late to have an impact.  My example assumed the first instance for someone to copy something in a non-copyright world would be the day of publication.  Of course it is possible to hack/game the system and get it early, but that falls under plaigarism ethics ("I published first, it's mine") IMO.



> There were copies of the _Incredible Hulk_ movie circulating on the net before its theatrical release.  Yes, the big green guy hadn't been CGI'd into the scenes, but anyone who wanted would have been able to watch the entire storyline from start to finish.
> 
> Similarly, Prince and other artists have had album masters stolen and released as bootlegs before the bands could release their legitimate versions.  In many cases, 100K's of those albums were sold, and the subsequent legitimate releases don't sell well.
> 
> It is SO much easier to steal and disseminate IP these days that some bootleggers can pump out 100K copies of an album they got a week before release.  That could be the difference between a copyright holder going Gold or going home.



I agree with you there... but I have to assume that part of "getting it right the first time" is avoiding leaks.  We're talking about a hypothetical non-copyright world anyway, give me a hypothetical "no-leaks" world. 



> PS-that is why some of those infringement fines can be so high- they are aimed at the bootlegger making money from pirated IP.  The casual IP thief will not likely face that kind of fine or prison time, but it is still within the court's range of punishments.  Each case is fact sensitive, and intent and amount of infringement matter.



Agreed.  (sarcasm) This is of course why the RIAA has lobbied in the person of Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to include a clause that "placing a file in a folder shared on a P2P network shall automatically be assumed to have shared over $10K worth of material and be subject to the maximum fine of $250,000 plus prison time per file" - the fact that the person never actually distributed the file being irrelevant to the fact that the law is now defining possibility instead of proven deed as criminal activity.  Now the facts of intent and actual distribution don't have to enter into it anymore - just the potential to distribute (without actual proof of distribution) has to be there for them to sock it to you.  Makes it much easier to punish criminals, after all.  Similarly, we should fine libraries for copyright infringement because they provide copiers right next to copyrighted materials - clearly their intent is to allow you to infringe and we don't even need to check the counter on the copier to know they've allowed hundreds of millions of copies to be made.(/sarcasm) 

I have seen both sides of the issue.  Heck, I'm ON both sides of the copyright issue (as both a producer of copyrighted material such as E-books and music CDs an as a consumer of copyrighted material).  Learning about and reading up on copyright has convinced me that currently, copyright law is screwed up beyond belief in the U.S. because it violates some of the fundamental principles that I hold about rights, important freedoms, the nature of human beings, and the nature of ideas.  But that's neither here nor there.  I suggest you look at the areas above, where I have pointed out facts (as opposed to those where I have offered up opinions - which are just as bad or good as your own) such as the Eldred v. Ashcroft case or the ramifications of the DMCA (can you say, "DVDJon" or "Sklyarov") and form your own beliefs based on facts (some of which directly disprove some of your current beliefs).


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That Webster's quote is OK, but it still won't fly in a court of law.




You can't support an argument with the conclusion you are trying to prove. Nobody is questioning the current state of the law, they're questioning whether the law _should be_ as it is. Therefore, you need to support your position with something other than the current state of the law, because that's exactly what's being debated. Many of your arguments do this well. This one and some others don't.

And this, of course, is supposedly all about what impact filesharing is, or might be, having on RPGs. Where, again, the current legality is mostly irrelevant. The current filesharing would have exactly the same impact on the RPG industry (good or bad, strong or weak) regardless of its legality. Legality might affect how much people actually do these things, so i certainly see discussing what would happen if it were made legal as relevant. But simply asserting that you shouldn't do it because it's illegal is sorta circular in this context.


----------



## The Sigil (May 25, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> But why? Why are books still considered a durable good (like a house or car), while [just about] everything else is not? I'm not saying i *like* the situation, but it seems a bit inconsistent to simply _expect_ a book to last "forever" (especially the way a lot of gamers treat their books), while not complaining in the least about how often your lightbulbs burn out (especially given that technologies have been developed that could allow longer-lasting lightbulbs, but which aren't used in part because they'd decrease sales too much). Why don't you get to walk into a store and demand a replacement lightbulb when yours burns out? Why must you meet certain standards (less than X old, you didn't hit it with a baseball bat, etc.)?



I see the nature of the situation as being different... when I purchase a book, I am not only purchasing paper and ink... copyright laws say that I am also purchasing the right to the information contained therein.  There is no such "two-part purchase" involved in cars or houses.  I am purchasing the physical materials in those cases.

The copyright holder gets a "durable good" that cannot wear out and lasts for life + 70 years - it's called copyright.  Is it wrong for me to expect that my access to the durable good that is "the work" be made to less exacting specifications?



> If the product is poorly made, and thus expires before its time, then, yes, the producer should provide a new one. If it is well made, and the user is abusive or stupid, then, no, the producer should not. Of course, this is partly a judgement call.



How does one abuse the content of a book or CD (not the book or CD itself)?



> As to your argument about non-physical copies of purchased physical products: i'm not sure. I understand what you mean--so long as you only get the digital copy if you have purchased the physical copy. And maybe that's the way it *should* work. But it most definitely isn't the way it *does* work--and maybe it _isn't_ the right solution.



I see copyright, in its simplest form, as simply "I pay (or barter or whatever) the copyright holder for the right to access the information to which they hold the copyright."  That's what copyright boils down to, right?  I pay the copyright holder and they show me the stuff in whatever medium.

As I have said before, IMO, there are two things that you purchase when you purchase a book, CD, etc.  You purchase (a) the physical medium that carries the information and (b) a license for you to access the information itself.  The copyright holder does not "own" (a) in any interpretation of ownership of which I am aware (the RIAA does not claim ownership of the physical piece of plastic that is your CD, just ownership of access to the song - the information - carried on it).  So long as I am the one paying for another physical medium (e.g., a new hard drive, a blank CD, etc) to store the information in, I feel it is within my rights to move - or copy - that information itself, provided I am the only one using that information.  

This of course assumes that I am the one accessing the information on the burned CD or hard drive... so (b) is still satisfied (i.e., I bought a license for me to access the information; I am still the one accessing it; the license has not been broken).  I am the one who paid for the physical medium, so (a) is satisfied.

--The Sigil


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (May 25, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Where are you at?  I'd pay $20 for the Dragonomicon; please don't tell me it was at the Corpus Christi Half-Price and I missed it!  (The Corpus Christi Half-Price does have a surprising amount of 3e.)




Actually it was an example...I havent bought the book yet...a friend of mine did buy the book. I am not sure what he paid for it, but I know he didn't get it at a Half-Price book store. As soon as I get a chance I am going to look over it and see if I like it.

I have bought several of the Core books at half-price books before though. Just have a wait a few months after they have been released and they start showing up.

Later...


----------



## Greyhawk_DM (May 25, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> If the number of copies that exist is greater than the number that have been paid for, copyright infringement has occurred.  The copyright holder agreed to give one copy for X dollars, not two copies or ten copies.
> 
> Does that help clear up the differences among the scenarios above?  Legal scenarios are those that involve transfer of a single, "already-paid-for" copy.  Illegal scenarios are those that involve transfer of "not-already-paid-for" copies of a copy.
> 
> ...




Yes, thank you.


----------



## The Sigil (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 2 possible differences.
> 
> Difference 1) If you download and do not buy but also do not get rid of the download.  You still have the property as surely as if it sat on your bookshelf.
> 
> ...



Let me append Difference #3.

When you are browsing through a book in the store, THAT COPY HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR (by the store owner).  The control of that particular copy is out of the hands of the copyright owner, because he has been paid (Doctrine of First Sale, remember).  If the copyright owner doesn't want you to browse, tough for him - he has no say in what can be done with that copy; rather, the owner of the bookstore now has control of that copy.  If the owner of the bookstore doesn't want you to browse, he can take the copy away from you, kick you off the premises, and so forth.  The store owner is in control of that copy, and it is at his pleasure and whim that you are legally allowed browse or not.

When you are browsing through a PDF that you downloaded, THAT COPY HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR.  The control of that particular copy is still in the hands of the copyright owner, because he has not been paid.  It is at the pleasure and whim of the copyright holder as to whether you are legally allowed to browse or not.

Browsing is NOT a right, it's just a privilege that most bookstore owners provide you, allowing you to make use of *their* (paid-for) copy.

Geez, now I sound an awful lot like a soulless copyright holder, huh? 

Seriously, though... all I'm trying to do is follow the logic and get something that is universally consistent. 

--The Sigil


----------



## The Sigil (May 25, 2004)

Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> Yes, thank you.



You're welcome. 

It's amazing how hard we can make things that really should be easy.  It took me an hour of thinking and typing to just come up with that simple answer LOL.

--The Sigil


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Go look at the penalties the Verve had to pay when frontman Richard Ashcroft lifted a portion of an obscure Rolling Stones track for their _Bittersweet Symphony_.  He just infringed a little bit from a Stones song nobody would remember...except when the song shot up the charts, the Stones' legal team swung into action.




Semi-On topic: if it really is "just a little bit", i don't think it should've been ruled infringement. That's one of the problems with long-term copyright combined with very limited fair use: it limits building on ideas. But i haven't heard it, so i don't know how much was stolen.

Off topic: do you know the name of the song? I really like elements of Bittersweet Symphony, and can't stand other elements, so i'd be curious to hear something like it, yet unlike it.

_edit: nevermind. a bit of Googling turned it up._


----------



## WayneLigon (May 25, 2004)

The Sigil said:
			
		

> I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case. Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine? Did they use THAC0s? I don't know, so I can't address this one.



Judge's Guild used pretty much everything; all stats, equipment, all of it. In fact, I think they might have been the ones to _invent_ the term THACO; that wasn't an AD&D term until 2E as far as I know, well after JG had been driven out of business.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> Please see below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I was unclear. I'm not suggesting legislation based on motives. I'm suggesting exactly the opposite: legislation based on results. As opposed to legislation based on how you got to that result. IOW, it seems to me to be better to say that it either is or is not legal to have a digital scan of a book you legally own, rather than to say that it is legal to scan a book you own, but not legal to acquire a scan of a book you own. The current situation is, to my mind, actually more like trying to legislate based on motive, rather than action, in that it makes two externally identical results legally different based on how you got there (method in the piracy case, mindset in, say, a hate crime case).  Part of the problem was my choice of words: the "rationale" i'm referring to is the rationale for differentiating between the two situations, not the rationale for commiting the action/crime.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The Public domain isn't being strangled.  The Public domain is constantly increasing in size, daily.  Once something falls into the public domain, it can NEVER be copyrighted again.
> 
> Copyright is not perpetual.  While extensions are permitted, even the longest extension is still finite.  Eventually, the guy who got successfully sued by Disney for trying to do an animated Mickey Mouse ripoff porno movie will be able to do so.  Well, probably not THAT guy, but anyone who still wants to do that could.




Except that, for the last few decades, copyright duration has been steadily increasing at equal to or greater than the rate of time passage. If the current trend continues--and i see no reason to think it won't--nothing will ever pass into the public domain from age again. Only those things deliberately released into the public domain will be there.



> The ability to make the first economic use of IP is the essense of copyright.  Instantly dumping IP into the public domain does no one any good.




Has anybody advocated that in this thread? What has been advocated is terminating copyright after a "reasonable" time, with differing opinions on what that means. Shortest i've seen advocated was 10 years, which is hardly "instantly". And, in most cases, probably exceeds the significant profit period of the work.



> As for its affect on creativity- like it though I do- the OGL has probably stifled creativity more than it has stimulated it.  Sure, there are plenty of D20 based games out there, but they're* all *D20 games.  It used to be that if you bought a new game, you got a new system with it.  GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller are still holding their own, but I haven't seen but a couple of completely new game systems actually hit the shelves recently.  Looking at my bookshelf, I can see more than 60 different RPGs.  All of the ones pre-D20 are different from the ground up- character generation, combat, spell system, etc., even the ones that were trying to rip off D&D.  Since D20...lets just say that there are a lot of D20 versions of already extant good games from many companies- Traveller, Deadlands, Call of Cthuhu, Legend of the 5 Rings, The Trinity System, Silver Age Sentinels...  When was the last major diceless RPG system released?  Quite simply, new non-D20 games are handicapped in the current RPG market.  How is the critically acclaimed D6 WWII superhero game GODLIKE doing?  Green Ronin's Spaceship Zero?  In Nomine?  You should be able to find most of them in discount bins.
> 
> With that homogenization, we have gained conceptual portability-learn 1 game, learn them all.  However, lots of character has been lost.  Example, Traveller didn't use a decimal numeric system-it used hexidecimal (those silly math-heads!).  It was also the only game system I know of that had the chance of PC death during character generation.  Traveller D20 loses all of that.




Agreed. On balance, D20 System has lessened, not increased creativity in RPG design. However, we are luckily in a period when other production factors (easy quality e-publishing, affordable POD, online sales, etc.) have caused a simultaneous upswing in envelope pushing among commercial RPGs--you just have to hang out somewhere like The Forge to find out about them. Also, i disagree with the contention that systems like Storyteller, GURPS, HERO, D20 System, and other "mainstream" systems are really all that different. Conceptually, they're not significantly more differentiated than two D20 System games (such as M&MM and Spycraft, frex). Outside of the occasional innovator, most RPGs have been basically the same, mechanically. D20 System is just reinforcing this behavior and making it more obvious.

Oh, and don't blame the WotC OGL, blame the D20SRD and/or the D20STL--the WotC OGL, for all it's flaws, is not to blame for the homogeneity of mechanics. It's just a [mostly-]open content license. It's the material that's been released under it, and the trademark license that accompanies it, that feed into the homogeneity. That, and the current vicious circle of consumer demand and producer marketing.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The closest thing to a trust fund in the USA is the NEA, and you've seen how well THAT works over the past 10 years.  The only good, supported art is that which passes conservative muster.  Nothing challenging the status quo will ever come out of the NEA as long as there is a morality board overseeing the process.




Of course, the flaw there isn't paying artists to create (rather than paying them specifically for their works), it's using criteria other than artistic merit when deciding who to pay and how much.



> I'll say this, though- auctions tend to lead to higher prices than competition.




Actually, my experience is that it's slightly more complex than that. If supply significantly exceeds demand, auctions seem to lead to lower prices than "regular" selling. If supply and demand are close, or demand exceeds supply, then auctions seem to lead to higher prices. Problem is, the stuff i've always bought used is stuff where demand apparently matches or exceeds supply: I buy a lot fewer RPG books nowadays because they go for a lot more on eBay than i used to pay for them online.



> I know I don't tend to pay for things I have gotten for free, and I get free stuff (legally) all the time.




Well, i know better than to use myself as a representative data point for much of anything, much less economic behavior. But today on the way home from work i dropped $5 in the return slot of my favorite video store. They suffered some water damage (covered by insurance) in the recent storms, and i just wanted to help out, even though they probably don't need it. I also frequently pass on the opportunity to use store coupons at my favorite retailers, because i know that the savings for me simply come out of their income. For that matter, as a general trend, i'll probably give more money to the person who gives it to me for free than i would be willing to pay if the good or service was being charged for. Heck, i bought OtE 2nd ed _precisely because_ there was essentially nothing new in it, and Atlas had deliberately written it so that those of us (like me) who already owned OtE 1st ed would feel no "need" to buy the new edition. So i bought a 2nd copy of the RPG, effectively, just to "reward" the company for what i see as good behavior towards the consumer, rather than out of any economic gain on my part.



> Perhaps our hobby has more ethical types.  But people are people, so why should it be that ...um...the ethics of downloading differ between IP fields?




The ethics sholudn't differ. But perhaps the situations do. And, moreover, perhaps the behavior does. It is not at all bizarre to me to think that the very same people might behave one way when it comes to downloading MP3s, and a different way WRT downloading RPG PDFs. Which, getting back to the topic, might mean that all that data on CD sales and MP3 sharing we're all bandying about (on both sides of the debate) might be mostly meaningless to predicting how downloading has affected, or might affect, RPGs.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> The reason you haven't seen it _yet_ is that the technology is still being tested in real-world field conditions, a set of industry standards has yet to be adopted across the board (some international standards do exist, mainly for such specialized things as tracking animals), and the cost of the chips themselves needs to drop very much lower (for the supplier), as does the cost of the readers (for the retailer), for things to become truly ubiquitous. These are for the passive RFID systems that are the rage; the active ones have been used for the past several years in some larger inventory systems, generally with many different competing software platforms.
> 
> Wal-Mart has mandated that its 100 top suppliers incorporate the chips on cartons and pallets by January 2005, but at least some suppliers are talking about problems they're having with that compliance. Most center around the cost, reader confusion, interference from certain goods (usually ones that contain a lot of metal  or water), and unreliability - some suppliers are reporting as high as a 20% failure rate when most agree that even a 1% failure rate will put them in a worse position than they are now with barcodes.
> 
> So, it'll probably still be some time coming.




Actually, a couple of high-end retailers (clothes, i believe) would have already rolled out RFID inventory tracking, but consumer complaints caused them to decide not to. And while Wal-Mart insists the delays are due to technical issues, according to at least one article i read on the matter (Scientific American?) there is reason to believe that concerns over consumer backlash are also part of the delay, just not something they want to admit to publicly. Now, whether those early adopters would've had successful systems is another matter--it's quite likely that, had they stuck to their original schedule, they would've run into exactly the technological problems you describe. Be that as it may, it was consumer pressure that prevented them from even finding out how real-world performance was.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2004)

> First of all, you are comparing apples with oranges here. Are you saying that anybody who has downloaded music actually makes profit selling the stuff he downloads? That just doesn't happen!
> Those that are actually directly making money with downloads are the minority, by far, as far as I can speculate (and, unless a new research ha come out, my speculation is as good as yours). You might say that _those_ are the immoral guys... but I won't say it: they are behaving badly, but they wouldn't have a market if the prices for CDs, books, whatever were lower, and/ or if their customers had some morality, too.




My counterexample was apparently unclear:

You're correct- there are actually very few people are making money from downloads.  iTunes and the other pay-per-download are making money, largely off of the major acts.  However, if someone steals your IP, almost any money he gets selling it is profit for him.

In my counterexample, I wasn't referring to recoupables in the normal record company contract sense.

I was assuming that you and your bandmates had a private label and spent $20k to make an album, and your band does not get Metallica-level airplay.  Your music is stolen (either before pressing or after, it doesn't matter) and sold by the thief, not neccessarily in your core listening market.  You have no way of recouping (recovering) the money you invested in the album short of finding the thief with your money.
===


> Here's the problem: i haven't seen a major label produce *anything* i want in, say, 15yrs. How long do i continue to subsidize them (as opposed to subsidizing the artists directly), while they continue to, as far as i can tell, studiously pass over the artists i want to hear from, because they won't make enough money? So, while i may not steal from them, because they're not producing what i want to hear, i also am not sure i should judge it a loss if others steal from them.




This paragraph doesn't make sense to me.

If you haven't bought anything from a major label in 15 years, you're NOT subsidizing any artists on their labels at all.

If they haven't produced anything you want to hear, you have no "reason" to steal their product, so, as you say, you don't.

But because you don't value their product, you don't think its criminal if someone else steals it?  It is obviously of value to someone- the creator, the thief, and the intended market.

This is a classic legal slippery slope problem- if a law is not enforced merely because you find that the victim of the crime is worthless, at some point, the law will become unenforceable.

Or, to put it another way, if you refuse to act while someone is robbed your neighbor, your neigbor will not act when you are being robbed.  If you (and others) refuse to convict someone of CRIME X on the grounds that you don't like the victim, eventually, the state will not bring charges of comitting CRIME X even if the victim is a saint.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 25, 2004)

Re: Judges' Guild Modules


> I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case. Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine? Did they use THAC0s?




Yes they did use those stats, no, they didn't use THAC0s (this was before THAC0s).

Re: Returning from public domain


> Beware! Many foreign works that were previously in the public domain ... were restored to copyright in 1996.
> 
> The claim was that nothing can ever be restored to copyright once it hits the public domain. I was refuting that point with a counterexample. It is a point of fact that some foreign works were at one time in the public domain in the United States and were later restored to copyright status. Thus the claim, "nothing in the public domain can ever go back to copyrighted" is necessarily false by counterexample.
> Regardless of the justification used in restoring something's "copyrighted status," (even if it is on technicalities), the point is, there IS precedent for returning public domain works to copyrighted status. That was all I was trying to point out. *shrugs*




Something being placed in the public domain erroneously and then being restored to its correct status is not a technicality.  The foreign works in question should never have been placed in the public domain in the first place.  Restoring their protected status is no different than giving a kid his stolen bycycle back.



> I refer you to Eldred v. Ashcroft, only one of the most high-profile copyright cases of the last decade. The case was a challenge of the validity of the retroactive extension of copyright...Thus, that very point HAS been challenged in court... and the challenge was lost. The ruling means that copyright is for all intents and purposes perpetual, so long as perpetuity is only claimed one finite chunk at a time (say, a 20 year extension every 20 years)




Eldred v Ashcroft sits on my desktop in pdf form.  A reading of the 5 page summary of the 89 page case reveals much.  It does NOT hold that copyright is for all intents and purposes infinite as long as claimed in small chunks.  What it does hold is (in no particular order) 1) The law Eldred was challenging merely brought the US in line with other 1st world nations' copyright law AS REQUIRED BY TREATIES, 2) the extension was within the power of Congress to grant- rationale based on a bunch of cases, 3) the change was justified because of changes in technologies and other variables, 4) the extension granted by the Term Extension Act (CTEA) was no different than extensions granted by the 1831, 1909, and 1976 acts, 5) Eldred's First Ammendment argument was fundamentaly flawed,

Re-the breadth of copyright protection to all media forms.



> The media companies had everything to do with it, as it was the lobbying of Walt Disney Co. that has directly led to the past two copyright extensions.




I'm sorry, but you're incorrect.  The catchall clauses I mentioned go back before the megamedia companies were even formed.  Even in the 1800's, some legislators were actually visionaries who foresaw that there might be media beyond the printed word.  As the years passed, the protected media clauses became more specific, including by name the new technologies, but catchall clauses remained.

They are, however, the most obvious beneficiaries.

As for the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, the protection is there to prevent people from stealing the data on the media.  An unintended consequence of this is that fair use of the material in that form is not possible.

There is a simple, if time consuming, way to gain fair use of locked media-ASK.  So far, every time (but once) I have made such a request, I have been given the materials I requested.


----------



## James Heard (May 25, 2004)

> There is a simple, if time consuming, way to gain fair use of locked media-ASK. So far, every time (but once) I have made such a request, I have been given the materials I requested.



Of course you're a lawyer. In this world today I find myself often considering the notion that when dealing with lawyers in general that the best course of action is either full compliance with any request or absolute rejection. I know that any failure of mine to comply with even a simply request could backfire and cost me a huge chunk of cash defending myself in an area where I'd be defended mostly by my ability to afford to pay another member of the profession. Counterwise, by flat rejection I can only hope that sufficient will can't be mustered to force me by legal means. That's the essence of argument of the oppositional behavior of the RIAA lawyers in most of the infringement cases, when you're being charged with enormous and ridiculous statements of damages (legal or not it) amounts to extortion by forcing a settlement. I understand that's normal for the legal process, but just because the RIAA might somehow force a 10k settlement from 30% of it's customer base doesn't mean that it's ethical, right, or sane to do so. That the RIAA would no doubt cheer such as a victory and use the money to further lobby for more power to extort money from the other 70% is almost a given. It's an environment of greed and fear, there's no good faith in any of it. At this point paranoia would demand that I not give my _real name_ to any organization affiliated with big copyright. Such a dealing is almost guaranteed to be unethically balanced in my disfavor. Even if I could make such a simple, time consuming, request of a copyright holder I wouldn't find any assurance that it wouldn't lead to invasive scrutiny on some sort of suspicion of wrongdoing. Perhaps that's a misrepresentation of how things are, but that's certainly the environmental miasma that surrounds big copyright. It's much simpler to find the tools to unlock such media on one's own, and to simply not deal with the sort of people who are most dangerous to my way of life.


----------



## Lazybones (May 25, 2004)

Indeed, a system where you can be held liable for $150,000 _per song_ placed in a directory shared via a p2p server is only going to breed contempt for the law, IMO.  The penalties for copyright infringement have gotten so far beyond the pale that I think most people regard these laws for what they are, bought and paid for by the entertainment industry.  Indeed, the fact that the RIAA is suing users of these services for millions of dollars, and then accepting quick settlements of a few thousand, while a perfectly valid and perhaps effective tactic, smacks to many consumers as extortion.  

Thus far the legislative apparatus has been loyal to the corporate powers in this area, but I think that said powers need to be leery of stirring up enough of the lazy masses to drive a backlash. Legislators follow the money, _unless_ there's enough public outrage on an issue to threaten actual votes on it.  Witness the insanely fast action on the "Do Not Call" list last year...


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 25, 2004)

Spell said:
			
		

> In response to my post...
> Are you saying that anybody who has downloaded music actually makes profit selling the stuff he downloads? That just doesn't happen!
> Those that are actually directly making money with downloads are the minority, by far, as far as I can speculate




    The ones who download material illegally are the ones who are stealing sale by sale; the ones who make the material availible for download are the ones who are commiting the greater theft.  If someone makes 20k worth of copies of your band's CD and gives them away free on the street, the market for your work, and the financial damage done by the act are identical to what it would have been if the CDs had been sold.



> You might say that _those_ are the immoral guys... but I won't say it: they are behaving badly, but they wouldn't have a market if the prices for CDs, books, whatever were lower, and/ or if their customers had some morality, too.
> ...
> Anyway, you didn't answer my question: how can you tell that downloading is immoral and unexcusable, when you have the RIAA guys on the other end of the table?




   What you are saying here  - *explicitely* - is that an act is only immoral if it is the _worst_ thing going on.  Whatever you want to do is morally upright as long as *you* judge that the person that you are doing it to is worse than you are.

   Even within what I consider to be a dratically flawed argument, you have a problem.  You advocate downloading in thread about downloading, and its effect on the RPG industry, while also saying:



> I admit that the RPG industry is way better than the music industry in this aspect. I prefer to think that the reason for this is that we RPG people are "better"




   Thus implying that even within the worldview that you advocated above, this does not even fit your own criteria about when it is moral and defensible to steal!



> But the companies could do more. I would improve the PDF size of the market, offering out of print stuff at a discount, and lowering the prices even on new PDFs, where possible. I do believe that lower prices generates more buyers and more money, in the long run.




   All this exists (RPGnow.com, SVGames.com, even the direct to pdf stuff Malhavoc puts out; the growth of the market has been slowed and held back by the high level of piracy once any product appears in pdf form.

   Let me take this opportunity to say that I, personally, am very happy for the existence of the pdf market as I have no problem with reading pdf's on my computer vs. books, and my wife is very grateful for the space saved by having the stuff electronically.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> But are they different in a meaningful way?  What if the bookstore burns down that night, or if the thief is arrested much later, after the bookstore goes out of business with two copies of the book still on the shelf?  Is the thief less cupable if no "loss" is incurred by the store?




That's what i'm asking. An argument that says they are not meaningfully different might persuade me. But if you simply state that there _is_ no difference, it feels like you're jumping to conclusions, glossing over a hole in your argument so that it doesn't get exposed. I'm not saying you _are_ doing that, just that it feels like you are. It's probably just a difference of POV: you seem to see it as an already-answered question, while i see it as a significant point of the debate [on the legality of filesharing].


_(1) possessing illegally, and (2) denying someone of possession_


> Let's think of it as two acts, thing (1) and thing (2).  The difference with electronic copies is that we have considered (1) and (2) as linked for so long that if thing (2) doesn't come into play, there are plenty of people (some of whom have posted elsewhere on this thread) who see the lack of (2) as permission to do (1) to their heart's content - as long as "they wouldn't have bought it, otherwise".  After all, we can have a legal code with more than one crime one it, so we don't have to stop prosecuting for arson, et al.




Agreed. But i consider it a relevant point of debate as to how the situation differs when (2) doesn't come into play. How does that change the situation? You seem to be saying "not at all." But that doesn't make sense to me, because we clearly recognize in other areas of law that denying someone of their possessions is wrong. If (2), on its own, is wrong, and (1)+(2) is wrong, then it seems to me that (1)+(2), minus the (2), should be somewhat less wrong, because we're not doing (2), which is in and of itself a wrong. Especially since, generalizing over various acts that are usually agreed upon to be wrong, the relative magnitude of wrongness of (1)+(2) and (2) are comparable--one does not significantly overshadow the other. I'm not arguing for simple economic addition here. I don't think that if, say, stealing a $10k car and destroying a $10k car have the same penalty, that therefore the illegal possession part of the car-stealing crime must be valued at zero. Nor do i intend to extend that to claiming that pirating is therefore a zero-cost crime. But, at the opposite extreme, it doesn't make sense to me that it is "just as much of" a crime as stealing. That would imply that if you pirated someone's IP, and then later destroyed their version, you would've done nothing more wrong. After all, if the piracy is just as bad as theft, then you're already guilty of that magnitude of crime and you've done nothing worse by also depriving the creator/owner of their copy. Does that seem right to you? Or should you be charged with two thefts in that situation? IOW, is it worse to pirate a copy, then destroy the original at a later date, than it is to simply steal it all in one fell swoop?


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> On an different line of thought, I was considering how complicated reasonable copyright laws are.  For a single work, setting some period of time - let me just grab the random number of (roll, roll, roll) ten years - seems reasonable, but there are a number of cases where this seems unjust.  Consider an ongoing work; the Harry Potter series, or the Batman comic, or the Peanuts strip.  By having copyright expire in these cases, then J.K. Rowling loses the income from the first book in the series about the time the last one will come out; anybody can put out a Batman comic, and Charles Schulz would only have been in control of a tiny fraction of his work.
> 
> It would seem reasonable to differentiate between the ability to copy material and the ability to use the characters, though I can see some limitation based on a requirement to keep in characters in play to keep the rights protected.




Don't forget trademark. While the old Batman comics might become PD, Batman himself wouldn't, so others still couldn't write new Batman stories. I'm not sure i like this state of affairs, but if it didn't also change, shortened copyright would do essentially nothing to threaten the holders of valuable entertainment IP, almost all of which has distinctive trademarkable elements. Disney is in no danger of losing exclusive control over Mickey Mouse (or any other character) just because _Steamboat Willie_ falls into the public domain.

And, in any case, copyright renewals could very well take care of that. They should not be cheap--while initial copyright must be free to do its job, renewals could be expensive enough to discourage their use except for things like very valuable series. If i were J.K. Rowling, i'd gladly pay a few 10s of thousands of dollars to renew the copyright on the first couple of Harry Potter books until all of the series was out. It might even be possible to automatically extend copyright in some manner where series are concerned, though it'd take some careful rules to balance the benefits with the potential for abuse.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 25, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> I was unclear. I'm not suggesting legislation based on motives. I'm suggesting exactly the opposite: legislation based on results. As opposed to legislation based on how you got to that result. IOW, it seems to me to be better to say that it either is or is not legal to have a digital scan of a book you legally own, rather than to say that it is legal to scan a book you own, but not legal to acquire a scan of a book you own. The current situation is, to my mind, actually more like trying to legislate based on motive, rather than action, in that it makes two externally identical results legally different based on how you got there (method in the piracy case, mindset in, say, a hate crime case).  Part of the problem was my choice of words: the "rationale" i'm referring to is the rationale for differentiating between the two situations, not the rationale for commiting the action/crime.




   The means are important.  If you make a legal copy of material that you have legal possesion of, that's one thing, but if you obtain a stolen copy of that material in another media, then you have utilized an illegal service.  Zap.  At this point it wouldn't matter if you did it to read it to orphans, the illegal action (downloading pirated material) has been done.  In a sense, I suppose (though I would like to ask Dannyalcatraz if he thinks that this has any basis) that this is legally similar to receiving stolen property.

   The current situation is based on action: did you obtain material from an illegal source?


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> _Honestly? Nothing?_
> 
> I can only imagine you don't know because you don't bother to find out, because of your bias against corporations. Google for "[company name here] charitable contributions" and away you go.




OK, i should've been clearer. Those are not good things that corporations have done. Those are good things that their profits have done. Instead of one giant toy company fixing a thousand cleft palates a year, why couldn't 200 smaller toy companies each fix 5? Those sorts of massive donations sound impressive, and are genuine goods done. But they are not in any way unique to corporations, when scaled for the available wealth of the donor. And, last i checked, i found that most non-profits get most of their money from small donors, in the aggregate. 

And the very fact that those charitable contributions are a pittance is an indication of the problem: Lots of people give a significant percentage of their income to charities (5%+). A bike company that i buy most of my accessories from gives 25% of profits (obviously, significantly less than sales, admittedly) to advocacy groups. When i hear about someone like WalMart giving 25% of profits, or 5% of gross sales, to charities, then i'll definitely change my tune. 



> Need we mention Rockefeller and Carnegie?




If modern corporations behaved like they did (especially Carnegie), we'd probably be better off. They don't. They can't--their stockholders wouldn't let them.



> But let's talk about your favorite target. One (just _one_) of Hasbro's charities is "Operation Smile." The operation to repair a cleft palate costs as little as $700. A pittance to Hasbro, a world of difference to children in poor countries.
> 
> http://www.operationsmile.org/
> 
> ...


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Greyhawk_DM said:
			
		

> How does a store like Half-Price books fit into this discussion?
> For example I go to my local FLGS see the Draconomicon book that WOTC just put out. I don't want to pay the 40.00 bucks for it, so I don't buy it. Later on I see the same book at Half-Price Books for 20.00 bucks and buy it.  WOTC didn't get my money, but I do have the book. Was the book stolen from WOTC because I didn't pay them for the book?




That's why i won't buy books at Half-Price Books.

It's actually even a bit more complex than that. My understanding is that a lot of the books at Half-Price Books have been "remaindered". If i understand correctly, in at least some, if not a lot of, contracts with authors, a remaindered book isn't the same as a sold book, and actually has more in common with a destroyed or stripped book. In short, authors often don't get royalties on remaindered copies, or the royalties are significantly less than on retailed copies. There are rumors about that some publishers have been known to remainder the rest of a print run fairly early if sales are slow, because that gets them out of paying royalties on whatever further copies *do* sell. Even if this isn't completely true (or the news source i read glossed over a significant point), selling new books for half price, especially as quickly as Half-Price Books sometimes does, has a negative impact on new-book prices which i don't think is right.  I think they're a bit hard on the used book market, too, which is a tragedy.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> I view file-sharing as an expression of resistance by consumers to the restrictions that inhibit their ability to exploit this new distribution model (i-Tunes's success, even in a format-limited and heavily controlled structure, is an example of the demand for this new way of distribution in the music industry).




Yeah, i got a little kick out of the RIAA saying "consumers don't want individual tracks, they want free stuff", while consumers kept saying "if prices are reasonable, we'd pay for it, but CD prices aren't reasonable and we just want a couple tracks", and then Apple puts together the iTunes music store and, wham, sales from day one are off the charts. Not to mention the bump in sales when CD prices were lowered last year. OK, we now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Sigh. Fine then if the Author has lost something by a hypothetical person looking at something via download and then buying it later, then he's also lost something from said hypothetical person looking at it in the store and then buying it later. The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ? Heck come to that isn't it by this a worse crime to preview something in a store and then NEVER buy it, compared to download it at home, look at it and buy it ?




Up until a few years ago, it generally was. I don't think it was until the advent of Barnes & Noble (or Borders--which one came first?) that bookstores, in general, became reader-friendly (as opposed to purchaser-friendly). I remember being all but chased out of bookstores before that for spending too much time reading a book without buying it. Not to mention the ubiquitous "this is a bookstore, not a library" signs in most bookstores. It was precisely free previewing that gave B&N their initial competitive advantage--they made the bookstore browser-friendly, under the logic that it would, over all, increase sales. And they seem to have been right. So the question becomes, are crappy PDF scans of books the next evolution of browsing, and thus a complement to sales, or an end-run around buying?

Oh, and i might add that i still believe this way, perhaps through conditioning. I feel guilty if i read more than a reasonable bit of a book (RPG or otherwise) in the store and then don't buy it. Even though i know the store considers it perfectly reasonable behavior, i don't. 

On the flip side, that's also part of why i've bought so few D20 System books. Generally, i can get all the value i need out of the book with a cursory skim in the store--the core ideas are often simple enough to understand and memorize at a quick glance, the bulk of the material being the specific mechanical implementation of those ideas. And that latter part is easy for me to do, so i'm not inclined to pay someone to do it for me, unless they've done an exceptionally clever job of it. Or, to use common terms, crunch has very little appeal to me, because i can create my own with minimal effort; fluff has a great deal of appea to me, because it takes me a lot of time and effort to create myself. So i buy mostly fluff-heavy books, and most D20 System books are crunch-heavy.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (May 25, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> OK, i should've been clearer. Those are not good things that corporations have done. Those are good things that their profits have done. Instead of one giant toy company fixing a thousand cleft palates a year, why couldn't 200 smaller toy companies each fix 5?




Just another of the economies of scale that big corporations enjoy: charitable contributions. Yes, it would be great if smaller companies could pick up the slack-- but they don't. They can't afford to make charitable contributions for the same reason they can't afford to cover health benefits, or retirement benefits, or lower their prices.



> If modern corporations behaved like they did (especially Carnegie), we'd probably be better off. They don't. They can't--their stockholders wouldn't let them.




This is demonstrably untrue. Many (most?) publicly held companies have charitable trusts. Corporate conscience is another form of marketing; it adds value to the company, and is supported by the stockholders for that reason. By your own example, you prefer to buy from companies who donate to charity.

You'll note that in recent months, Wal-Mart has started making aggressive steps to improve their public perception. This was not due to any governmental regulation, it was due solely to market forces: you, personally, and many like you, shopping elsewhere because "Wal-Mart sucks."

This is as it should be; it just takes more time to move a target that large.



> I don't like the way that WotC is being run lately, but i didn't like the way it was run before Hasbro acquired them.




I guess the still unanswered question is how one goes from there to a rationalization of theft; with the very clear side effect of putting Hasbro employees out on the street and drying up Hasbro's profits, from whence charitable contributions come.


Wulf


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 25, 2004)

woodelf said:
			
		

> That's what i'm asking. An argument that says they are not meaningfully different might persuade me. But if you simply state that there _is_ no difference, it feels like you're jumping to conclusions, glossing over a hole in your argument so that it doesn't get exposed. I'm not saying you _are_ doing that, just that it feels like you are. It's probably just a difference of POV: you seem to see it as an already-answered question, while i see it as a significant point of the debate [on the legality of filesharing].
> 
> 
> _(1) possessing illegally, and (2) denying someone of possession_
> ...




  While I will grant that different criminal acts have different consequences, and that the penalties for those crimes should, in themselves, differ, they are both still crimes and can both still be wrong.  To shoplift a copy of a book is a crime with a given range of pentalties regardless of whether the store burned down that night, or whether the thief intended to return it after browsing, as the action is what makes the crime, not necessarily the intention.  If there is confusion on this point, it migt be due to me writing as this will also be read by those who have posted along the lines "It is acceptable behavior if it is not the worst thing going on" or "File-sharing is acceptable behavior if I don't like the company I'm stealing from".  I am not saying that you have advanced these arguments, just that my responses have been written to be read by more than just the person to whom I am directly responding.

  In its basic sense, and this may appear to be splitting hares, it is different to say that {(1)+(2) is worse than (1)} than it is to say that {(1) is less wrong than (1) + (2)}.   "Right" and "Wrong" are basic descriptors I use like "positive" and "negative - perhaps "Acceptable" (nonnegative) and "Wrong" would be better); there can still be a difference in degree.(Hmm ... you can see that I'm more of a DM than a player.)

  There is no difference in that they are both crimes and can both be wrong; they acts are similar in that they are both forms of theft.  Piracy is a form of theft, though stealing a pdf of "Waterdeep and the North" is different than stealing a car.  The situation changes "not at all" in the sense that a form of theft has been committed, though the degree can differ.  I feel justified in calling both theft in the sense of the legal definition of theft quoted by Dannyalcatraz a bit back.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> Just another of the economies of scale that big corporations enjoy: charitable contributions. Yes, it would be great if smaller companies could pick up the slack-- but they don't. They can't afford to make charitable contributions for the same reason they can't afford to cover health benefits, or retirement benefits, or lower their prices.




OK, my google-fu is weak. Can you point to me some figures showing that big corps, on average, give a larger percentage of either their profits or their sales to charities, than do small businesses? 



> This is demonstrably untrue. Many (most?) publicly held companies have charitable trusts. Corporate conscience is another form of marketing; it adds value to the company, and is supported by the stockholders for that reason. By your own example, you prefer to buy from companies who donate to charity.




That's a very good point. But it's the very fact that it's in service to marketing that it disappoints me. And worries me--because the impetus isn't "do good", the impetus  is "have a good reputation", and there's too much disconnect between those two, IMHO. And, in any case, if i had to choose between a corp donating 5% of profits to charities, or decreasing profits by 5% in order to raise their lowest-wage employees' wages, i think that the latter would almost always do more good. For that matter, the disparity between CEO and assembly-line worker (or cashier, or whatever) in salary is simply ridiculous. It's yet another symptom of not valuing the employee--how else can you claim that one person is worth, say, 300x as much as another to the business?



> You'll note that in recent months, Wal-Mart has started making aggressive steps to improve their public perception. This was not due to any governmental regulation, it was due solely to market forces: you, personally, and many like you, shopping elsewhere because "Wal-Mart sucks."




By sidestepping the real issues. Nobody was complaining that WalMart didn't donate enough money to charities. If they don't raise wages, eliminate the glass ceiling, provide proper breaks, stop tolerating sub-minimum-wage workers, and in other ways clean up their employment practices, they haven't improved their behavior. Based on their current tact (ad campaign, emphasizing charity donations), i have to conclude that it is cheaper to mount an ad campaign, and/or give to charities, than to pay their employees more. Which gets back to the whole "so what they give to charities--they're not giving enough money to matter to them."  Someone is not being generous giving up money they don't need. Whether that is a person or a corporation. Generosity is giving to others that which is of value to you.



> This is as it should be; it just takes more time to move a target that large.




Well, only time (and investigative journalism) will tell. I really do hope you're right. But i have my doubts.



> I guess the still unanswered question is how one goes from there to a rationalization of theft; with the very clear side effect of putting Hasbro employees out on the street and drying up Hasbro's profits, from whence charitable contributions come.




First, like i said, i've never put Hasbro in the "big evil corporation" box (whether or not that designation is reasonable). Second, speaking of corporations that i might advocate, or at least condone, theft against: --no, wait, i don't ever advocate theft, just condone it. I simply said that the Kantian test of "what if everybody did it" doesn't clearly argue against theft in those circumstances. Yes, at the extreme, people will be out of jobs. Yes, the pittance of those profits that was going to charities won't be any more. I'm not unaware of the consequences. That is not the same as saying that i think those consequences are worse than whatever damage the corporations are doing by their existence. It's the old "lesser of two evils" argument. It is also utterly subjective. That is, we can argue about the consequences, but even once we agree on what they are it becomes a subjective opinion as to which is the worse. Partly, i'm seeing this from a very-long-term POV. The damage i see IP-controlling companies doing could have detrimental effects (both direct and secondary) for centuries. A few tens of thousands of people out of jobs is likely to have effects that last only a generation or two--and possibly not even that long.


----------



## woodelf (May 25, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This paragraph doesn't make sense to me.




You're right. It was obviously past my bedtime when i wrote that.



> If you haven't bought anything from a major label in 15 years, you're NOT subsidizing any artists on their labels at all.
> 
> If they haven't produced anything you want to hear, you have no "reason" to steal their product, so, as you say, you don't.
> 
> ...




That's a very good point. For the most part, i agree with it. I never thought of this as a s lippery-slope issue, or at least not WRT who the copyright holder is (i do see it as a slippery-slope issue WRT to fair use, but that's another topic). The question becomes, what do you do about an unjust law? In this specific case, i see distinct shades of meaning and behavior, so that some violations of the law are moral, while others are not. But how do i know whether other people violating the law are doing so out of moral conviction, rather than simple disregard for the law? My argument isn't "because i don't like the victim", but, rather, "because the victim is somehow different and undeserving of protection of this sort". 

This analogy will probably seem really bizarre to you, but let me try it anyway: Under current law in most parts of the US, if you poison someone, it is murder. If they were suffering horribly from disease, it is still murder. If you are a doctor caring for the person, and they were suffering horribly from disease, it is still murder. If you are a doctor caring for a person, they are suffering horribly from an incurable disease, and they ask you to help them die, it might be assisted suicide, or it might still be murder. If your pet is suffering horribly from disease, and you poison them, perhaps no crime has been committed (probably depends on jurisdiction and circumstances). If you are a vet, and an animal is suffering horribly from disease, and you poison them, no crime has been committed. So, legally speaking, humans and non-humans are clearly distinct entities, and treated differently in many ways. Morally/psychologicall/sociologically, most people do not start down the slippery slope of assuming shooting people is ok just because shooting deer is ok. Me, i see a lot less distinction between humans and non-humans, so i think there is a definite connection between how we treat animals, and how we treat humans (not just on the individual level, but on the societal level). But that is, perhaps, just an article of faith on my part--i'm not even going to try and prove it.

Back to the topic at hand. You seem to see corporations and people as being very similar, or at least fear that society at large sees them as very similar. (_please_, correct me if i've misunderstood you.) I don't. I have no fear that society will sanction a given treatment of people just because it sanctions that treatment of corporations. Nor do i think that the typical person equates the two. But i could very well be wrong on the distinction between "megacorp" and "mom-n-pop store"--maybe it doen't exist, and/or maybe most people don't see the distinction.


----------



## James Heard (May 26, 2004)

> I guess the still unanswered question is how one goes from there to a rationalization of theft; with the very clear side effect of putting Hasbro employees out on the street and drying up Hasbro's profits, from whence charitable contributions come.



I'm certain that it's similar to the rationalization process that leads someone to willfully violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in an act of vigilantism.


----------



## jasper (May 26, 2004)

Quick thoughts
Global Economy Yes but not Global law as the gentleman from Finland has stated. He can download Shrek 2 in Finland and he is a Okay guy but if he does in LA Califor I A he is a thief.

Stealing Ideas. lets change from a NICHE hobby to some true gp. Jasper is a worker in the international Solar Battery Corp own by Robert A Heinlien. He completes his report on Ship stones and posts into a pdf on the company intradept web page. Along comes Kalyanyr who has access to their intradept web page because web master PirateCat has not block outsite IP. So Kalanyr builds a couple of shipstones (improved solar battieris) and puts him in his basement. Tells the power company he is not paying his power bill and wants them to cut down his power line and lock his meter. He enjoys free ac and tv and electricity and slowly pays off Southern Power until they remove the bad mark on his credit rating but does not allow Southern Power to rehook up him to their power grid. After all he has not hurt any one.  Who has he stolen from after all he spend $1000 on is Discover card to get his materials, He spend 6 hours learn how to solder and weld. And He spend 40 hours moving his D&D collection out of his basement to hold the shipstones. Who has he STOLEN from.

Hey  I have stolen from grocery stores.  I firgure out the pass code to the free copy the zerox the machine at school. I admit I am a thief in the U.S.A.  Those with full PDF, .doc, word pad, etc FULL COPIES of copyright material are thieves. IF your country aka FINLAND and other don't match the U.S.A. laws but you have copies of U.S.A product your are a legal user but unethical thief.

with all this bs I am remind of Patrick Duffy one of my high school classmates who proclaim some star ripped off some of lyrics. I never discover if he even when to court on the case.

And your point? Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase. The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads... from phork 
But a Physical copy does EXIST in the hard drive of your machine. You ARE taking up space on your hard drive /what other media  you use. and that media does have a cost, a price, and  a physical existance. Now Granted you can pack the complete works of Shake of His Spear on one Cd where it takes a six inch printed version 

Kalanyr I really don't care if you cut the corner of my lawn and  pass under the stop sign (city property) but when you stomp on my wife  tulip bed when doing so. You ARE doing damage. Now the question is will Mr. Kalayany be a good citizen  and apolized to MS. Jasper and go to Lowes, Home Depot, Walmart and buy a bag o Tulip bulbs Or start saying things which will get Eric Grandmother upset and cause Jasper to get his shot gun. Wrong it is a rational arguement with the attrachet nusicnce laws (hey PirateCat has a swimming pool and trampolie so he is responsible when Taylor trailor park trash sneaks into his pool and drowns because he didn't know how to swim)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 26, 2004)

> Can you point to me some figures showing that big corps, on average, give a larger percentage of either their profits or their sales to charities, than do small businesses?




By and large, they do not.  They do, however, contribute more in ABSOLUTE sums than small businesses.  Economies of scale allow things like that to happen.

Business 1 is a megacorp operating on a 2% profit margin.  They can contribute $100's of M's of money to charities and not even feel the pinch.  Even in an economic downturn that sucks up their profit margin, the megacorp will still be floated enough credit to survive, even while continuing to make those charitable donations and operating at a loss.  Even absent credit floats, the megacorp can sell off portions of itself- real property, physical plant, layoffs, etc, to raise cash to keep afloat while still making charitable donations in order to maintain its public goodwill (a VERY valuable commodity).

Business 2 is a small business operating on a 2% profit margin.  They may only be able to contribute a couple of hundred dollars a year to charities.  Any economic downturn is a potential extinction level event that will result in all optional expenditures ending immediately, including charitable donations.  If your only employees are your wife and your son, and your only real property is the store itself, you don't have many options.



> The question becomes, what do you do about an unjust law? In this specific case, i see distinct shades of meaning and behavior, so that some violations of the law are moral, while others are not.




The classic example of this is the struggle for civil rights equality of blacks in the USA.  There, people were denied equal protection under the law.

In the case of theft of IP, this is not true.  ANYONE who creates IP is protected equally.  They have the right to try to make a profit from their IP.  This allows someone to rationally undertake the research to create a new drug, or spend their retirement savings trying to write the next great novel because they know that if they succeed, their rights to attempt to profit from their efforts are protected.



> My argument isn't "because i don't like the victim", but, rather, "because the victim is somehow different and undeserving of protection of this sort".




A distinction without a difference.  If the victim is somehow "different and undeserving of protection," then the victim obviously has qualities you don't like.  If you can rationalize non-enforcement on such grounds rather than on the facts of the case, the law has no legitimacy, no power.  Arbitrary laws or arbitrary enforcement erode the fabric of society.  Such erosion can be serious or minor, but it is erosion just the same.

For example, if we don't protect the right of the KKK to have parades and espouse their message of hate because we find them disgusting, then EVERYONE's rights of free assembly and free speech are in jeaopardy because they exist only at the whim of the persons in power and law enforcement.

Similarly, if IP owned by a corporation is not protected the same as a human's IP, or IP owned by the rich is not protected the same as IP owned by the poor, your IP protection rules are arbitrary and cannot be relied upon for future planning.

I have clients who are constantly in fear of having their IP stolen, so they hold onto their music with a deathgrip.  They won't play their demos for anyone, even for focus groups, so valuable feedback and other opportunities are lost-those guys will NEVER make it.

But I understand their fears.  It is possible to get a perfect digital recording at someone's demo listening and have that song copied by another artist within days.  Once this happens, the legitimate creator may be unable to do anything, especially an unsigned or undiscovered artist.  Release their version-get labeled a derivative copycat; sue (if they can afford it)-risk ridicule and possible blackballing within the industry.



> Back to the topic at hand. You seem to see corporations and people as being very similar, or at least fear that society at large sees them as very similar.




Nope-only insofar as they are treated as persons under certain laws.  A corp can't murder someone, but it can be guilty of negligence that results in deaths.

In the eyes of the law, property crimes are property crimes, regardless of the victim


----------



## James Heard (May 26, 2004)

> In the case of theft of IP, this is not true. ANYONE who creates IP is protected equally. They have the right to try to make a profit from their IP. This allows someone to rationally undertake the research to create a new drug, or spend their retirement savings trying to write the next great novel because they know that if they succeed, their rights to attempt to profit from their efforts are protected.



I don't know if this is optimistic or if you're being sarcastic or what. IP is being UNEQUALLY protected, that's the RIAA issue in a nutshell. What else would you call a lawsuit of billions of dollars where the same amount of material actually physically stolen from a warehouse might only land damages in the tens of thousands of dollars in the insurance settlement. Then you've got those same people sending out lawyers like mafiosa armed with subpoenas and lobbying efforts instead of bats and horse heads. That's not equal, that's not even close. They've got no more equal protection than my crackhead white trash neighbors do in domestic suits compared to OJ Simpson. Except that in the case of Big IP, the government is complicit in supporting the activities. It's a wonder that there aren't actual physical turf wars involving guns.


----------



## Lazybones (May 26, 2004)

James H sort of beat me to the punch, but I wanted to address that same quote.  IP law does not provide for equal opportunity; in fact, the monopolies in the IP distribution industries (book publishing, music, radio, movies) are such that it is extremely difficult for new talent to break in (not impossible, but very difficult).  I know something of the publishing industry, as I've published some NF articles while I was in grad school and have tried to sell various novels over the years.  Salon had a great article about the marginalization of the mid-range author, and the cutthroat nature of publishing today; I'd link but I believe that the article is in their subscription section.  

I personally don't think that removing copyright from corporate control would be a bad thing.  Here's what I'd do, if it were up to me:

1. Copyrights could only be held by individuals (or groups of individuals, on collaborative projects) and would be non-transferable.  Individuals could contract with corporations to distribute their material, but the ultimate rights would reside with the individual. 

2. Initial copyright would be automatic and would have a term of 10 years.  After 10 years, you could apply for a 10 year extension for a fee of $100.  After those ten years are up, you could get another 10 year extension for a fee of $1000.  Finally, you could get one last extension for $10000.  After 40 years the item automatically reverts to the public domain.  

3. The penalties for the illegal distribution of copyrighted material would be a fine of up ten times the cost of sale of the physical version of that product.  I'm still working out in my mind if that would be a liability capturable via private civil suit, or a fine imposed and collected by the Copyright Office (1/2 to go to the owner of the copyright, 1/2 to go to the CO for its operations). 

(okay, #4 is my "down the road/wish list item, take it as such) 

4. Upon reversion of the item into the public domain, the Copyright Office would pay the Library of Congress to digitize the content (if not already digital) and place it upon a central public server for Web access.  This would be financed by the copyright fees noted above, and, if needed, by a 1 cent tax upon the sale of copyrighted material.  Materials too large and/or unwieldy for digitization/Web storage (such as a DVD movie) could be archived according to the usual means currently used by LoC and made freely available to the public for the cost of copying/mailing it.  Anyone could take such items and host them themselves, of course.  Perhaps the CO/LoC could establish a network of servers (at universities, etc.) who could host items that the LoC server would not be able to directly support.


----------



## isidorus (May 26, 2004)

Interuppting your regularly schedule program

Interesting conversation, beeen reading the whole thread. I thought I would through this out, since it came up on slashdot just a little while ago Slashdot on Pirate Act 

An here is a artcile about on news.com, interesting that the RIAA is pushing for this.Pirate Act * I would read the whole article since it is pretty interesting and relevant.* 

Do really need to give people a crimmanl record for copyright infringement?

Thought it may relevant to the discussions. I think things just became worse, since it seems the RIAA can sue the same people they already sued.


This is just going to have a trickle down effect. Sigh!

Back to the Regular schedule program


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 26, 2004)

jasper said:
			
		

> Who has he stolen from after all he spend $1000 on is Discover card to get his materials, He spend 6 hours learn how to solder and weld. And He spend 40 hours moving his D&D collection out of his basement to hold the shipstones. Who has he STOLEN from.




material that he built using the stolen plans.  I consider it grossly simplistic to take the attitude that theft only occurs when a physical object is moved.  The company is denied the profits that it is entitled to by law for selling the power source, if they choose to sell it.  The fact that it took effort to steal the information and put it to use is meaningless.



> Hey  I have stolen from grocery stores.  I firgure out the pass code to the free copy the zerox the machine at school. I admit I am a thief in the U.S.A.




   With the incredibly thin profit margins that grocery stores must subsist on, you are bragging about stealing from those who can least afford to lose money.  

   How proud you must be.




> I really don't care if you cut the corner of my lawn and  pass under the stop sign (city property) but when you stomp on my wife  tulip bed when doing so. You ARE doing damage.




  But if you don't support the community and bless the things that someone else does wrong as long as it does not affect you, why should the rest of us jump to your defense when it is finally your ox that is gored?

  It was difficult enough to work out what you meant in the remaining material so I just let it go.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 26, 2004)

Lazybones said:
			
		

> James H sort of beat me to the punch, but I wanted to address that same quote.  IP law does not provide for equal opportunity; in fact, the monopolies in the IP distribution industries (book publishing, music, radio, movies) are such that it is extremely difficult for new talent to break in (not impossible, but very difficult).




  While I'm sure that Dannyalcatraz can/will answer this more completely and precisely than I can, Your post explicitely invoked the problems that I think that your poet and James Heard's both had.

  Equal protection is not equal opportunity.  IP that you create has the same legal protections that IP created by Disney or Hasbro has.  Invoking those protections might well be more difficult if you cannot afford the initial financial costs to act in the same way that large corporations do, but in the eyes of the law, both forms of IP have the same rights, regardless of their source.

   The word "monopoly" is a highly charged word, loaded with such negative connotations that when it is not used properly it makes the argument appear to be demagogery.  It may be difficult to break into book publishing, music, movies, TV, but it is certainly not a monopoly.

    It also occurs to me that it would be funny if the Parker Brothers subdivision of Hasbro attempted to copyright the word "monopoly".


----------



## Kalanyr (May 26, 2004)

Re jasper: 
(Sorry if I've missed your point but I find your posts fairly hard to read). 

Ah but see downloading a pdf copy isn't stomping in the tulip bed (which is akin to going into the business and burning a copy without reading it), its more like making a perfect copy of the tulip and taking it home, you've lose exclusive right to the tulip you've paid for, yup, that is certainly unethical, my point is that its LESS unethical than digging up your tulip and taking it home with me (which is how I see theft). I think some people are completely missing my point I view downloading as unethical sure, what I disagree with is the notion that its WORSE than theft as the punishment the legal system meets out indicates, which is fricking ridiculous.  

In other words I see theft as a crime in magnitude equal to Destroy a Copy + Download a Copy, to me the idea that Download a Copy is equal to or worse than doing both (or even just destroying the copy) is stupid and not at all moral its sophistication by people fisihing for money and moral high ground, people are more likely to come down on your side if you make the crime look bad.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 26, 2004)

Hmm, I see I'm not the only one that is unsure of what jasper is saying, since Dr Harry things jasper seems to be for downloading and I think he's against.


----------



## Kalanyr (May 26, 2004)

Dr. Harry said:
			
		

> While I'm sure that Dannyalcatraz can/will answer this more completely and precisely than I can, Your post explicitely invoked the problems that I think that your poet and James Heard's both had.
> 
> Equal protection is not equal opportunity.  IP that you create has the same legal protections that IP created by Disney or Hasbro has.  Invoking those protections might well be more difficult if you cannot afford the initial financial costs to act in the same way that large corporations do, but in the eyes of the law, both forms of IP have the same rights, regardless of their source.
> 
> ...



 I their point is that the law regards the two as having equal protection but they don't, the corporation gets more protection out of the same law, becaue they can afford to. If the law says 4 apples = 8 apples, it doesn't change the fact that that's objectively false. The perception of equal protection doesn't change the reality that its not, because one side has more resources to use more of the protection.


----------



## WayneLigon (May 26, 2004)

jasper said:
			
		

> Global Economy Yes but not Global law as the gentleman from Finland has stated. He can download Shrek 2 in Finland and he is a Okay guy but if he does in LA Califor I A he is a thief....IF your country aka FINLAND and other don't match the U.S.A. laws but you have copies of U.S.A product your are a legal user but unethical thief.



Not sure just what the conventions say, but Finland is a signatory state to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Universal Copyright Conventions, they have bilateral copyright relations with the United States by virtue of treaty with us, and they're a member of the World Trade Organization. So I assume that there is some protection there; the extent depends on Finnish law and what that treaty is we have with them.


----------



## scott-fs (May 27, 2004)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Not sure just what the conventions say, but Finland is a signatory state to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Universal Copyright Conventions, they have bilateral copyright relations with the United States by virtue of treaty with us, and they're a member of the World Trade Organization. So I assume that there is some protection there; the extent depends on Finnish law and what that treaty is we have with them.




Canada likewise is a signatory to the Berne Convention.  Earlier in this thread I mentioned that in Canada it is quite legal to download (it's always been legal to download since copyright infringement (which this is) is all about distribution, and not theft (as in taking something which isn't yours)).  Recently the court's have decided that placing something in a folder that happens to be accessible to the outside world is not infringement as long as you do not promote that it is there.  Once you start advertising that it is there (through a downloads website, for instance), you are infringing on the copyright.

If it matters, we in Canada (as well as atleast 24 other countries including most G-7 and European Union countries) pay for piracy indirectly by having a levy charged on recordable media and non-removable memory in digital audio recorders that goes to an organization which then distributes it to music copyright holders.  The only problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the many other copyright holders that should receive these levies.  Software (video games, etc) and movies, most notably, since in my experience cds are used more often to make copies of games, programs, and movies, rather than as music cds.

I guess all these writers are also missing out on a revenue stream, since putting illegal copies of products to give to someone else has also been one use of blank cds.

Currently the levy in Canada is $0.21 per cdr.  You can get blank cdrs for about $30/100, which means that over two-thirds the cost to purchase blank cds is going to copyright holders.  For non-removable memory, it's $25/device.

Below is a good article that I think everyone should read.

Canadian Copyright Levy Info 


There is also something very interesting as well.  Apparently it is legal to borrow a copy of a cd from a friend, make a copy for yourself, and use that for personal uses, giving the original back to your friend.  You can't copy his cd for his use, even if he owns the original, but you don't need to have an original for it to be legal.

On the other hand, don't consider this site to be legal advice.

One other interesting note, the CPCC (organization in charge of collecting levies), had proposed a levy of $21/GB for mp3 players.  The site gives an example of Apple's 40BG Ipod, which sells for $754 CDN.  If the levy had gone through $840 would be added to the Ipods price.  The CPCC later revised their proposed levy, but you'd still be paying a levy of $150.  In a final revision in December 2003, they decided that the levy would be $25 for a device that can record more than 10GB of data.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 27, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> Hmm, I see I'm not the only one that is unsure of what jasper is saying, since Dr Harry things jasper seems to be for downloading and I think he's against.




At least we have both possibilities covered.


----------



## Dr. Harry (May 27, 2004)

Kalanyr said:
			
		

> I their point is that the law regards the two as having equal protection but they don't, the corporation gets more protection out of the same law, becaue they can afford to. The perception of equal protection doesn't change the reality that its not, because one side has more resources to use more of the protection.




  I would not say the "percetion" of equal protection, because while an individual or smaller corporation is less likely to have the resources to actively defend their copyright in the sense of instituting lawsuits, there is no legal difference between the two copyrights in theory or in court if the infringed party pursues a complaint or risks a lawsuit.  In other words, any flaw has to do with the fact that rich people have it easier, *not* with the law itself.  Without going into political proposals on what should be changed (cue up Aerosmith's "Eat the Rich"), the best non-political way to make all copyrights be created equal is to rigorously and actively defend copyright; this would have the result of triggering action on the sites distributing illegal copies of works of small companies, which would dry up the sites where people are downloading game products.

   Before we spend a great deal of energy on this, and before we trigger posts of "since copyright laws aren't perfect I have the right to break them when it is convenient for me", does anyone have any actual examples of smaller companies/individuals getting shafted by having their copyright encrouched upon?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (May 27, 2004)

> the corporation gets more protection out of the same law, becaue they can afford to.  If the law says 4 apples = 8 apples, it doesn't change the fact that that's objectively false. The perception of equal protection doesn't change the reality that its not, because one side has more resources to use more of the protection.




So your complaint is that IP protection is unfair because Disney can pay to enforce its copyright with a wall of attorneys and you can't?  That's not the law's fault- that's life.

You, the underdog, have the same bundle of rights in your IP as any powerful IP holder has in its IP, and those rights* arise at the moment of creation*.  The original movie you make is just as protected as Disney's.  Your novel is just as protected as Stephen King's.  Your song is just as protected as Metallica's.

The difference is that you might not be able to afford a lawyer to defend your rights, and every other IP holder above can.  The only time you're entitled to free legal councel is when you're destitute and charged with a crime,  and trust me, the attorney you get for free may be high quality, but he has less time to work on your case than a hired gun.

That is not something the law can readily address.  That is where the private citizen must step up to the plate.  For the record, you're starting to see more attorneys take on copyright infringement cases on a contingent fee basis- if they don't win, they don't get paid.  And, much like Barry Sheck has his Innocence Project, which tries to get DNA tests done for indigent persons on death row (pro bono), perhaps someone will eventually form an analogous organization for low-income IP holders, prosecuting their cases for nominal fees.  Heck, perhaps Ralph Nader's crowd is already doing this.

Until then, you can always learn your copyright law well enough to proceed pro se and protect your own rights.  Yes, its a scary process, but the courts generally grant pro se plaintiffs a lot more leeway in a courtroom since they are amateurs.  The essentials of an infringement case are 1) proving you created the IP, 2) the accused subsequently violated your copyright by using your IP without permission and in a fashion not protected by the fair use doctrine, 3) a reasonably certain number of times or with a reasonably certain dollar amount of harm.

Plus, if you get enough publicity (perhaps due to an anonymous call to your local media watchdog?), you might just become the proverbial ambulance getting chased.




> There is also something very interesting as well. Apparently it is legal to borrow a copy of a cd from a friend, make a copy for yourself, and use that for personal uses, giving the original back to your friend. You can't copy his cd for his use, even if he owns the original, but you don't need to have an original for it to be legal.




Actually, that's still piracy, but it is on so small a scale it is what an economist and the law would call "optimal-level piracy."  That is, it would cost the company more money to go after you for 1 infringement than to ignore it or let you go with a warning.  To enforce the law perfectly would be so prohibitively expensive, its the economic equivalent of trying to accelerate a given mass to the speed of light.  The only way you'll get in trouble for a solo copy scenario like this is by doing it in a blatantly stupid way- like burning the whole CD at Sony Music's headquarters in front of the artist and the company president.



> Do really need to give people a crimmanl record for copyright infringement?




What has the music and movie industry (as well as other IP holders) quivering is the ability of one person to upload a copy, and have millions of people download it all over the world, especially since it is obvious that the technology of electronic IP distribution will only become faster (I'm peripherally involved in one such project).  Past pirates needed to make physical copies, which required a lot of time, a factory and all kinds of machinery (all the same kinds of overhead as a legitimate producer).  In fact, many piracy busts happened in factories doing legitimate production- they just ran off an extra 125k copies of the IP in question during off-peak hours, and they had to sell physical product just like the normal retailers.  Modern potential pirates only need a computer- insignificant overhead and a negligible time investment- and due to anonymous P2P filesharing, its MUCH harder to track the infringement.  If you look at the people the RIAA has gone after so far, they all stockpiled illegally downloaded IP- not a one was a first-time offender.  Note also that the settlements have so far averaged around $3000, probably about the value of the stolen merch, + some nominal penalties, including, I think, probation.


----------



## scott-fs (May 27, 2004)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, that's still piracy, but it is on so small a scale it is what an economist and the law would call "optimal-level piracy."




Well, while I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the source, in the disclaimer section he says that while he isn't a lawyer, he has discussed a number of points with a lawyer.

As well, if I didn't make it clear before, this is from Canada, so if you are from the US, this won't apply to you, though it would be good to be aware of it.

I posted my previous message, and another one sometime around page 13-14 for informational purposes only, to provide some perspective on this issue, so that everyone comes away from this discussion knowing that there are some countries where it is legal to do some of the activities, others disagree with.  Content creators/copyright owners might not like it, but it is legal to download and share files in Canada (as long as you're not making a positive action to distribute).  It might not be considered morally or ethically right to download something for free, without paying the creator, but legally it is ok.  As I've said in the past, if I download something that I use and like very much, I will pay the creator, as my financial situation will allow.

Regarding copying a cd borrowed from a friend:



> Can I legally copy music CDs for my friends?
> 
> The simple answer is NO, but you can legally copy your friend's music CD for YOUR OWN use.
> 
> ...


----------

