TheRPGSite

The Lounge => Media and Inspiration => Topic started by: Spinachcat on December 10, 2008, 04:26:11 PM

Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 10, 2008, 04:26:11 PM
Is it wrong to download a PDF scan of an OOP book if the book will never be published again as either dead tree or PDF?  

Examples include:
Star Wars D6
FASA Star Trek
Dune
Ghostbusters
MERP
...and pretty much all other OOP licensed RPGs.

I doubt anyone would say that buying a used copy of these books from eBay would be wrong.  But the original creator and the licensee get no money from any eBay sale or other used book sale.  Same with a PDF download of the same product.  

So...what say you?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Serious Paul on December 10, 2008, 05:02:15 PM
Maybe this makes me a bad guy, but I would, and wouldn't care much about the ethics discussion, which would never really be had.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: OneTinSoldier on December 10, 2008, 05:08:26 PM
I don't see an ethics issue; if you can't get a copy of the material, downloading a pdf isn't hurting the publisher, as its not costing them a sale. Its only if the download of a scanned copy circumvents a sale that I think you've crossed the line into a wrong action.

At least, that's how I justified downloading pdfs of the entire MERP line. :o
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ian Absentia on December 10, 2008, 05:21:02 PM
I haven't done this with RPG material, but I have done it with music.  Just recently, after spending months in futile search for a boxed set of CDs that has been OOP for at least half a decade, I Googled up a listing for it on a torrent site.  Two hours later, I had the music on my hard drive and was happily listening to it.

The way I figured it, neither the artist nor the publisher would have benefited from the sale had I been able to locate an after-market copy.  Furthermore, the dissemination of a lower-quality recording with no attractive packaging will, at worst, spark the interest of people who never would have heard the music in the first place, and, at best, perhaps inspire a re-issue of the original, high-quality production.

To be clear, if the product had still been in print, or even readily available but used, I wouldn't have bought an unauthorised duplicate.  And, to be to the point, my attitude toward OOP RPG material is essentially the same.

!i!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Mcrow on December 10, 2008, 05:33:04 PM
I would say the ethics are fine. There are no purchase options availible that would result in the publisher/writer/designer their cut.

Now this would be totally different if someone were to hold the rights to the books.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: bottg on December 10, 2008, 06:24:29 PM
The interesting current example would be Dragon Warriors.

OOP for many years and available from a download site (still).  Now it has been re-released, those downloads become illegal.

I did download them from there, but as with several others above, i would not have done that had they been available at the time, and as soon as i can afford DW, i will get the legal copy.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: P&P on December 10, 2008, 06:45:44 PM
Other:  I'll download a .pdf of a product provided I've

(a) legitimately purchased it in print; and
(b) not sold it or given it away.

The .pdfs of my 1e stuff are handy to have on my USB drive and I'm damned if I'll pay for them, since I've bought them once already.  The free download sites aren't circumventing copyright for me, they're simply saving me the scanning.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: KenHR on December 10, 2008, 06:49:08 PM
Quote from: P&P;272812
Other:  I'll download a .pdf of a product provided I've

(a) legitimately purchased it in print; and
(b) not sold it or given it away.

The .pdfs of my 1e stuff are handy to have on my USB drive and I'm damned if I'll pay for them, since I've bought them once already.  The free download sites aren't circumventing copyright for me, they're simply saving me the scanning.


This.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Kyle Aaron on December 10, 2008, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;272773
I doubt anyone would say that buying a used copy of these books from eBay would be wrong.  But the original creator and the licensee get no money from any eBay sale or other used book sale.  Same with a PDF download of the same product.  
Again, copyright in itself has nothing to do with money. It's the right to control who makes what kind of copies of your work. A copyright violation is a copyright violation, whether the copyrighter gains, loses or breaks even money-wise as a result.

It's a bit like someone setting up a tent and passing out cooked sausages on my front lawn. It's trespass. Whether he's making money from it, or offers me some sausages or cash, doesn't matter - he's making use of my property without my permission.

That said, copyright is not that only thing at stake. The other is that we want to encourage people to keep creating stuff, rather than creating one thing and then sitting on it for decades.

Patents for inventions and processes are things which expire and enter the public domain after several years, this is because we want things protected just enough to encourage people to invent new stuff, but not so much that they can hog the production all to themselves, we want society to progress. It would not benefit the world if Ford's engine of 1908 were still patented and Ford wouldn't let anyone else in the world develop anything derived from that. So patents expire.

I believe copyright should expire, too - and life of authour plus 75 years is too long a period. Something like 15 years, as with patents in many countries, that ought to be enough. This is long enough that the original creator gets to make a profit from it if they want to, but short enough to encourage them to keep creating more stuff.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Nicephorus on December 10, 2008, 07:49:22 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;272819
Again, copyright in itself has nothing to do with money. It's the right to control who makes what kind of copies of your work. A copyright violation is a copyright violation, whether the copyrighter gains, loses or breaks even money-wise as a result.

True.  But the discussion was more about ethics than law.  

I agree that copyright terms have gotten too long.  A flat 20-30 years, not tied to author death would be fine.  As it stands, the time limits serve mainly to make sure that the grandkids of famous authors never have to work.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Kyle Aaron on December 10, 2008, 08:05:13 PM
Quote from: Nicephorus;272831
True.  But the discussion was more about ethics than law.  
And in the case of copyright, what I described was the ethical as well as the legal position. Copyright is about money, it's about control of the reproduction of your creative work. Copyright and its violation have the same relationship to intellectual property that privacy and trespass have to physical property.

Some things are plainly unethical but should not be illegal, like day-to-day lying or adultery; some things are illegal but definitely not unethical, like stealing drugs from your kid to throw them away, or planting trees on disused land, or squatting in disused buildings.

However, copyright in its basic principles of the right to control reproductions of your work, that is both the law and the ethics. It's important to distinguish between copyright and money, otherwise you get muddled and call it "theft" - when it's not. If I take naked pictures of you and your wife having sex without your knowledge, post them online and make money from them, even if I send you the money I've violated your privacy. Calling it "theft" confuses the real issue, which is your privacy.

Likewise with copyright.

Quote from: Nicephorus
I agree that copyright terms have gotten too long.  A flat 20-30 years, not tied to author death would be fine.  As it stands, the time limits serve mainly to make sure that the grandkids of famous authors never have to work.
Yes, but that's not their intention. They didn't extend copyright so that Christpher Robin could live on the French Riviera. It was for the movie companies.

Because film company executives, being stupid and uncreative people, cannot imagine how anyone could create any new content in a mere 30 years.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 10, 2008, 08:45:22 PM
Given the way this is phrased, and the examples, I see no issue.

The salient question for me would be: Is there a chance in hell this game will ever be reprinted? If not, I'm not depriving anyone who matters of their rightful due.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 10, 2008, 09:53:47 PM
What if, say, something was printed in a limited quantity, on purpose, and now is out of print. Does that justify grabbing a copy?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Nicephorus on December 11, 2008, 06:25:43 AM
Kyle, I don't need a lecture on copyright, I understand the issue.  

The difference between ethics and law applies in this particular case.  It's illegal in the U.S.  But it's essentially an abandoned item, it's better that it doesn't die than to respect the copyright.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Serious Paul on December 11, 2008, 10:09:19 AM
Quote from: CavScout;272844
What if, say, something was printed in a limited quantity, on purpose, and now is out of print. Does that justify grabbing a copy?

 
My answer remains unchanged.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 11, 2008, 10:50:42 AM
Quote from: Nicephorus;272831
True.  But the discussion was more about ethics than law.  

I agree that copyright terms have gotten too long.  A flat 20-30 years, not tied to author death would be fine.  As it stands, the time limits serve mainly to make sure that the grand kids of famous authors never have to work.


First I will address this off topic subject cause its strikes very close to my heart.

   You say copyright terms are too long. Lets take a quick look at Disney animated movies. How many of their "Products" were a part of Public Domain. Um Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White, These are all clearly franchise animations. They are simply the foundation which created the Disney Empire. These legends and folk tales were all apart of Public Domain Information.
   Now fast forward to today. You are a writer/artist you created a little known product and due to your shamefully low budget it got little notice. Disney would then be in it rights to swoop in, snatch up your little homespun project, and make millions on it. All the while you still live in your trailer and plug away at your shitty 50 hr a week factory job.
  Is this extreme? Sure. But it could be Real? Our government is currently trying to change copy wright laws (thanks to lobbyists) to benefit the big guys. This would in no way encourage innovation. It would most assuredly stagnate the creative process. I would be terrified to take my Eisner winning graphic novel and self publish it only to have Marvel snatch it up in a half baked rehash. (there was no way I would win any awards)

Down from one soapbox and onto another.

Piracy is bad?

The ethics involved or at least the discussion of the ethics of piracy does one thing. The conversation separates humans from animals. I am a Pirate. I make no qualms about being one. I downloaded the New 4th ed books. I downloaded the recent release of Warhammer 40k rpg. I do what many do with those files. I looked at them. I read some or all of the pages. I then made a decision for myself as to whether or not I would purchase those books. I have since bought 40k and I will likely buy 4th ed. The art is AWESOME!! This is my usual method of operation. I download then decide. Money is very short supply. Even before the global recession and all. I don't have 100's of dollars to throw at crappy media. But when I find stuff I like I buy it.

I think I would like to change the term PIRACY to a proliferation of media. It is very easy to get exposed to all different kinds of media. Does some of the methods acquiring the media bend or break ethical boundaries? Quite Possible. Frankly, most media outlets would disapprove of my personal practices. I watch movies, listen to music, and peruse gamebooks on pdf long before I could possibly get a paper cut. All of the industries should look at that trend (cause I am not alone) and market accordingly. Here is the easy formula for success in our mass media world.

Give the consumer a taste of your product and then a reason to buy it at the store.

As far as OOP media goes. Well you have to look yourself in the mirror and justify your actions. For each of us, that will remain a personal decision. I for one will download. Maybe I can spread the knowledge of this once great game system to enough people that they clamor for a re-release. DEADLANDS.... OG style!

My two Scents:
Peppermint
Lavender
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: dindenver on December 11, 2008, 11:08:12 AM
Cat,
  Yeah, if we restrict our discussion to OOP games, the ethics of the matter is, in fact, gray. Sure, there is still a copyright holder, but they don't get money, even if I find and buy the game.
  So, its not like I am stealing food from a publisher or author's dinner table.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Serious Paul on December 11, 2008, 12:06:08 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;272930
Now fast forward to today. You are a writer/artist you created a little known product and due to your shamefully low budget it got little notice. Disney would then be in it rights to swoop in, snatch up your little homespun project, and make millions on it. All the while you still live in your trailer and plug away at your shitty 50 hr a week factory job.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't they do that with enough lawyers anyways? I mean it seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong-because I'm certainly no lawyer, and I've definitely never copyrighted anything-but if Disney wants your shit, your number is up.

I pretty much think you've hit the nail on the head, but I don't see much remedy for the "small guys" coming anytime soon. (I think the pendulum swings to and fro, and currently we're on the far side of a swing.)

Quote
My two Scents:
Peppermint
Lavender


You lookin' to hit on my wife? :p
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Nicephorus on December 11, 2008, 01:58:41 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;272930
Now fast forward to today. You are a writer/artist you created a little known product and due to your shamefully low budget it got little notice. Disney would then be in it rights to swoop in, snatch up your little homespun project, and make millions on it. All the while you still live in your trailer and plug away at your shitty 50 hr a week factory job.

This is why, unlike some people on the internet, I'm not against copyright laws.  Modern copyright laws originated to protect individuals and small publishers from larger companies who could copy something and make more than the original author due to a larger marketing and distribution system.  
 
There are already a ton of stories of Hollywood producers getting a script from an unknown author, turning it down, and making a very similar movie a couple of years later.  Without copyright, they wouldn't even have to change the names
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Cranewings on December 11, 2008, 02:11:52 PM
When it comes to gaming material, I don't see why anyone has to steal it. 90% of it is shit, and if you have been gaming long enough, you could probably write something better. Then, you don't have any ethical problem at all.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 11, 2008, 02:24:15 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;272832
Because film company executives, being stupid and uncreative people, cannot imagine how anyone could create any new content in a mere 30 years.


Some may be uncreative, but certainly not stupid.   When you dump hundreds of millions into developing and promoting an IP, you want to ensure long term profits.  

Think of it this way.   You buy the plans for an awesome resort from an architect.  You then build the resort and people come there because the layout is so cool.   You will want ownership of that unique resort for as long as possible and you don't want those architectual plans to ever fly out of your hands.


Quote from: Nicephorus;273005
There are already a ton of stories of Hollywood producers getting a script from an unknown author, turning it down, and making a very similar movie a couple of years later.


And they are almost always full of shit.

I live in LA and my toes are in the film world.   I have heard the cries and squeals for decades and the number of real incidents can be counted on one hand.  

There is some reality to weird creative trends where lots of people jump on a similiar idea at the same time.   I wrote a very Stargate like script the year Stargate went into production.   I got notice around town and I know of two other Futurististic Egyptian projects that were bouncing around right at the same time and I know that I wrote mine with zero knowledge of the others.  

When Stargate came out, I had people tell me that I was ripped off.  I wasn't.  There was just something in the air in that two year span where several authors were riffing off a similiar beat completely in isolation from each other.  It happens.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Drohem on December 11, 2008, 02:29:55 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;273025
 
There is some reality to weird creative trends where lots of people jump on a similiar idea at the same time.   I wrote a very Stargate like script the year Stargate went into production.   I got notice around town and I know of two other Futurististic Egyptian projects that were bouncing around right at the same time and I know that I wrote mine with zero knowledge of the others.  

When Stargate came out, I had people tell me that I was ripped off.  I wasn't.  There was just something in the air in that two year span where several authors were riffing off a similiar beat completely in isolation from each other.  It happens.


I noticed this synchronicity as well, and I am not involved in the film industry.  It seems to be a function of the human creative process.  Maybe people are tapping into some kind of creative specie consciousness?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: stu2000 on December 11, 2008, 07:39:43 PM
The ideas exist independently of the artists. This is a real hippie idea, but I insist it's true. I've had a rash of old college friends calling me suggesting I've been ripped off for things that are coming out now. That's been twenty years. But ideas just kind of hang out there in space until someone tunes in to them somehow. They don't go away. It's weird. Someone else will tune in later. Or earlier. Time isn't linear, either. It's all weird.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Captain Rufus on December 11, 2008, 09:26:31 PM
For me, if its in print I will buy it legally.  If it is no longer in print I may try to get a used copy.  (Which if most companies had their way wouldn't exist.  Its why everyone is going gaga over broadband Internet.  Virtual ones and zeroes that need to be rebought when your media hardware dies or goes OOP..)

If that fails and I can find a download of it, I certainly might take a look.

Especially as a classic videogamer.  Konami's Aliens and GI Joe arcade games are unlikely to ever get any form of home port due to them being semi obscure arcade games and ones attached to licenses they no longer have.

So I shouldn't be allowed to enjoy them outside of finding the machines in some hole in the wall pizza joint or fight with other ebay retards who think RARE means "Worth 10x-100x whatever the original price was"?

Hell no!  

Make it available legitimately and they get my cash money, especially if the price is fair.

Steve Jackson Games wants to pretend Car Wars Compendium era no longer exists?  Fine, I get it from Ebay with a lucky bid.

How much money did SJG get off me?  Zero dollars.

If Joe Schmoe was to photocopy his pal's Compendium how much money did SJG get from it?  Again, Zero dollars.

In our modern digital age there is no real reason any form of digital media (video, game, music, or book) should ever really go totally out of print.

And intentional low print rarity?  That's douchebag Magic the Gathering kind of crap.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Dr Rotwang! on December 11, 2008, 09:54:37 PM
Quote from: stu2000;273109
Time isn't linear, either. It's all weird.
It's a ball of wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey stuff.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: S'mon on December 12, 2008, 04:10:16 AM
The 1709 Statute of Anne copyright law is the one legitimate term (registered copyright, 14 year term renewable a further 14 years).  All else is tyranny - French inspired tyranny, at that.

So, a good guide is whether an OOP work is more than 14 years old, 28 years for popular works that were in publication for more than 14 years.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ian Absentia on December 12, 2008, 03:57:28 PM
"Why does a 14-year-old girl have a statue?"

I swear to God that's what I got out of that at first read. :o

!i!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 12, 2008, 04:27:16 PM
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;272819
Again, copyright in itself has nothing to do with money. It's the right to control who makes what kind of copies of your work. A copyright violation is a copyright violation, whether the copyrighter gains, loses or breaks even money-wise as a result.

It's a bit like someone setting up a tent and passing out cooked sausages on my front lawn. It's trespass. Whether he's making money from it, or offers me some sausages or cash, doesn't matter - he's making use of my property without my permission.


Umm, isn't it more like someone using your famous Sausage recipe after you're dead? Or using your old sausage grill after you've thrown it out?

Quote

I believe copyright should expire, too - and life of authour plus 75 years is too long a period. Something like 15 years, as with patents in many countries, that ought to be enough. This is long enough that the original creator gets to make a profit from it if they want to, but short enough to encourage them to keep creating more stuff.


Absolutely: I would classify this under "Unjust law", and the whole process of propaganda about this is devious bullshit concocted by people with a sinister agenda: to keep profiting forever from other people's works.
In many cases, its not about some innocent author getting his livelihood taken away because of wicked "Pirates" who are engaging in "THEFT", its about some asshole in a suit making millions of dollars off of material where all of the original creators of said material have been dead for DECADES, and said suit is not even related to them by blood or marriage in any way.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 13, 2008, 03:23:12 AM
If the book is OOP where on earth could there possibly be a problem?

If it subsequently gets printed due to a project later, too bad. Doesn't make it any less OK imo (unless you can see the future of course).

In many cases 'piracy' (a laughably quaint term) is the only way people get to see what a product is like, and decide to buy the full thing later. In other cases, it's impossible to get the proper product. Who really gets hurt?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Cranewings on December 13, 2008, 06:36:56 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273336
If the book is OOP where on earth could there possibly be a problem?

If it subsequently gets printed due to a project later, too bad. Doesn't make it any less OK imo (unless you can see the future of course).

In many cases 'piracy' (a laughably quaint term) is the only way people get to see what a product is like, and decide to buy the full thing later. In other cases, it's impossible to get the proper product. Who really gets hurt?

A lot of good books don't sell many copies. Palladium's Beyond the Supernatural only sold like 10,000 copies, and I got three of them. Two first edition, one second.

If it goes out of print, I'm glad I got to enjoy it while I could, and I hope I don't lose the book. If people like me illegally acquire too many copies, and the marketing guy at Palladium figures it out, then it won't come back into print. Maybe the author wants to wait a while, let some enthusiasm build up, and then print it to make some cash. Ripping it off guts his effort.

When a person writes a book, it is their RIGHT to decide when and who can buy it, and for how much. If you don't like it, you should write your own.

RP isn't like the movie industry or music or video games. It is small press, coming out of groups not unlike your own. Fucking with their money and ideas is basically fratricide.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 13, 2008, 08:28:47 AM
The writer has not any say necessarily over who and when can buy it. The publisher probably will.

Copyright laws aren't moral principles, they are merely ways to protect control of income. They aren't always a good thing at all: many times piracy is a good way to promote interest in a product as the music industry has found out.

The idea that these quaint notions of piracy equal theft is very anacrhonistic.

If a book is OOP then I see no problem in 'pirating' it, and would hesitate against calling it that. In fact such 'piracy' is generating interest which could potentially see a new edition/further related works being published. Was it not such interest (piracy or otherwise) that saw WFRP in print again, and there are other examples of games (Dragon Warriors?).

This interest should be encouraged and supported. It is healthy and creative. No one is losing out, including the writer, if the book is already OOP. Calling it 'fucking with their money' is needlessly emotive and pretty ad hoc.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 09:25:06 AM
Quote from: Cranewings;273347
A lot of good books don't sell many copies. Palladium's Beyond the Supernatural only sold like 10,000 copies, and I got three of them. Two first edition, one second.

If it goes out of print, I'm glad I got to enjoy it while I could, and I hope I don't lose the book. If people like me illegally acquire too many copies, and the marketing guy at Palladium figures it out, then it won't come back into print. Maybe the author wants to wait a while, let some enthusiasm build up, and then print it to make some cash. Ripping it off guts his effort.


See, this is last-century thinking.
If I was a "marketing guy" for an RPG company (or a book publisher, or just about anything else in entertainment media), I'd be desperately checking out what is being pirated and what is not; and whatever is being pirated most, THAT'S exactly what I would print. Because that's where the demand is.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 13, 2008, 10:09:58 AM
Funny, i bet people wouldn't think twice about buying an OOP book over ebay or amazon.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Cranewings on December 13, 2008, 10:34:06 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273357
See, this is last-century thinking.
If I was a "marketing guy" for an RPG company (or a book publisher, or just about anything else in entertainment media), I'd be desperately checking out what is being pirated and what is not; and whatever is being pirated most, THAT'S exactly what I would print. Because that's where the demand is.

RPGPundit


Well, I haven't taken any marketing classes, so I'm not an expert. As a lay person with an opinion, what you said sounds like an excuse, and not really a sound reason. Is there any evidence that isn't just anecdotal?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 13, 2008, 11:29:18 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273357
See, this is last-century thinking.
If I was a "marketing guy" for an RPG company (or a book publisher, or just about anything else in entertainment media), I'd be desperately checking out what is being pirated and what is not; and whatever is being pirated most, THAT'S exactly what I would print. Because that's where the demand is.

RPGPundit


This is not necessarily true, IME. It would show you what is being pirated the most. People who do this type of behavior have a very low turn over to purchasing that which they download illegally. It is the old, but still correct, adage of "Getting something for free...". Now, viral marketing is something I have been interested in (and exploring) for a long time. If that was what you meant then yes, I would agree. VM often has illegal downloading as a part of it but pirating should not be considered the primary indicator of a viable product.

All of this, of course, is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273357
See, this is last-century thinking.
If I was a "marketing guy" for an RPG company (or a book publisher, or just about anything else in entertainment media), I'd be desperately checking out what is being pirated and what is not; and whatever is being pirated most, THAT'S exactly what I would print. Because that's where the demand is.


Except we know that with things like movies and music, when the items are clearly available for purchase, they still get pirated.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 13, 2008, 12:38:17 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273373
This is not necessarily true, IME. It would show you what is being pirated the most. People who do this type of behavior have a very low turn over to purchasing that which they download illegally. It is the old, but still correct, adage of "Getting something for free...". Now, viral marketing is something I have been interested in (and exploring) for a long time. If that was what you meant then yes, I would agree. VM often has illegal downloading as a part of it but pirating should not be considered the primary indicator of a viable product.

All of this, of course, is just my opinion, I could be wrong.


Do you have evidence for this?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 13, 2008, 12:43:42 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273375
Except we know that with things like movies and music, when the items are clearly available for purchase, they still get pirated.


Piracy exists because the recording industry/movie indsutry (et.all) can't meet the demands of the consumer. Instead it resorts to odious behaviour and tries to paint people who 'download' as evil with spurious bullshit about supporting everything from international terrorism to child molestation. Even though people don't pay for pirate stuff by and large (ie the majority of pirates download stuff, they don't need to buy it anymore from a bloke in the back of the pub).

There will always be piracy - so long as there is capitalism; one is an effect of the other. The issue then is how far will the publisher go to meet the demand of the consumer. In the case of the recording industry, not very far. They don't want to reduce prices, even though they could easily do so given that it costs peanuts to press a cd. They are also completely blind to how people want to consume music these days.

Some of this applies to rpg's, some doesn't. But if people want to release big fat full colour glossy books that people can't afford they can't really argue about piracy IMO. I'm all for supporting the creator, but I don't agree with the idea that creators can expect to get away with charging what they like just because. Clearly that just isn't the case.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 03:02:05 PM
Quote from: Cranewings;273362
Well, I haven't taken any marketing classes, so I'm not an expert. As a lay person with an opinion, what you said sounds like an excuse, and not really a sound reason. Is there any evidence that isn't just anecdotal?


Listen, its common sense: "hmm, that book got 202482 downloads, that must obviously mean that demand for it is satisfied, I'd better go for publishing that other book that only got 3 downloads instead, clearly that's where the money will be!" is just asinine.

The fact is: anything CAN be "pirated". Whether or not it WILL be "pirated" depends on whether there's even the slightest amount of demand for it, if there is, it will be, sooner or later.
Once there is, the amount of filesharing that's going on is the clearest indicator of whether a product is in any kind of demand anymore or not: anything with a metric fuckload of hits/downloads/whatever is obviously something people want.
Stuff that gets "pirated" is stuff that will actually sell, and the more "Pirated" it is, the better it will do commercially.
To think "oh well, its been fileshared so now there's no point in publishing it" is utterly moronic: as if the Watchmen TPB, with thousands of filesharing downloads, would clearly flop in sales on paper. Its idiotic, because people fail to understand that if you fileshare a comic/book/etc., and its any good, you're going to want to own a physical copy of said product.

The real fear these corporate fuckwits have is that their mediocre product will not be bought anymore if people have a chance to "try before they buy" in the form of filesharing; because the corporate fuckwits often depend on CHEATING people into buying second- or third-rate products that they KNOW are second or third rate.  Filesharing won't stop excellent products from being sold, it will only challenge companies who rely on mediocrity rather than excellence (which is why the music industry is so damn worried).

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 03:09:39 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273373
This is not necessarily true, IME. It would show you what is being pirated the most. People who do this type of behavior have a very low turn over to purchasing that which they download illegally. It is the old, but still correct, adage of "Getting something for free...". Now, viral marketing is something I have been interested in (and exploring) for a long time. If that was what you meant then yes, I would agree. VM often has illegal downloading as a part of it but pirating should not be considered the primary indicator of a viable product.


Baen Books (http://www.baen.com/library/) seems to disagree with you. They are the publishers of some of the best-known sci-fi authors out there, and they offer (in the link up there) a huge part of their back catalogue as free material because they've recognized the value of filesharing as something that adds to sales.  To quote:

" Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc."

And, also on the subject:

"Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom."

Baen's has the right idea of how to deal with the utterly bullshit "piracy" issue.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 03:10:20 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273375
Except we know that with things like movies and music, when the items are clearly available for purchase, they still get pirated.


Yes, and the most "pirated" items are often also the ones that make the most profit in terms of sales.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 13, 2008, 03:16:01 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273400
Its idiotic, because people fail to understand that if you fileshare a comic/book/etc., and its any good, you're going to want to own a physical copy of said product.

RPGPundit


Or, you might not want it (perhaps because you pirated it, let's assume for the sake of argument), in which case there was never a sale to be made and so nothing is actually lost.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273385
Piracy exists because the recording industry/movie indsutry (et.all) can't meet the demands of the consumer. Instead it resorts to odious behaviour and tries to paint people who 'download' as evil with spurious bullshit about supporting everything from international terrorism to child molestation. Even though people don't pay for pirate stuff by and large (ie the majority of pirates download stuff, they don't need to buy it anymore from a bloke in the back of the pub).

There will always be piracy - so long as there is capitalism; one is an effect of the other. The issue then is how far will the publisher go to meet the demand of the consumer. In the case of the recording industry, not very far. They don't want to reduce prices, even though they could easily do so given that it costs peanuts to press a cd. They are also completely blind to how people want to consume music these days.

Some of this applies to rpg's, some doesn't. But if people want to release big fat full colour glossy books that people can't afford they can't really argue about piracy IMO. I'm all for supporting the creator, but I don't agree with the idea that creators can expect to get away with charging what they like just because. Clearly that just isn't the case.


So basicaly, no matter what the pirate always has an excuse... nice.

PS: I call bullshit on the claim that "Piracy exists because the recording industry/movie indsutry (et.all) can't meet the demands of the consumer." Unless you mean "free" when you say "demand".
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 03:33:26 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273402
Yes, and the most "pirated" items are often also the ones that make the most profit in terms of sales.


That simply shows that it is desirable. That's why thieves steal fancy cars... you know, they are worth something.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 03:35:28 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273403
Or, you might not want it (perhaps because you pirated it, let's assume for the sake of argument), in which case there was never a sale to be made and so nothing is actually lost.


I may not be able to afford a Lamborghini either, so no possible sale there, but it doesn't  make it right for me to steal one because there would be "no loss of a sale".
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 13, 2008, 04:22:17 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273401
Baen Books (http://www.baen.com/library/) seems to disagree with you. They are the publishers of some of the best-known sci-fi authors out there, and they offer (in the link up there) a huge part of their back catalogue as free material because they've recognized the value of filesharing as something that adds to sales.  To quote:
And I offer all my books for free downloads as well. There is a difference between that and pirating such books. Mostly, it has to do with culture, expectations and most importantly, the opportunity to market to these people. I would also note that it is their back stock, not their newest releases. However, I believe we are talking about two different things. I apologize if I misunderstood you position.
Quote from: RPGPundit;273401
" Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc."
This is more like the viral marketing I was talking about and less what I would call piracy. Although I would not equate piracy with libraries but that is more an personal ethical issue than a practical definition. My apologies again, I misunderstood your point.
Quote from: RPGPundit;273401
And, also on the subject:

"Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom."

Baen's has the right idea of how to deal with the utterly bullshit "piracy" issue.

RPGPundit

Again, I would characterize this differently from piracy. This would be illegal downloading in my opinion. I am obviously took your comments to be about piracy and I misunderstood. You seem to be talking about illegal downloading. I will bow out. Again, sorry.

Bill
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 04:23:38 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273406
That simply shows that it is desirable. That's why thieves steal fancy cars... you know, they are worth something.


Except that here, NO THEFT OCCURS.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 04:28:17 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273416
And I offer all my books for free downloads as well. There is a difference between that and pirating such books. Mostly, it has to do with culture, expectations and most importantly, the opportunity to market to these people. However, I believe we are talking about two different things. I apologize if I misunderstood you position.

This is more like the viral marketing I was talking about and less what I would call piracy. Although I would not equate piracy with libraries but that is more an personal ethical issue than a practical definition. My apologies again, I misunderstood your point.


See, my point is that book/game companies need to start seeing ALL filesharing as "viral marketing".

I mean shit, if you were told that you could get a copy of your book put into every library on earth, with no cost to you, so that anyone could freely borrow it, wouldn't you freaking do so? The value of people potentially going on to buy it, or recommending it to others, would be so great it would easily overcome the danger that some people might not buy it just because they saw it in a library, right?

Quote

Again, I would characterize this differently from piracy. This would be illegal downloading in my opinion. I am obviously took your comments to be about piracy and I misunderstood. You seem to be talking about illegal downloading. I will bow out. Again, sorry.


Yes, part of the problem is assholes who mistakenly define filesharing as "Piracy". It is not. It is file-copying.

"Piracy" is what you see on every streetmarket (and a few legitimate stores) here in Uruguay: DVDs, CDs, games, books, whatever that have been copied AND are being illegally sold for profit.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 04:33:56 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273418
Except that here, NO THEFT OCCURS.

RPGPundit


So if I offer free torrents for your products through my signature on this forum you wouldn't mind, right?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 13, 2008, 04:38:48 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273419
See, my point is that book/game companies need to start seeing ALL filesharing as "viral marketing".

I mean shit, if you were told that you could get a copy of your book put into every library on earth, with no cost to you, so that anyone could freely borrow it, wouldn't you freaking do so? The value of people potentially going on to buy it, or recommending it to others, would be so great it would easily overcome the danger that some people might not buy it just because they saw it in a library, right?

See, I agree. My problem is not the filesharing but what often piggy backs on the big P2P networks. It is why I offer my books this way but off my own site. If they make it to P2P networks (Iridium has) they have my marketing in them and this is good. So, I am not opposed to file sharing, especially as a marketing tool, but piracy (again, I feel I am too hung up on definitions here) is not ethical in my book.

See, I intend to try an experiment with Zombipocalypse and Neb SE. With ZP I will offer the book free online with links to buy it both in digital and print. No, it wont be a watered down version but the full on digital version. Inside it will have a note explaining what I did and why and asking, if they liked it to buy the book. Neb SE will be a slightly different experiment having to do with chapter by chapter releases in a similar vein. It will be interesting to see if it works.


Quote from: RPGPundit;273419



Yes, part of the problem is assholes who mistakenly define filesharing as "Piracy". It is not. It is file-copying.

"Piracy" is what you see on every streetmarket (and a few legitimate stores) here in Uruguay: DVDs, CDs, games, books, whatever that have been copied AND are being illegally sold for profit.

RPGPundit


I admit, it could just be my hang up. I am fairly confident folks are using piracy in this thread the way I would use file sharing.

Bill
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 13, 2008, 04:55:29 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273420
So if I offer free torrents for your products through my signature on this forum you wouldn't mind, right?


On a theoretical level, I would not. I have already blogged to that effect: that I consider finding FtA! on a fileshare network to be a sign that my game was a success, people wanted to read it enough to fileshare it, and those who read it liked it enough to keep sharing it.

On a personal level, I would have a problem with some individual asshole trying to "pirate" my books out of spite (thinking, incorrectly that it would bug me) than out of a genuine admiration.

And of course, on a legal level, whatever my own position on this subject is I cannot afford to risk this site by turning it into a filesharing-friendly site.
I don't allow people to post porn on here either, doesn't mean I'm anti-porn.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 06:04:46 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273424
On a theoretical level, I would not. I have already blogged to that effect: that I consider finding FtA! on a fileshare network to be a sign that my game was a success, people wanted to read it enough to fileshare it, and those who read it liked it enough to keep sharing it.

On a personal level, I would have a problem with some individual asshole trying to "pirate" my books out of spite (thinking, incorrectly that it would bug me) than out of a genuine admiration.

And of course, on a legal level, whatever my own position on this subject is I cannot afford to risk this site by turning it into a filesharing-friendly site.
I don't allow people to post porn on here either, doesn't mean I'm anti-porn.


Thought so.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 13, 2008, 06:05:33 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273421
I admit, it could just be my hang up. I am fairly confident folks are using piracy in this thread the way I would use file sharing.


They are as I see it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Cranewings on December 13, 2008, 06:08:51 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273400
Listen, its common sense: "hmm, that book got 202482 downloads, that must obviously mean that demand for it is satisfied, I'd better go for publishing that other book that only got 3 downloads instead, clearly that's where the money will be!" is just asinine.

The fact is: anything CAN be "pirated". Whether or not it WILL be "pirated" depends on whether there's even the slightest amount of demand for it, if there is, it will be, sooner or later.
Once there is, the amount of filesharing that's going on is the clearest indicator of whether a product is in any kind of demand anymore or not: anything with a metric fuckload of hits/downloads/whatever is obviously something people want.
Stuff that gets "pirated" is stuff that will actually sell, and the more "Pirated" it is, the better it will do commercially.
To think "oh well, its been fileshared so now there's no point in publishing it" is utterly moronic: as if the Watchmen TPB, with thousands of filesharing downloads, would clearly flop in sales on paper. Its idiotic, because people fail to understand that if you fileshare a comic/book/etc., and its any good, you're going to want to own a physical copy of said product.

The real fear these corporate fuckwits have is that their mediocre product will not be bought anymore if people have a chance to "try before they buy" in the form of filesharing; because the corporate fuckwits often depend on CHEATING people into buying second- or third-rate products that they KNOW are second or third rate.  Filesharing won't stop excellent products from being sold, it will only challenge companies who rely on mediocrity rather than excellence (which is why the music industry is so damn worried).

RPGPundit


I know a bunch of people that file share all the time. None of them will ever buy a book that is available to download, and their friends can just look off of their computer. If I were to file share, it would be because I don't feel like paying for something I want.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 13, 2008, 07:36:14 PM
I'd say the incentive to buy a DLed item after the fact is a function of its medium--of how well the DL version can serve as a substitute for the real thing.

People who DL music and movies will be rather disinclined to buy them after the fact.

People who DL novels (I guess they exist, given Baen's statement) will be rather inclined to buy them, assuming they liked what they read in the PDF.

RPG books fall somewhere in between. To some people they're like instruction manuals, and those will be satisfied with a PDF. To others they're collector's items, or like novels which they want to read cover to cover, and those will be more inclined to buy the physical thing.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 14, 2008, 03:20:06 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273405
So basicaly, no matter what the pirate always has an excuse... nice.

PS: I call bullshit on the claim that "Piracy exists because the recording industry/movie indsutry (et.all) can't meet the demands of the consumer." Unless you mean "free" when you say "demand".


Piracy isn't immoral, despite the emotive terminology of those whose only concern is loss of profit - from an industry that already exploits people anyway (really the mainstream media industries that complain the loudest are little more than hypocrites). It's an obvious reaction that's part of a system. We live in a consumer culture; that's how it functions. Pirates are not 'evil'.

The only way to end piracy (as much as is ever going to be possible) is to reduce the price of goods and meet the demand. If things like cd's and dvd's (and books) were cheaper then people would be prepared to pay for them; or if they were given better means to access content (not everyone wants to buy all the songs on album X for instance). The market dictates how it wants to function but instead of meeting the demand - within a capitalist system - the copyright holders (who are not necessarily the creators either) just stick their heads in the sand and fret about their already bloated bank balances, because art = money.

Quote from: CavScout;273406
That simply shows that it is desirable. That's why thieves steal fancy cars... you know, they are worth something.


Filesharing is nothing like theft of a single physical object. It's a completely different phenomenon.

Quote from: CavScout;273407
I may not be able to afford a Lamborghini either, so no possible sale there, but it doesn't  make it right for me to steal one because there would be "no loss of a sale".


Why? If there is no loss of a sale when the only problem with piracy is precisely that, then why do you have a problem with it?

Quote from: HinterWelt;273421
See, I agree. My problem is not the filesharing but what often piggy backs on the big P2P networks. It is why I offer my books this way but off my own site. If they make it to P2P networks (Iridium has) they have my marketing in them and this is good. So, I am not opposed to file sharing, especially as a marketing tool, but piracy (again, I feel I am too hung up on definitions here) is not ethical in my book.


Like what?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 14, 2008, 03:21:32 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;273449
I'd say the incentive to buy a DLed item after the fact is a function of its medium--of how well the DL version can serve as a substitute for the real thing.

People who DL music and movies will be rather disinclined to buy them after the fact.

People who DL novels (I guess they exist, given Baen's statement) will be rather inclined to buy them, assuming they liked what they read in the PDF.

RPG books fall somewhere in between. To some people they're like instruction manuals, and those will be satisfied with a PDF. To others they're collector's items, or like novels which they want to read cover to cover, and those will be more inclined to buy the physical thing.


That's just not true.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 14, 2008, 10:47:38 AM
Ghost Whistler,

It is Sunday morning, the sun is shining, the weather is temperate, and I am at perfect ease with myself and the world--so much so that I feel a gentle wave of human goodness engulfing me whose purity and radiance I am compelled to extend out right through the computer screen to even the most marginal of my online interlocutors.

Hence, rather than rashly call you an utter dipshit loser moron for making a claim without any back-up whatever, I will politely ask you:

Might you have a point, kind stranger; and if so, what in the name of fuck might it ever look like?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 14, 2008, 12:46:19 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485
Piracy isn't immoral, despite the emotive terminology of those whose only concern is loss of profit - from an industry that already exploits people anyway (really the mainstream media industries that complain the loudest are little more than hypocrites). It's an obvious reaction that's part of a system. We live in a consumer culture; that's how it functions. Pirates are not 'evil'.

Straw fucking man. No one is arguing that those who pirate electronic files are “evil” what some are saying is they are wrong. Good and evil has nothing to do with it.

Although lost in your mantra is an interesting suggestion that it’s alright to exploit those who you think are exploiting others. What are you Robin Hood?
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485
The only way to end piracy (as much as is ever going to be possible) is to reduce the price of goods and meet the demand.

Wow… just think, we can eliminate all sorts of theft by lowering or eliminating those items prices! /rolleyes
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485
If things like cd's and dvd's (and books) were cheaper then people would be prepared to pay for them; or if they were given better means to access content (not everyone wants to buy all the songs on album X for instance). The market dictates how it wants to function but instead of meeting the demand - within a capitalist system - the copyright holders (who are not necessarily the creators either) just stick their heads in the sand and fret about their already bloated bank balances, because art = money.

CDs, DVDs and books are cheap. Extremely. If you won’t drop 9.99 on a CD, you probably aren’t going to drop 5.99 on the same. All you’ve done is make excuses as to why you think the theft is ok. “We’re stealing from the MAN, so it’s ok!”
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485
Filesharing is nothing like theft of a single physical object. It's a completely different phenomenon.

Only in the sense that it is much easier to do; it is more like counterfeiting, yet it is still theft.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485
Why? If there is no loss of a sale when the only problem with piracy is precisely that, then why do you have a problem with it?

Illogic used by many a software pirate. “I wouldn’t have bought it anyways, so me stealing it didn’t actually hurt anyone’s bottom line!”
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 14, 2008, 01:32:27 PM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;273490
Ghost Whistler,

It is Sunday morning, the sun is shining, the weather is temperate, and I am at perfect ease with myself and the world--so much so that I feel a gentle wave of human goodness engulfing me whose purity and radiance I am compelled to extend out right through the computer screen to even the most marginal of my online interlocutors.

Hence, rather than rashly call you an utter dipshit loser moron for making a claim without any back-up whatever, I will politely ask you:

Might you have a point, kind stranger; and if so, what in the name of fuck might it ever look like?


Charming.

Unfortunately I don't feel any such compulsion against rash behaviour and therefore have no problem responding in kind.

If you can't be bothered to read what I said, or can't understand it, please don't pretend to insults by couching them in such tenuous and snide terms. I wasn't rude to you; you made a sweeping statement without any evidence.

So kindly get fucked.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 14, 2008, 01:45:09 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273502
Straw fucking man. No one is arguing that those who pirate electronic files are “evil” what some are saying is they are wrong. Good and evil has nothing to do with it.

It is fairly obvious from rabid frothings such as this and other colourful emotive nonsense on this (and other, related) threads on the subject that people think filesharing is wrong. What word yous choose to call it thus is irrelevant.

Quote
Although lost in your mantra is an interesting suggestion that it’s alright to exploit those who you think are exploiting others. What are you Robin Hood?

I haven't provided a mantra. I explained my position on the subject of filesharing. A position you seem emotionally incapable of reconciling; that isn't my problem nor are yours and others' snide comments and nasty attitudes warranted.

I didn't declare myself Robin Hood and you are in no position to make any kind of judgement on my activities thus as you have absolutely no idea whether or not I download stuff.

And I never made any such contention that it was 'alright' to do anything because of the exploitation of said industries. You spectacularly miss the point however: these industries cannot claim the moral high ground regarding the rights and wrongs of filesharing when they themselves exploit artists (and a lot more) than they allege filesharers do.

Quote
Wow… just think, we can eliminate all sorts of theft by lowering or eliminating those items prices! /rolleyes

A clumsy and spurious point. You make a false comparison by likening filesharing to actual theft of physical items (shoplifting for example). Filesharing, as has been explained, is not theft. There is no illegal removal of physical property, ergo no theft. Even if there were it wouldn't constitute 'all sorts of theft' which is nothing other than random emotive hyperbole of the worst kind.

Quote
CDs, DVDs and books are cheap. Extremely. If you won’t drop 9.99 on a CD, you probably aren’t going to drop 5.99 on the same. All you’ve done is make excuses as to why you think the theft is ok. “We’re stealing from the MAN, so it’s ok!”

CD's DVD's and Books might be cheap to you. They are not cheap in general, not at all. The price of CD's has remained high for a long long time and is hugely disproportionate to the cost of manufacture.

Your assumption (and that's all it is, by the way) that someone who won't pay X then won't pay half that is groundless and really assinine.

I'm also not entirely sure why you are now talking about stealing actual CD's. That isn't what is being discussed at all, and has nothing to do with filesharing, let alone digital rpg files.

Quote
Only in the sense that it is much easier to do; it is more like counterfeiting, yet it is still theft.

It isn't like counterfeiting at all. Counterfeiting is passing a copy of the original work off as the original. That isn't filesharing. Counterfeit would be me distributing a fake copy of D&D which I had entirely written as the original. Perhaps for profit (something filesharing is not about btw since there are no financial transactions made - despite what the authorities woudl like people to believe).

Quote
Illogic used by many a software pirate. “I wouldn’t have bought it anyways, so me stealing it didn’t actually hurt anyone’s bottom line!”

The only illogic displayed thus far comes from you, not me.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 14, 2008, 05:05:03 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
It is fairly obvious from rabid frothings such as this and other colourful emotive nonsense on this (and other, related) threads on the subject that people think filesharing is wrong. What word yous choose to call it thus is irrelevant.

Umm, no. Saying something is wrong is not in the same universe as saying something is evil. Even a dolt, such as you, can note the difference.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
I haven't provided a mantra. I explained my position on the subject of filesharing. A position you seem emotionally incapable of reconciling; that isn't my problem nor are yours and others' snide comments and nasty attitudes warranted.

You have. Whether you intend to or not may be in question, but not whether you have one or not. Hell, you fall back on it in this very same response. You’ll see it again soon,  the right to “exploit those who you think are exploiting others”.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
I didn't declare myself Robin Hood and you are in no position to make any kind of judgement on my activities thus as you have absolutely no idea whether or not I download stuff.

I have every right to make any judgments I like. Much like I would judge harshly those who would say any number of activities are ok regardless if they themselves take part in them.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
And I never made any such contention that it was 'alright' to do anything because of the exploitation of said industries. You spectacularly miss the point however: these industries cannot claim the moral high ground regarding the rights and wrongs of filesharing when they themselves exploit artists (and a lot more) than they allege filesharers do.

Contradicting yourself in one paragraph is so unbecoming. Seriously, you should try harder.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
A clumsy and spurious point. You make a false comparison by likening filesharing to actual theft of physical items (shoplifting for example). Filesharing, as has been explained, is not theft. There is no illegal removal of physical property, ergo no theft. Even if there were it wouldn't constitute 'all sorts of theft' which is nothing other than random emotive hyperbole of the worst kind.

Taking what does not belong to you does not require the taking of a “physical” item. One can steal another’s car as easily as steal their intellectual property. You’re doing a jig to try and excuse the action you have taken up the cause for. You’re not doing a good job.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
CD's DVD's and Books might be cheap to you. They are not cheap in general, not at all. The price of CD's has remained high for a long long time and is hugely disproportionate to the cost of manufacture.

They are cheap. They are cheap to all but the most ineptly employed or non-working person.
PS: An items sell price is only partially determined by the cost of manufacture and there is nothing inherently wrong, or would you say “evil”, with making as much on a product as you can reasonably can even if multitudes of the manufacturing cost.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
Your assumption (and that's all it is, by the way) that someone who won't pay X then won't pay half that is groundless and really assinine.

You have a study or real data to refute it, or are you just making shit up again?
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
I'm also not entirely sure why you are now talking about stealing actual CD's. That isn't what is being discussed at all, and has nothing to do with filesharing, let alone digital rpg files.

You interjected them here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=273485&postcount=56). Are you really going to bring something up and then get all ass-hurt when some responds to it? Oh, and making copies of CDs and DVDs and “filesharing” them is nearly identical to “filesharing” rpgs. Are you completely oblivious to digital downloads for music and movies?
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
It isn't like counterfeiting at all. Counterfeiting is passing a copy of the original work off as the original. That isn't filesharing. Counterfeit would be me distributing a fake copy of D&D which I had entirely written as the original. Perhaps for profit (something filesharing is not about btw since there are no financial transactions made - despite what the authorities woudl like people to believe).

It’s far better and easier than “counterfeiting” as what you take is an exact duplicate of the original. It is what counterfeiters aspire to be.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273507
The only illogic displayed thus far comes from you, not me.

That’s not a refutation of the point, it’s at best a clumsy attempt at a dodge.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 14, 2008, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273502
Straw fucking man. No one is arguing that those who pirate electronic files are “evil” what some are saying is they are wrong. Good and evil has nothing to do with it.

They are not wrong. As i said, filesharing is not wrong. It is a simple consquence of the system. Whether the word you use is 'wrong' or 'evil' is really just emotive bullshit. Much like your attitude.

Quote from: CavScout;273513
Umm, no. Saying something is wrong is not in the same universe as saying something is evil. Even a dolt, such as you, can note the difference.

Take your abuse and go fuck yourself with it you sad little boy. Get a fucking life.

Quote
You have. Whether you intend to or not may be in question, but not whether you have one or not. Hell, you fall back on it in this very same response. You’ll see it again soon,  the right to “exploit those who you think are exploiting others”.

Don't presume to tell me what I have said, pal, it will only serve to make you look even more fucking ignornant.

Your entire 'argument' is based around emotive bullshit. Calling what I said a mantra is shallow and pathetic and offers nothing, much like you.

Quote
I have every right to make any judgments I like. Much like I would judge harshly those who would say any number of activities are ok regardless if they themselves take part in them.

I couldn't give a fuck as to what you think you have the right to given how stupidly you've argued your case. Pretending you are able to make an informed judgment on things you know precisely fuck all about is the hallmark of the stupid.

Quote
Contradicting yourself in one paragraph is so unbecoming. Seriously, you should try harder.

Why 'should' I do anything? I haven't contradicted myself at all. I was engaged in a grown up discussion about filesharing, but you seem to seek to drag it into the shit. There is no contradiction in that statement since I have never once on this thread advocated people download files of any kind. Again, get some reading skills. Learn the fucking language you are communicating in.

Quote
Taking what does not belong to you does not require the taking of a “physical” item. One can steal another’s car as easily as steal their intellectual property. You’re doing a jig to try and excuse the action you have taken up the cause for. You’re not doing a good job.

If you think that stealing cars is even remotely similar or 'easy' as downloading a file then you are a very special kind of stupid. Equating physical property to intellectual property is fatuous in the extreme. Again, as you seem incapable of grasping the reality of filesharing, you are not stealing anything. Nothing is being taken. Clearly you have no idea how the process works so before you blunder on with more clumsy hamfisted rhetoric, go and do some fucking research.

This isn't me 'taking up a cause'; this is me discussing a subject with someone who knows shit all about the subject matter and wishes to spread ignorance about it. People like you are the problem, not those who 'steal' files.

Quote
They are cheap. They are cheap to all but the most ineptly employed or non-working person.

The arrogance of this statement belies a complete lack of understanding of anything related to the subject. CD's are not intrinsically cheap, but they are cheap to manufacture as anyone with even half a fucking brain would know. Making assumptions about what other people can or can't afford in their country/environment is as stupid as it gets. Wake the fuck up.

Quote
PS: An items sell price is only partially determined by the cost of manufacture and there is nothing inherently wrong, or would you say “evil”, with making as much on a product as you can reasonably can even if multitudes of the manufacturing cost.

I'm well aware that there are more costs involved in the production of a cd than the manufacture of the disc. I'm also well aware that the vast majority of what the customer pays in the shop goes directly into the pockets of the industry and not to the artist. In other words, CD's are and have been for a very long time a considerable rip off. But you would seem to think that it's as acceptable to rip off the customer and the artist just as it's unacceptable to fileshare. I wonder then why people engage in filesharing!

Quote
You have a study or real data to refute it, or are you just making shit up again?

Um, the onus is on you to provide the facts as you made the assertion not me. Do you confuse yourself often like this?
Quote
You interjected them here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=273485&postcount=56). Are you really going to bring something up and then get all ass-hurt when some responds to it? Oh, and making copies of CDs and DVDs and “filesharing” them is nearly identical to “filesharing” rpgs. Are you completely oblivious to digital downloads for music and movies?

You're the one trying to equate filesharing with actual physical theft even though it's already been explained how it's not remotely similar.

Now take your sad attitude and your tired inept arguments and fuck off; I have no patience to deal with ignorant cunts like you.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 14, 2008, 07:04:38 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273520
Now take your sad attitude and your tired inept arguments and fuck off; I have no patience to deal with ignorant cunts like you.


If your inability to defend you asstastic position causes your to retire, the better for the rest of us. Otherwise, you're just a chump who can't hang. Pussy.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Cranewings on December 14, 2008, 09:54:57 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485

The only way to end piracy (as much as is ever going to be possible) is to reduce the price of goods and meet the demand. If things like cd's and dvd's (and books) were cheaper then people would be prepared to pay for them; or if they were given better means to access content (not everyone wants to buy all the songs on album X for instance). The market dictates how it wants to function but instead of meeting the demand - within a capitalist system - the copyright holders (who are not necessarily the creators either) just stick their heads in the sand and fret about their already bloated bank balances, because art = money.


Like what?


I think that people that are inclined to down load something on the net do it, not just to save money, but because it is easy and fun.

Lowering the price and chopping off hands, together, might stop it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 02:46:57 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273525
If your inability to defend you asstastic position causes your to retire, the better for the rest of us. Otherwise, you're just a chump who can't hang. Pussy.

I tell you what, when you stop talking like a spoilt american prick, i'll take you seriously. Until then you can continue to erroneously base your entire argument (such as it is) on just two sentences out of an entire post.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 02:49:24 AM
Quote from: Cranewings;273544
I think that people that are inclined to down load something on the net do it, not just to save money, but because it is easy and fun.

Lowering the price and chopping off hands, together, might stop it.


lowering price is the only way you will ever stop it. The technology is here to stay and the greatest crime that has been committed in all of this is the affected industries' inability to acknowledge and embrace it.

People download stuff because they want it. That's all there is to it. No one is going to download something just because it's easy and fun (if at all) unless it's something they
want.

So much spurious nonsense gets spread about these issues it's incredible.

There are entire channels dedicated to filesharing rpg's on irc, and I don't see any evidence they have broken any publishers. The guy that wrote Cthulhutech went to 4chan (biiiig mistake) to talk to the peopel there who 'pirated' that game. He's still in business as far as I know.

There will be people who download stuff that they were never going to buy anyway - what then is the problem? Contrast this with sales gained by the extra promotion from the spread of product through filesharing?

Home taping didn't kill music. TV didn't die out because people had VCR's and now DVD-R's etc.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 08:51:49 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273513
Umm, no. Saying something is wrong is not in the same universe as saying something is evil. Even a dolt, such as you, can note the difference.



Wrong and Evil being wholly different is debatable. This truly falls to your particular belief structure. If you are an Orthodox Jew or Christian your belief structure may not allow for a light version of sin. If you break one of the "Ten Commandments" you have then sinned and have committed an evil act. Albeit forgivable but the act itself remains evil.

Number eight (unless you are a roman catholic which its seven) on our top ten list of things not to do, is steal.

I think the real topic was:

Is downloading OOP pdf's theft?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 09:02:20 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273568
lowering price is the only way you will ever stop it. The technology is here to stay and the greatest crime that has been committed in all of this is the affected industries' inability to acknowledge and embrace it.


I agree I had posted earlier on this thread that Media outlets have not properly marketed themselves under our new media rich landscape. They should give people a taste of a product and then give them a reason to buy the actual item.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273568


People download stuff because they want it. That's all there is to it. No one is going to download something just because it's easy and fun (if at all) unless it's something they
want.

[quote/]

Some people just collect things ergo they will download then only to grow their collections. I have seen it first hand with music. They only "wanted" the files to grow their music catalog not because a particular piece was desirable.

My two scents:
Old Spice
Burnt Toast
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 09:02:53 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273568
lowering price is the only way you will ever stop it. The technology is here to stay and the greatest crime that has been committed in all of this is the affected industries' inability to acknowledge and embrace it.


I agree I had posted earlier on this thread that Media outlets have not properly marketed themselves under our new media rich landscape. They should give people a taste of a product and then give them a reason to buy the actual item.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273568


People download stuff because they want it. That's all there is to it. No one is going to download something just because it's easy and fun (if at all) unless it's something they
want.



Some people just collect things ergo they will download then only to grow their collections. I have seen it first hand with music. They only "wanted" the files to grow their music catalog not because a particular piece was desirable.

My two scents:
Old Spice
Burnt Toast
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 09:36:50 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273588
I agree I had posted earlier on this thread that Media outlets have not properly marketed themselves under our new media rich landscape. They should give people a taste of a product and then give them a reason to buy the actual item.



Some people just collect things ergo they will download then only to grow their collections. I have seen it first hand with music. They only "wanted" the files to grow their music catalog not because a particular piece was desirable.

My two scents:
Old Spice
Burnt Toast


I don't believe the number of people who might download stuff becuse they can/it's fun are significant enough to make policy decisions on.

I also think that half the stuff these people might download will end up getting deleted. This means that there was no sale to be had in the first place. So end result, nothing is again lost.

The technology to fileshare isn't going anywhere; quite the oppsoite. Either indutries and big business (even small business) can deal with it, embrace it or ignore it - perhaps at their peril. I welcome the means we now have to share OOP rpg's. I actually think it's healthy. Besides, is it more 'wrong' to fileshare than buy the OOP book off ebay?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 09:53:09 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273357
See, this is last-century thinking.
If I was a "marketing guy" for an RPG company (or a book publisher, or just about anything else in entertainment media), I'd be desperately checking out what is being pirated and what is not; and whatever is being pirated most, THAT'S exactly what I would print. Because that's where the demand is.

RPGPundit


Ooooo very good.

Me likey
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 10:01:47 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273567
I tell you what, when you stop talking like a spoilt american prick, i'll take you seriously. Until then you can continue to erroneously base your entire argument (such as it is) on just two sentences out of an entire post.


You're flailing so hard for a point that you've resorted to nationalism... how quaint.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 10:04:57 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273424
On a theoretical level, I would not. I have already blogged to that effect: that I consider finding FtA! on a fileshare network to be a sign that my game was a success, people wanted to read it enough to fileshare it, and those who read it liked it enough to keep sharing it.


Do you think you might feel differently if you earned a living by writing RPG material? Or do you think the needs of the RPG, movie, videogame, and music markets can be met by amateurs working in their spare time?

Because that's where filesharing is leading us. The perceived value of creative works is plummeting, especially among the young. As it becomes less profitable, fewer people will make creative work professionally. As a consumer, I want game design, moviemaking, and music to be profitable. I want those endeavours to attract capital and dedicated artists. Also, I was raised to believe you don't get something for nothing, and if you do then somebody is being fucked.

The customer wants everything, now, for free. Always has. And now with digital piracy, he can get it. Eventually we'll have a market in music, games, and movies that will satisfy those demands at the heavy cost in quality. Expect those products that are aimed at young men - the folks with the least qualms about stealing digital content - to suffer first. Investors are going to stop ponying up $120 million to make risky special-effects-laden movies if two-thirds of the market for that movie isn't going to pay for a ticket or buy the DVD.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 10:06:19 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273373
People who do this type of behavior have a very low turn over to purchasing that which they download illegally.


This is an unsubstantiated statistic. Check my previous posting. I always DL first, sample, then if I like I buy. ALWAYS. You may think I am an exception to the rule but I know plenty of people who do this very thing. Especially with PC games. PC games is another market that could grow exponentially if they paid any heed to piracy and follow what Blizzard did with WOW. "Two weeks free trial." Give em a taste and a choice to buy.

My two scents:
Illegal
Immoral
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 10:07:59 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273568
So much spurious nonsense gets spread about these issues it's incredible.


Then why don't you just stop already?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 10:14:16 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273485
The only way to end piracy (as much as is ever going to be possible) is to reduce the price of goods and meet the demand. If things like cd's and dvd's (and books) were cheaper then people would be prepared to pay for them; or if they were given better means to access content (not everyone wants to buy all the songs on album X for instance).


What if they simply aren't profitable at that price? Maybe if movie tickets and DVDs were $5, it simply wouldn't make any business sense to raise $180 million to make Iron Man? So maybe the movie doesn't get made at all, or it gets made with a $40 million budget, and corresponding reduction in the calibre of the effects, script, and actors?

See, the people making those movies and CDs don't have to do it. If it's not profitable enough, that capital and labour will just go somewhere else. You have no entitlement to professional designed and produced games and movies. Fuck, if you think those industries are so profitable, who don't you buy shares in them? Set aside a couple hundred dollars a month of your retirement savings and invest it in Disney, Marvel, EA. They're all publicly traded.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 15, 2008, 10:29:26 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273600
This is an unsubstantiated statistic. Check my previous posting. I always DL first, sample, then if I like I buy. ALWAYS. You may think I am an exception to the rule but I know plenty of people who do this very thing. Especially with PC games. PC games is another market that could grow exponentially if they paid any heed to piracy and follow what Blizzard did with WOW. "Two weeks free trial." Give em a taste and a choice to buy.

My two scents:
Illegal
Immoral

I never claimed it was a "statistic". It is my opinion and experience. Just like "but I know plenty of people who do this very thing".

Look, I am not saying everyone does this. Anyone who says such things about either side is incorrect. However, if someone can get a product for $5 or that could pay $10, what do you think they will do? My guess would be go for the $5 product all things being equal. Now, if they could get the $5 product for $0? Free is better than paying. I am not saying people would steal but if they could and be assured they will not get caught, I am sure more would do it than not. However, the curious thing that occurs is that people do not see it as wrong. More and more people see it as "getting something for free" not "breaking the law" or "doing something wrong". This is a cultural shift. Some companies are fighting it, others are using it, and others still embrace it. However, I think it is overly optimistic to say  that someone will decide to pay for something they already have. I think it is admirable that you do so, but I don't think the average person is so inclined.

The REAL advantage of the people who download and do not pay is word of mouth. They can talk to their friends and say thing like "Wow! I love this new song by The Killers! It is awesome! You should DL it today!" and their friend is reluctant to DL or does not know how or is not in the culture or feels it is wrong and they go and buy the album or pay to download the song. This will decrease over time as people overcome their inhibitions or technical issues with DLing. Then the market will contract. I think part of the problem people have in understanding the effect is that a market does not need to disappear to destroy it. All it really needs to do is shrink to a point where it does not sustain the infrastructure and endeavors that supply content. Game stores work this way. If we fall to a certain number of stores, it all collapses since you do not have enough stores to support the publishers. Some will yell "Let Rome Burn!" while others will cry over the loss and a sliver will take advantage of the change. This is simple evolution of the market so please do not interpret what I am saying as "OMG!!! END OF THE WORLD!!!". It is change and change can bring opportunity.

Pirates are scum though.

Of course, I could be wrong. The above is just my opinions and experience and some of my thoughts on the evolution of media markets.

ETA: And you describe crippleware. Some people think publishers and software companies are scum of the earth for doing such practices just to keep it in perspective.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 10:46:25 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273604
I never claimed it was a "statistic". It is my opinion and experience. Just like "but I know plenty of people who do this very thing".

Look, I am not saying everyone does this. Anyone who says such things about either side is incorrect. However, if someone can get a product for $5 or that could pay $10, what do you think they will do? My guess would be go for the $5 product all things being equal. Now, if they could get the $5 product for $0? Free is better than paying. I am not saying people would steal but if they could and be assured they will not get caught, I am sure more would do it than not. However, the curious thing that occurs is that people do not see it as wrong. More and more people see it as "getting something for free" not "breaking the law" or "doing something wrong". This is a cultural shift. Some companies are fighting it, others are using it, and others still embrace it. However, I think it is overly optimistic to say  that someone will decide to pay for something they already have. I think it is admirable that you do so, but I don't think the average person is so inclined.

The REAL advantage of the people who download and do not pay is word of mouth. They can talk to their friends and say thing like "Wow! I love this new song by The Killers! It is awesome! You should DL it today!" and their friend is reluctant to DL or does not know how or is not in the culture or feels it is wrong and they go and buy the album or pay to download the song. This will decrease over time as people overcome their inhibitions or technical issues with DLing. Then the market will contract. I think part of the problem people have in understanding the effect is that a market does not need to disappear to destroy it. All it really needs to do is shrink to a point where it does not sustain the infrastructure and endeavors that supply content. Game stores work this way. If we fall to a certain number of stores, it all collapses since you do not have enough stores to support the publishers. Some will yell "Let Rome Burn!" while others will cry over the loss and a sliver will take advantage of the change. This is simple evolution of the market so please do not interpret what I am saying as "OMG!!! END OF THE WORLD!!!". It is change and change can bring opportunity.

Pirates are scum though.

Of course, I could be wrong. The above is just my opinions and experience and some of my thoughts on the evolution of media markets.

ETA: And you describe crippleware. Some people think publishers and software companies are scum of the earth for doing such practices just to keep it in perspective.


You make so good points and I wonder if we don’t see some of the phenomenon already with PDF products. It’s so easy to get them for no cost, via filesharing, that many people (we’ve had threads on this forum about it) think they should pay very little for legit electronic copies.

And while some people may very well buy something they’ve pirated, occasionally, I seriously doubt it is either the norm nor something done routinely. Folks I know who fileshare have gigs and gigs of stuff that would cost them several thousands of dollars to purchase legally and is something they don’t have an intention to do.
Title: Sweet Land of Liberty the Black Berry project.
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 11:35:46 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;273599
Do you think you might feel differently if you earned a living by writing RPG material? Or do you think the needs of the RPG, movie, videogame, and music markets can be met by amateurs working in their spare time?


I think everyone on this forum can relate/understand. It takes a creative and imaginative mindset to love RPG's the first place. Everyone here can can imagine what it would be like to create a property and have it exploited. Also, everyone here plays RPGs so they are in fact working amateurs. They create and manipulate role playing matter to suit their particular game designs. By and large we are all game testers and many are designers, think about "House Rules."

And lastly, plenty of great products are created using open source material. LINUX is the ultimate example of unpaid amateurs writing functional if not excellent code for free!

Quote from: Haffrung;273599
The perceived value of creative works is plummeting, especially among the young.


The problem here is Perceived. You have perceived that the value of a product has somehow diminished because of the "proliferation of free media" (see my previous post). Free media can get the word out. Big network TV shows are being "given away" for free online aka LOST/HEROES. Somehow they still seem to sell incredible market share to advertisers and have managed to continue multiple seasons. EVEN THOUGH their PERCEIVED value must have been diminished by the FREE release.

MEDIA OUTLETS need to change their business practices to adapt to the changing consumer. Pirates aka "proliferation of free media" will not go away.

Quote from: Haffrung;273599
Also, I was raised to believe you don't get something for nothing, and if you do then somebody is being fucked.

Ah, now you have hit what the topic was about. Moral or ethical implications of getting a copy of OOP material.

I have an analogy for this.
 
Is it ok to pick and eat a blackberry that you found in public domain?  
If that's ok then what are you paying for when you buy a black berry from a local farmer or grocery store?

  You are paying for the active cultivation, marketing, and distribution of the product. If a book is OOP it no longer is being actively cultivated, marketed, and distributed. Thus, picking it for free does no damage to anyone. Do you want to go pay the bird that ate a blackberry and then deposited the seed in the ditch behind your house? If enough people come to the ditch and want the blackberries you may be so inclined to cultivate more and sell them. But if you don't, which is your right, then you should not be able to stop your neighbors from coming to the ditch.

 So when does OOP become public domain?

Quote from: Haffrung;273599
The customer wants everything, now, for free. Always has. And now with digital piracy, he can get it. Eventually we'll have a market in music, games, and movies that will satisfy those demands at the heavy cost in quality. Expect those products that are aimed at young men - the folks with the least qualms about stealing digital content - to suffer first. Investors are going to stop ponying up $120 million to make risky special-effects-laden movies if two-thirds of the market for that movie isn't going to pay for a ticket or buy the DVD.


  First you assume that everyone has access to the hardware it takes to pirate. In 2000 only 51% of households had a computer. Granting that this number has shot up since the article I read, now you have got to figure learning curve here. How many people are savy enough to use a computer to pirate media? I worked as a Computer Tech Support agent and most common users of computers could barely access their email.
  Second, free digital content is not the end of the world for your young male mass marketed blockbuster special effect epics. Those epics, quite frankly, are of dubious quality as we speak, but will survive/change just like other media has in the past. People went to live plays before the cinema. They watched TV before VCR movies. We had DVDs and home theaters before computer based "on demand" outlets. Somehow each and every media  format survived. WHY?

CHANGE and a natural human desire to experience media and to remember the experience through a tangible object. We want to see plays, movies, watch tv, listen to music, go to live performances of music, read books. We want to hold packaged content of the said experience in our hands and proclaim them as our very own. And anyone who holds any value to the media would gladly pay for it. You are right, people will always want things for free, its human nature to pick the free blackberry over buying a cultivated one. But this does not change the fact that we are lazy and might not want to run around to all the ditches looking for one. Some people will still do it but blackberry farmers will just consider that acceptable loss.

THAT My friend is a whole lotta scents:
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 15, 2008, 11:43:10 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273604
However, if someone can get a product for $5 or that could pay $10, what do you think they will do? My guess would be go for the $5 product all things being equal. Now, if they could get the $5 product for $0? Free is better than paying.

Each and every time you lower the price there is a marketable decrease in quality standards. The free pdf of a book is not the same thing as acutally having a copy of the book. A dvd rip looks like complete ass on my HDTV.

You always get what you paid for right.

EBAY should be DAMNED no publisher got any money from them.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 15, 2008, 12:05:21 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273628
Each and every time you lower the price there is a marketable decrease in quality standards. The free pdf of a book is not the same thing as acutally having a copy of the book. A dvd rip looks like complete ass on my HDTV.

You always get what you paid for right.

No, not in the digital world. See, this is the problem with digital piracy. You can download my Iridium System Core Reference off a couple of FS sites. I have it on my site as well. It is precisely the same product. If someone pays $12 for my Roma True20 and then puts it up on an FS site, they get the same quality as the person who paid for it. So why should the person who DL the free Roma pay?

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273628

EBAY should be DAMNED no publisher got any money from them.

I never said that. But we are talking about a wildly different thing. Piracy is illegal reproduction and distribution of IP. Second hand markets preserve a chain of ownership. The publisher and owner of the rights to a piece of work produced it, made it for sale, and sold it to a person. That person took it and decided to sell it after they were done with it. They own that copy of the work and resell it to another via EBay.

So, IMO, no, I have absolutely no issue with second hand markets of legally acquired goods. In fact, I have encouraged more than one customer (when asked) to resell my digital books if they wish. I only asked that they delete the book from their possession once sold.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 12:17:28 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273624

  First you assume that everyone has access to the hardware it takes to pirate. In 2000 only 51% of households had a computer. Granting that this number has shot up since the article I read, now you have got to figure learning curve here. How many people are savy enough to use a computer to pirate media? I worked as a Computer Tech Support agent and most common users of computers could barely access their email.



That's why the decline will take time. As I noted, it's young men who are most likely to illegally download content, because they are the most tech-savvy. They are also members of a generation that has a sense of entitlement when it comes to entertainment. As they grow up and as middle-aged folk become more tech-savvy, pirating will spread. It will become both technically more convenient, and ethically more acceptable.

In the meantime, I'll continue to denounce the free riders. I subscribe to Kantian ethics, which basically asks you to consider that if an action you undertake were undertaken by everybody, whether the result would be good or bad. Clearly, if everyone downloaded their entertainment content for free, the content would suffer. So today, the free riders are getting their fun at the expense of honest or less-technicallly savvy users who foot the bill for everybody.

Quote


  Second, free digital content is not the end of the world for your young male mass marketed blockbuster special effect epics. Those epics, quite frankly, are of dubious quality as we speak, but will survive/change just like other media has in the past.


Sorry, I'm not so sanguine that movies, games, and music will continue to be professionally produced with a dramatic reduction in revenue. As much as a lot of naive and selfish people like to think that all that money goes to fat executives, fact is most of the money you pay for a movie or game goes to people working for a living or the equipment it takes to make top-quality design and effects. The sound mixers, technical writers, prop designers, rigs, computers, office space, warehouses, audio systems, etc. That shit costs money. Lots of it. And a lot of productions require a huge amount of money up front. If investors feel they can get a better or less risky return putting their money into some other enterprise, then that's what they'll do. And we'll see how many cutting-edge console games or superhero blockbusters get made with the money that a producer and his buddies can raise privately.

As I noted earlier, if music, film, and gaming are such remarkably lucrative businesses, you would expect their stock prices to reflect that. Why not put your money where your mouth is and buy stock?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 15, 2008, 12:26:07 PM
I see the same hysteria and zealotry came out of the woodwork on this topic as it does every time someone mentions file-sharing.

I'll just make a few bullet points:

* Stop calling it theft.  It's not theft.  It makes you sound stupid and hysterical when you call it theft.  Even the mentally retarded or young children can see the obvious difference.

* Stop calling it piracy.  The term is meant to refer to people who sell copied material.  Again, even the youngest child can tell the difference between creating one copy for yourself, and selling hundreds of copies to others.

* There is absolutely no way file-sharing will ever be stopped.  People have been trying to fight copyright infringement for over 50 years.  Nothing has ever worked.  If anything, the opposite is true - the technology to overcome copy protections keeps getting better and better.

* Outside of industry executives and the few whiners on internet forums, no one cares.  90% of the public doesn't see anything wrong with violating copyright.  If anything, the vast majority of the public sees copyright as stupid as those "don't remove this tag" tags on pillows.  I've seen every age, race, gender, and socio-economic group commit thousands of copyright violations without any concern over ethics.  At most, people might think of it in the same category as jaywalking or speeding - something you aren't technically supposed to do but everyone does.

* Copyright violation has been going strong on the Internet for over 10 years now.  There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it has hurt any entertainment industry.  Not the movie industry.  Not the music industry.  Not the book industry.  Not the RPG industry.  There have, however, been numerous times where net buzz increased sales.

* Finally, as to the OP topic, IMO if we are going to have copyright laws, at the bare minimum they should require the item in question remain available for purchase.  Letting something go OOP and not wanting anyone to get a copy so you can make more money later is nothing short of biblical evil levels of greed.  There is absolutely no ethical question there - the only reason something is OOP is either because no one can sell it (in which case, no ethical problem for getting a copy) or they are purposely being greedy and holding it back so they can screw people (in which case, they can blow me).
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 12:38:52 PM
Quote from: jgants;273640

* Outside of industry executives and the few whiners on internet forums, no one cares.  90% of the public doesn't see anything wrong with violating copyright.  



A lot of people don't have any problem with defrauding their insurance company, under the mistaken belief that they're just hurting the bottom line of a faceless corporation of a anonymous guy in a suit. Fact is, insurance companies simply pass the cost of insurance fraud on to paying customers. Same with game companies. They know a third of their customers burn their games for free. They simply pass the costs on to the paying customers.

Problem is, we'll likely reach a tipping point soon where so many honest buyers join the ranks of the free riders that revenues will plummet (this has already happened with the music industry). So record companies are now much more careful with how they spend their money. No more taking risks developing bands over several albums. If an act isn't immediately commercially viable, it doesn't get signed.

Quote


There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that it has hurt any entertainment industry.  Not the movie industry.  Not the music industry.  Not the book industry.  Not the RPG industry.



No evidence that you'll believe. But that just has to be your self-interest masking reality. You can't honestly believe that the reduced revenue from free riders doesn't hurt the bottom line eventually. And again, ask yourself what would happen if everybody used digital content without paying. Currently, the free riders only have content to take because other people are willing to pay for it. To me, that's parasitic and unethical.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 15, 2008, 12:53:36 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273635
In the meantime, I'll continue to denounce the free riders. I subscribe to Kantian ethics, which basically asks you to consider that if an action you undertake were undertaken by everybody, whether the result would be good or bad. Clearly, if everyone downloaded their entertainment content for free, the content would suffer. So today, the free riders are getting their fun at the expense of honest or less-technicallly savvy users who foot the bill for everybody.

Well, who are you calling "free riders"?  For example, I stated my position earlier that I would download a game only if I either already had a copy, or was unable to buy a copy because it was well out-of-print and unavailable in stores.  That is the topic of the thread, after all.  I do not believe that this behavior, if done by everyone, would significantly reduce the quality of RPG content.  

Then again, if everyone behaved like me, then the quality of both blockbuster movies and broadcast television would suffer a lot -- because I rarely watch either.  And really, that's fine with me.  I don't think you get what you pay for, in the sense that I would prefer to play an RPG with my friends for free than pay $10 to watch a crappy (IMO) blockbuster like Iron Man.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 15, 2008, 12:55:45 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273650
A lot of people don't have any problem with defrauding their insurance company, under the mistaken belief that they're just hurting the bottom line of a faceless corporation of a anonymous guy in a suit.


And yet, most people do still consider that an unethical, immoral, and illegal act.  They know its still stealing.  Something is being taken from someone else.

The reason copyright isn't usually considered unethical is because they don't see the difference between, say, downloading a DVD or borrowing a copy from a friend's house or getting together to watch a DVD that someone else rented or loaning it out from the library.  In each case, they didn't pay to watch it, so it's effectively the same from their POV.

Quote from: Haffrung;273650
Problem is, we'll likely reach a tipping point soon where so many honest buyers join the ranks of the free riders that revenues will plummet (this has already happened with the music industry). So record companies are now much more careful with how they spend their money. No more taking risks developing bands over several albums. If an act isn't immediately commercially viable, it doesn't get signed.


A. You are wrong.
B. You are wrong.
C. You are really, really wrong.

The music industry is raking in the dough from online music sales.  They ran into a problem a few years back because of the mediocre talent they were promoting, not because of any file sharing issues.  As for the "blockbuster or nothing" mentality, every industry has been doing that for the last decade.  Or haven't you noticed that new TV shows get one show before being called a failure nowadays?  It's like that with everything now - either it sells big, or it's dead.  That has a lot more to do with corporate mentality than anything with file-sharing.

Quote from: Haffrung;273650
No evidence that you'll believe. But that just has to be your self-interest masking reality. You can't honestly believe that the reduced revenue from free riders doesn't hurt the bottom line eventually. And again, ask yourself what would happen if everybody used digital content without paying. Currently, the free riders only have content to take because other people are willing to pay for it. To me, that's parasitic and unethical.


No, I mean no evidence.  Maybe you didn't notice, but Hollywood, for example, has had some record-breaking profits the last couple of years despite more copy-sharing than ever before.

We know some people download things they would never pay for.  We know some people buy things they have downloaded or saw because someone else downloaded it.  We know some people download things they would have paid for, but now won't because they got it for free.  What we don't really know is the net effect, because it's too difficult to measure.

It's possible that its resulting in a net loss of sales and hurting the bottom line.  It's equally possible that its resulting in increased visibility through viral marketing, and increasing the bottom line.  It's also equally possible the whole thing evens out in the wash.  We simply don't know.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 01:32:08 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273603
What if they simply aren't profitable at that price? Maybe if movie tickets and DVDs were $5, it simply wouldn't make any business sense to raise $180 million to make Iron Man? So maybe the movie doesn't get made at all, or it gets made with a $40 million budget, and corresponding reduction in the calibre of the effects, script, and actors?

See, the people making those movies and CDs don't have to do it. If it's not profitable enough, that capital and labour will just go somewhere else. You have no entitlement to professional designed and produced games and movies. Fuck, if you think those industries are so profitable, who don't you buy shares in them? Set aside a couple hundred dollars a month of your retirement savings and invest it in Disney, Marvel, EA. They're all publicly traded.


If they aren't profitable at that price then too bad. Who gets to decide what is profitable? The industry that pays its stars hundreds of millions (like Keanu Reeves, though probably not Robert Downey)? Movies don't need to have such huge budgets, and even then look at their profit margins!

The idea that quality is linked to price is nonsensical; there is no reason that by paying people less you should get less quality. Unfortuantely however what is needed in the industry is a sea change of thinking and not chasing the almighty dollar.

The thing is, the marketplace has spoken; it wants change. It doesn't want to pay what the big businesses think they can get away with charging. Especially considering the excesses and conduct of said businesses (exploitation of artists etc).

But then given the prevalence of technology people are already making hobby movies of impressive quality - just look at some of the fan movies made for stuff like star wars.

What big business fears is the power to make product taken out of its hands. It could easily afford to charge less.

Filesharing hasn't destroyed the rpg industry and hasn't put WotC out of business - if we take D&D as the biggest victim in gaming of filesharing and use that as an example - so it hardly seems likely to anytime soon. So where then is the problem?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 02:00:36 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273665
If they aren't profitable at that price then too bad. Who gets to decide what is profitable?



Well, the shareholders for one. If the value of the company doesn't go up, fewer people will buy shares. With less capital, the company has less to invest in technology, research, and labour. It's called capitalism.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273665


The industry that pays its stars hundreds of millions (like Keanu Reeves, though probably not Robert Downey)? Movies don't need to have such huge budgets, and even then look at their profit margins!




They pay stars millions because they have reason to believe that those stars put asses in seats. And they have a pretty good idea of how many asses a particular star can draw. Lots of very shrewd people analyze this stuff for a living.

Special effects are incredibly expensive. The labour costs alone for hundreds of programmers and artists earning good salaries for years is enormous. And when a company cheaps out on effects, the geekboys are the first to mock the movie for looking cheesy.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273665


The idea that quality is linked to price is nonsensical; there is no reason that by paying people less you should get less quality.



You're either very young or very poor. Material costs money. Labour costs money. Licenses cost money. The more demand for the material, labour, etc, the more it costs. People who are very good at coding software or drawing landscapes or balancing budgets can charge more for their labour than people who are mediocre. If a company cannot pay the best people, the end product is unlikely to be the best. Sure, you may get lucky and attract some talented and underpaid people early in their career. But you can't count on that. And you run into greater risks if you employ unproven talent. Capital doesn't like risk. It flows to the safe bet. And without capital, you're working low-budget.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273665


Unfortuantely however what is needed in the industry is a sea change of thinking and not chasing the almighty dollar.



Can you name a viable private industry that is not concerned with 'chasing the almighty dollar?' And would you invest your retirement savings with such a company?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273665



But then given the prevalence of technology people are already making hobby movies of impressive quality - just look at some of the fan movies made for stuff like star wars.



Every fan movie I've seen has been absolute shit. They're worth exactly what you pay for them - nothing. But if that sort of stuff turns your crank, then you'll probably be happy with the future of entertainment; reams and reams of crappy amateur content available at the click of a mouse.

And if you don't care for expensive commercial products, then why in fuck does it matter how much that stuff costs anyway? You can enjoy your amateur fan content for free right now. Why in fuck are you whining about the cost of products you claim you don't want anyway?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 15, 2008, 02:15:39 PM
The most interesting part of this thread is group of currently 18% who consider such downloading completely unacceptable.

That's 1 out of 5 people.   Very interesting.   I would love to see more of them post their perspective.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 02:52:40 PM
The sad thing is nothing will really change until people start to accept the absurdity of the status quo and stop making groundless assumptions about all sorts of things (like quality).

Until those changes are made we wil continue getting ripped off, big business will continue to steamroll over and exploit the little guy (who probably won't be owning his work, given the current system), and people will continue to fret over something as silly as the morality of downloading something that's no longer in print!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 03:00:26 PM
Quote
Well, the shareholders for one. If the value of the company doesn't go up, fewer people will buy shares. With less capital, the company has less to invest in technology, research, and labour. It's called capitalism.


and look where it's gotten us.

Why should the shareholders have anything to do with the rights to an artists work? Why should big business have the right to exploit someone with creative projects they want to release.

Nine pages of discussion about filesharing, liberally sprinkled with vitriol, yet where are the people defending musicians who get screwed over by record companies, movie makers who get screwed over by studios (that 40K fan flick will never see the light of day thanks to the GW machine)?

Quote
They pay stars millions because they have reason to believe that those stars put asses in seats. And they have a pretty good idea of how many asses a particular star can draw. Lots of very shrewd people analyze this stuff for a living.


Shrewd? really?

We all know why they are paid millions, but they don't really need to be paid millions. That's the point isn't it! Unfortunately until people start thinking differently nothing will change. People will choose to not see Iron Man if it doesn't have a top drawer name in, even though there are probably a ton of equally talented actors who could have done just as good a job if not better in the role for a fraction of the fee. We will never know.

Quote
Special effects are incredibly expensive. The labour costs alone for hundreds of programmers and artists earning good salaries for years is enormous. And when a company cheaps out on effects, the geekboys are the first to mock the movie for looking cheesy.


This is all very nice, but it really is bullshit. These movies don't make a loss (rarely).

But despite what the big studio bosses would like to think, and that usually revolves around $$$, the consumers don't want things like this anymore. Hence the popularity of downloading. They try and combat this with spurious bullshit about everything from quality to the finding of international child porn rings.

I'm sorry you feel the need to equate everything to the costs involved, but until people choose to see things differently filesharing will continue and nothing will improve.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 15, 2008, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;273673
The most interesting part of this thread is group of currently 18% who consider such downloading completely unacceptable.

That's 1 out of 5 people.   Very interesting.   I would love to see more of them post their perspective.


Well, I was one of those. The way you worded it, I did not think (and yes, there is a fair amount of interpretation on my part) that there was much room for another answer. It is still under copyright so it is illegal. My thoughts on how to deal with it I have posted at other points in the thread.

Specifically, to the wording, you ask if YOU would do it. My answer is no and I do not. Not music, software, dvds, books or anything of the like. So, for me, no and yes, I would consider it wrong to do so.

Is that what you were looking for?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 03:32:55 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273628
Each and every time you lower the price there is a marketable decrease in quality standards. The free pdf of a book is not the same thing as acutally having a copy of the book. A dvd rip looks like complete ass on my HDTV.

You always get what you paid for right.

EBAY should be DAMNED no publisher got any money from them.


No offense but if you can't get an exact duplicate of an electronic medium you are simply doing it wrong.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 03:40:17 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
Why should the shareholders have anything to do with the rights to an artists work? Why should big business have the right to exploit someone with creative projects they want to release.



If you want the things a studio can provide - financing, technical expertise, promotion, and distribution - then you'll have to dance to their tune. If you can do all that stuff on your own, then you have nothing to worry about. Just get together with some friends, borrow money from everyone you know, and make that $300,000 science fiction spectacular you've always dreamed of and release it on youtube. Nothing stopping you.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 03:44:03 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273677
The sad thing is nothing will really change until people start to accept the absurdity of the status quo and stop making groundless assumptions about all sorts of things (like quality).

Until those changes are made we wil continue getting ripped off, big business will continue to steamroll over and exploit the little guy (who probably won't be owning his work, given the current system), and people will continue to fret over something as silly as the morality of downloading something that's no longer in print!


More of your "stick to the man" mantra, which you claim to not have. Nice.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 04:16:13 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
and look where it's gotten us.

Why should the shareholders have anything to do with the rights to an artists work? Why should big business have the right to exploit someone with creative projects they want to release.


Shareholders foot the bill to produce, promote and distribute that artist’s work, that’s why. If the artist didn’t need the shareholders, why did they sign on with said company in the first place?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
Nine pages of discussion about filesharing, liberally sprinkled with vitriol, yet where are the people defending musicians who get screwed over by record companies, movie makers who get screwed over by studios (that 40K fan flick will never see the light of day thanks to the GW machine)?


The vitriol is coming from your inane hatred of “the man” and flames your excuse for your own, or support for, file sharing for things you think you have a right to. Here it is slowly if it hasn’t dawned on you yet:
It doesn’t matter if a company is screwing over said artist, it doesn’t give others the right to screw over both the artist and the company by taking property, intellectual or not, that is not theirs.
Simple, really.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
Shrewd? really?

We all know why they are paid millions, but they don't really need to be paid millions. That's the point isn't it! Unfortunately until people start thinking differently nothing will change. People will choose to not see Iron Man if it doesn't have a top drawer name in, even though there are probably a ton of equally talented actors who could have done just as good a job if not better in the role for a fraction of the fee. We will never know.

Why should artists be prevented from making as much as they can for their work? What gives you the right to declare their pay to high? You are extremely liberal with other people’s money, aren’t you?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680

This is all very nice, but it really is bullshit. These movies don't make a loss (rarely).

Citation, or retract this made up bullshit.

Movies lose money (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php) all the time, it’s the few blockbusters that make studios their money (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/23/movies/20080223_REVENUE_GRAPHIC.html#).

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
But despite what the big studio bosses would like to think, and that usually revolves around $$$, the consumers don't want things like this anymore. Hence the popularity of downloading. They try and combat this with spurious bullshit about everything from quality to the finding of international child porn rings.


Because we should listen to you, internet Robin Hood, right?

Not only are you full of shit, you are fucking wrong as all get out. If people don’t want it, why the fuck are they downloading it?

You seem to be claiming the more folks download a product, the less they actually want it!?!?

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
I'm sorry you feel the need to equate everything to the costs involved, but until people choose to see things differently filesharing will continue and nothing will improve.


Until you see your actions as theft, you won’t see things differently. But until then, you’ll blindly torrent your favorite movie and pretend it didn’t cost some company somewhere $100 million to produce it all the while telling yourself it’s ok because they are screwing over the “artist”.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 15, 2008, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680
and look where it's gotten us.


Capitalism made the USA the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the history of the world and raised the quality of life for many billions in other capitalist nations in a way that no other ideology has ever been able to achieve.

In fact, I shall now get up and do the money dance in praise of the Money Gods who bless me with their green power!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 04:38:15 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;273697
Capitalism made the USA the most prosperous and most powerful nation in the history of the world and raised the quality of life for many billions in other capitalist nations in a way that no other ideology has ever been able to achieve.

In fact, I shall now get up and do the money dance in praise of the Money Gods who bless me with their green power!
*facepalm*
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 04:42:02 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273693
Shareholders foot the bill to produce, promote and distribute that artist’s work, that’s why. If the artist didn’t need the shareholders, why did they sign on with said company in the first place?



The vitriol is coming from your inane hatred of “the man” and flames your excuse for your own, or support for, file sharing for things you think you have a right to. Here it is slowly if it hasn’t dawned on you yet:
It doesn’t matter if a company is screwing over said artist, it doesn’t give others the right to screw over both the artist and the company by taking property, intellectual or not, that is not theirs.
Simple, really.


Why should artists be prevented from making as much as they can for their work? What gives you the right to declare their pay to high? You are extremely liberal with other people’s money, aren’t you?


Citation, or retract this made up bullshit.

Movies lose money (http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/records/budgets.php) all the time, it’s the few blockbusters that make studios their money (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/02/23/movies/20080223_REVENUE_GRAPHIC.html#).



Because we should listen to you, internet Robin Hood, right?

Not only are you full of shit, you are fucking wrong as all get out. If people don’t want it, why the fuck are they downloading it?

You seem to be claiming the more folks download a product, the less they actually want it!?!?



Until you see your actions as theft, you won’t see things differently. But until then, you’ll blindly torrent your favorite movie and pretend it didn’t cost some company somewhere $100 million to produce it all the while telling yourself it’s ok because they are screwing over the “artist”.


Jesus, the shit you write. Do you ever read this crap or just type and hit send?

What on earth does filesharing have to do with theft? You've had it explained how it's not remotely close to fucking theft and still your tired little mind cannot comprehend the words you read. Do you even know who Robin Hood was?

What a strange, sad, and pathetic worldview you have, you dozy fucking pissweasel. Go away, far far away.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 04:46:21 PM
Quote from: jgants;273657
No, I mean no evidence.  Maybe you didn't notice, but Hollywood, for example, has had some record-breaking profits the last couple of years despite more copy-sharing than ever before.


You have anything to back this absurb claim up, or did you just make it up on the fly?

Gross receipts (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/movies/02year.html) are below the all time highs. (see the chart)
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 04:48:39 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273699
Jesus, the shit you write. Do you ever read this crap or just type and hit send?

What on earth does filesharing have to do with theft? You've had it explained how it's not remotely close to fucking theft and still your tired little mind cannot comprehend the words you read. Do you even know who Robin Hood was?

What a strange, sad, and pathetic worldview you have, you dozy fucking pissweasel. Go away, far far away.


I’ll take it to mean you have been utterly and completely beaten in the battle of ideas. Perhaps you come across something you can copy later on to use in this thread.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 04:51:16 PM
If hollywood can't make a profit on the shit it spews out then perhaps paying the likes of Kan't Act Reeves 100 million a picture is not such a smart move after all.

But if you are seriously telling me that hollywood is losing money because of filesharing then you really are clutching at straws.

The idea that a downloaded piece of work automatically equals a lost sale is entirely spurious.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 15, 2008, 04:54:59 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273701
I’ll take it to mean you have been utterly and completely beaten in the battle of ideas. Perhaps you come across something you can copy later on to use in this thread.


(http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg)
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 04:57:11 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273702
If hollywood can't make a profit on the shit it spews out then perhaps paying the likes of Kan't Act Reeves 100 million a picture is not such a smart move after all.


Whether a company makes money, or not, on their production is not the determiner for if you, as a file sharer, have a right to their property or not.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273702
But if you are seriously telling me that hollywood is losing money because of filesharing then you really are clutching at straws.


Can you provide anything that shows otherwise? In any case, whether they can still make money in such an environment does not make said file sharing ok or not. Your point, and this is me being generous, seems to be as long as someone takes money, you have the right to take from them without compensation if you want to.

Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273702
The idea that a downloaded piece of work automatically equals a lost sale is entirely spurious.


Far less so than the claim that those who download it do it because they didn’t want it in the first place.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 15, 2008, 05:42:20 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273699
What on earth does filesharing have to do with theft?


THIS is fascinating.  

"Filesharing" appears to have either everything and nothing to do with theft.   The determination seems to be cultural and maybe generational.   Kinda like attitudes on premarital sex.

How old are you Ghost Whistler and Cav Scout?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 15, 2008, 05:57:10 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273700
You have anything to back this absurb claim up, or did you just make it up on the fly?

Gross receipts (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/movies/02year.html) are below the all time highs. (see the chart)


There are about fifty different ways you can slice the numbers with a movie.  Hollywood accounting is notoriously fluid - that's how mega-blockbusters avoid paying off people percentages by claiming they didn't really make any money (like Stan Lee with Spiderman, or Peter Jackson with LotR), while massive flops are still minor successes once you factor in the international receipts or whatever.

In any event, I was thinking of the "biggest weekend ever" or "biggest 4 day gain ever" or whatever those other records were they kept mentioning all the time over the last year or two.  I don't keep a list of such things, I just remember seeing a lot of headlines.  Good, popular movies did pretty well the last couple of years.  The problem is that, overall, the studios also released a lot of costly junk that didn't make any money.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 15, 2008, 07:16:43 PM
Quote from: jgants;273710
There are about fifty different ways you can slice the numbers with a movie.  Hollywood accounting is notoriously fluid - that's how mega-blockbusters avoid paying off people percentages by claiming they didn't really make any money (like Stan Lee with Spiderman, or Peter Jackson with LotR), while massive flops are still minor successes once you factor in the international receipts or whatever.

In any event, I was thinking of the "biggest weekend ever" or "biggest 4 day gain ever" or whatever those other records were they kept mentioning all the time over the last year or two.  I don't keep a list of such things, I just remember seeing a lot of headlines.  Good, popular movies did pretty well the last couple of years.  The problem is that, overall, the studios also released a lot of costly junk that didn't make any money.


It's alright to say, "Opps, my claim was baseless. You got me," and move on. Having the "biggest weekend" evar means crap if your year over year numbers are the same or less than before.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 15, 2008, 10:13:32 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273599
Do you think you might feel differently if you earned a living by writing RPG material? Or do you think the needs of the RPG, movie, videogame, and music markets can be met by amateurs working in their spare time?

Because that's where filesharing is leading us. The perceived value of creative works is plummeting, especially among the young. As it becomes less profitable, fewer people will make creative work professionally. As a consumer, I want game design, moviemaking, and music to be profitable. I want those endeavours to attract capital and dedicated artists. Also, I was raised to believe you don't get something for nothing, and if you do then somebody is being fucked.


And yet, there's still tons of people making a living writing, playing music, or making movies.

I think that the practical reality of filesharing and the internet means that over time, people will have to change the WAYS they make a living off these things, the idea that the only two choices are "destroy the filesharers!!" or "no one will ever make money from creative work again!!" is pretty limited thinking.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 15, 2008, 10:17:26 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273650

Problem is, we'll likely reach a tipping point soon where so many honest buyers join the ranks of the free riders that revenues will plummet (this has already happened with the music industry). So record companies are now much more careful with how they spend their money. No more taking risks developing bands over several albums. If an act isn't immediately commercially viable, it doesn't get signed.


If this is true, and this is the reaction of the record companies, then those record companies deserve to die from their own stupidity.

You see, the idea of "people shouldn't get something for nothing" has gone out the window.  We are increasingly living in a world of post-scarcity economics, as far as intellectual product is concerned. And the key isn't to try to stop that, like King Wenceslas fighting the tides, the key is to ADAPT to that.

That's a little something called CAPITALISM, baby. Maybe you've heard of that? Change or die.


RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 15, 2008, 10:19:38 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273672
Well, the shareholders for one. If the value of the company doesn't go up, fewer people will buy shares. With less capital, the company has less to invest in technology, research, and labour. It's called capitalism.


Nope sorry, but where I come from "the shareholders decide what they think people should buy and then try to force them to buy things at that price" is not capitalism.
In capitalism, the price of things is determined by the hand of the free market, supply and demand.  The situation has changed so that the scarcity of a product has disappeared; you don't respond to that by trying to create artificial scarcity, you respond to that by changing what and how you sell.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Nazgul on December 15, 2008, 10:55:48 PM
As some one who's spent thousands of dollars on RPG material, I'd have to say I have no problem downloading OOP books.

It's not that I don't want to pay for them, it's that I can't get them any other way. All in all I'd rather have the published book over a PDF any day, but some are impossible to find or priced ridiculously high on e-bay.

Realy, if a book has been OOP for 15 years or so where else are you going to find it?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 11:37:19 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273752
And yet, there's still tons of people making a living writing, playing music, or making movies.



Of course. But the devaluation of creative works is just getting underway. There are still lots of folks who understand that someobody has to pay for this stuff. But they're getting older, and eventually they'll get tired of paying the bill for other peoples' fun. And the younger generation has a sense of impervious entitlement about electronic entertainment that will eventually become the social norm. I give it about another 5-8 years before we reach the tipping point and movies, music, and electronic games become too risky for mainstream investors , or creators and technical experts who want steady paycheques.

Quote from: RPGPundit;273752


I think that the practical reality of filesharing and the internet means that over time, people will have to change the WAYS they make a living off these things, the idea that the only two choices are "destroy the filesharers!!" or "no one will ever make money from creative work again!!" is pretty limited thinking.



That sounds to me like those people who shrug off ecological or climate issues with the blase assumption 'the scientists will figure something out.' Maybe they won't. As ad blockers become more prevalent, you'll see fewer rubes willing to bankroll creative endeavours with ads that nobody is watching. But hey, I'm sure they'll think of something . It's not as though it's possible that movies, games, and music could ever be less profitable or attractive to dedicated professionals that they are today.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 15, 2008, 11:48:06 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273753
You see, the idea of "people shouldn't get something for nothing" has gone out the window.  We are increasingly living in a world of post-scarcity economics, as far as intellectual product is concerned. And the key isn't to try to stop that, like King Wenceslas fighting the tides, the key is to ADAPT to that.

That's a little something called CAPITALISM, baby. Maybe you've heard of that? Change or die.




And all I'm saying is that the market adaptation will likely be for IP content to be less well rewarded. And hence, attract less capital and skill. That happens a lot with capitalism. There may simply be less money to be made in fields that have to compete with free content, and quality may suffer as a result. Why is that so difficult to face?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:15:47 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;273709
THIS is fascinating.  

"Filesharing" appears to have either everything and nothing to do with theft.   The determination seems to be cultural and maybe generational.   Kinda like attitudes on premarital sex.

How old are you Ghost Whistler and Cav Scout?


It isn't theft. Nothing is taken. The 'product' remains intact and no one is profiting (or at least selling copies of the 'product' is not required to be part of the process). The only issue people seem to have is the issue of lost earnings, evne though those earnings don't exist and are entirely potential and hypothetical. In fact it's more likely that, as more people are exposed to the 'product', that more sales will be generated from interested parties. There is certainly no guarantee that downloading something automatically means one less sale. That whole notion is frankly insidious, bizarre and sinister.

Entrenched old views about ownership of creative property need to change, because the technology is forcing the issue. There is nothing sacred about owning the rights to a work in a world where that owner can be someone who ha nothing whatsoever to do with the creation of that work.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:21:17 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273704
Whether a company makes money, or not, on their production is not the determiner for if you, as a file sharer, have a right to their property or not.



Can you provide anything that shows otherwise? In any case, whether they can still make money in such an environment does not make said file sharing ok or not. Your point, and this is me being generous, seems to be as long as someone takes money, you have the right to take from them without compensation if you want to.



Far less so than the claim that those who download it do it because they didn’t want it in the first place.

Why don't you provide some evidence of the damage caused by filesharing?

You can't.

The question then becomes, what is your problem?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:30:06 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;273760
Of course. But the devaluation of creative works is just getting underway. There are still lots of folks who understand that someobody has to pay for this stuff. But they're getting older, and eventually they'll get tired of paying the bill for other peoples' fun. And the younger generation has a sense of impervious entitlement about electronic entertainment that will eventually become the social norm. I give it about another 5-8 years before we reach the tipping point and movies, music, and electronic games become too risky for mainstream investors , or creators and technical experts who want steady paycheques.



That sounds to me like those people who shrug off ecological or climate issues with the blase assumption 'the scientists will figure something out.' Maybe they won't. As ad blockers become more prevalent, you'll see fewer rubes willing to bankroll creative endeavours with ads that nobody is watching. But hey, I'm sure they'll think of something . It's not as though it's possible that movies, games, and music could ever be less profitable or attractive to dedicated professionals that they are today.


What is this notion that the act of filesharing devalues the art? That's just nonsense. People share these files because they like them and by and large care about the product. They are doing more for artists than any industry ever could (or at least would) because they aren't using a limited mindset that says 'this isn't good because it won't sell'.

But if you are thinking that creativity will only decline because of filesharing then you are very misguided about how creative the music industry etc currently is. The industry as only ever been about making money - never about creativity. That's why they are so bothered about filesharing (to the point of threatening to sue the shit out of kids). Why else would it bother them, given the publicity it provides the artist (whom he fileshareer may well then go and see live, having been exposed to a new artist) whose work they are supposedly supporting.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 08:27:16 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273753
You see, the idea of "people shouldn't get something for nothing" has gone out the window.


Please send me copies of all your products, I don't want to pay for them. I will promptly host them so others can get them for nothing as well. Please adapt or die. Don't be a hypocrite.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273633
No, not in the digital world. See, this is the problem with digital piracy. You can download my Iridium System Core Reference off a couple of FS sites. I have it on my site as well. It is precisely the same product. If someone pays $12 for my Roma True20 and then puts it up on an FS site, they get the same quality as the person who paid for it. So why should the person who DL the free Roma pay?


I never said that. But we are talking about a wildly different thing. Piracy is illegal reproduction and distribution of IP. Second hand markets preserve a chain of ownership. The publisher and owner of the rights to a piece of work produced it, made it for sale, and sold it to a person. That person took it and decided to sell it after they were done with it. They own that copy of the work and resell it to another via EBay.

So, IMO, no, I have absolutely no issue with second hand markets of legally acquired goods. In fact, I have encouraged more than one customer (when asked) to resell my digital books if they wish. I only asked that they delete the book from their possession once sold.


I would love to see the computer you have home that allows you to copy BLUE RAY DISKS
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 09:03:20 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273633
No, not in the digital world. See, this is the problem with digital piracy. You can download my Iridium System Core Reference off a couple of FS sites. I have it on my site as well. It is precisely the same product. If someone pays $12 for my Roma True20 and then puts it up on an FS site, they get the same quality as the person who paid for it. So why should the person who DL the free Roma pay?


I never said that. But we are talking about a wildly different thing. Piracy is illegal reproduction and distribution of IP. Second hand markets preserve a chain of ownership. The publisher and owner of the rights to a piece of work produced it, made it for sale, and sold it to a person. That person took it and decided to sell it after they were done with it. They own that copy of the work and resell it to another via EBay.

So, IMO, no, I have absolutely no issue with second hand markets of legally acquired goods. In fact, I have encouraged more than one customer (when asked) to resell my digital books if they wish. I only asked that they delete the book from their possession once sold.


I would love to see the computer you have home that allows you to copy Blue Ray Disks without any compression thus quality loss
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 09:23:54 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;273635
That's why the decline will take time. As I noted, it's young men who are most likely to illegally download content, because they are the most tech-savvy. They are also members of a generation that has a sense of entitlement when it comes to entertainment. As they grow up and as middle-aged folk become more tech-savvy, pirating will spread. It will become both technically more convenient, and ethically more acceptable.

In the meantime, I'll continue to denounce the free riders. I subscribe to Kantian ethics, which basically asks you to consider that if an action you undertake were undertaken by everybody, whether the result would be good or bad. Clearly, if everyone downloaded their entertainment content for free, the content would suffer. So today, the free riders are getting their fun at the expense of honest or less-technicallly savvy users who foot the bill for everybody.



Sorry, I'm not so sanguine that movies, games, and music will continue to be professionally produced with a dramatic reduction in revenue. As much as a lot of naive and selfish people like to think that all that money goes to fat executives, fact is most of the money you pay for a movie or game goes to people working for a living or the equipment it takes to make top-quality design and effects. The sound mixers, technical writers, prop designers, rigs, computers, office space, warehouses, audio systems, etc. That shit costs money. Lots of it. And a lot of productions require a huge amount of money up front. If investors feel they can get a better or less risky return putting their money into some other enterprise, then that's what they'll do. And we'll see how many cutting-edge console games or superhero blockbusters get made with the money that a producer and his buddies can raise privately.

As I noted earlier, if music, film, and gaming are such remarkably lucrative businesses, you would expect their stock prices to reflect that. Why not put your money where your mouth is and buy stock?


Now that media outlets can't turn a profit guess we are all DOOMED!! No more oscer winning performance by KEE AH KNOW REEVES to fill my living room with laughter. Clearly there is NO WAY to stop illegal duplication of copy written material. And by my guess the entertainment companies still manage to put out gems like "pluto nash." By my recent look on all those torrent sites six people want that movie. SIX PEOPLE!! The movie was a turd it flopped in the box office, and its a flop on torrent sites. Quality products will always find a market. The markets may change but they will still get made.

BTW did YOU buy stock in a Motion Picture Company or invest in a movie? How do you think the people who put money into "Pluto Nash" feel?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 09:27:21 AM
How on earth can it be acceptable to sell something on ebay, but not to download that some product? If it's acceptable to sell cd's through ebay, as second hand goods, then it's no less acceptable to download that same cd through a fileshare network. In each case the coyright holder is not compensated. However in the case of the latter, the extra copies generated have a greater chance of promoting the artist and generating interest. That won't happen with each instance of the physical product being sold second hand. In fact the former example sees someone profiting off of another person's work, which is precisely the argument used against filesharing (even when money doesn't change hands).
 
It's an extraordinary double standard.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 09:29:38 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273806
Please send me copies of all your products, I don't want to pay for them. I will promptly host them so others can get them for nothing as well. Please adapt or die. Don't be a hypocrite.


The people that will download them aren't going to be (or aren't able to be) paying for them either. What then is the problem? The game is shared, which is the purpose of releasing work in the first place, and promoted.

What then is the problem?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 09:37:33 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273680


I'm sorry you feel the need to equate everything to the costs involved, but until people choose to see things differently filesharing will continue and nothing will improve.


Sorry, but no one does anything for free. They have some sort of motivation and that can usually boil down to the Dollar. The most important point is it costs money to make money. If you make a product people will buy at a very low cost then you may be profitable. The problem is that media outlets see duplication as profit loss and not as a potential tool or response to changing times.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 09:47:58 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273687
No offense but if you can't get an exact duplicate of an electronic medium you are simply doing it wrong.



When you scan an OOP book there is a quality loss.

When you compress into MP3 there is a quality loss.

When you make an AVI or MKV of a movie there is a quality loss.

This happens to shrink file sizes or to digitize an analog subject. Anytime you compress the data the software used "Best Guesses" to what the original was supposed to be. Thus the quality loss.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 09:48:07 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273779
Why don't you provide some evidence of the damage caused by filesharing?

You can't.

The question then becomes, what is your problem?


"An increase in legitimate music sales over the past year did not come close to offsetting the billions of dollars being lost to music piracy, with illegal downloads outnumbering the legal ones sold online by a factor of 20 to 1. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/95-of-music-downloads-are-illegal/2008/01/24/1201025084723.html)"

"Bronfman's decision to hire Griffin, a respected industry critic, demonstrates the desperation of the recording industry. It has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket. (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/03/27/Warners-New-Web-Guru#page1)"

"According to the study, MPAA studios lost $6.1 billion to piracy in 2005, which is consistent with a piracy study conducted by Smith Barney in 2003 that predicted the motion picture industry would lose $5.4 billion to piracy in 2005. (http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/media_centre/documents/2006_05_03leksumm.pdf)"

That was a half-hearted search. Now, provide something for your own claims.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 09:54:16 AM
Quote
BTW did YOU buy stock in a Motion Picture Company or invest in a movie? How do you think the people who put money into "Pluto Nash" feel?


So the less profitable the movie industry is, the better the quality of the product, eh?

You know, I'm starting to understand why so many RPGers seem to be poor. The level of knowledge about business and economics is frankly abyssmal on these boards.

Oh well, you'll reap what you sow. The big bad businesses won't see a dime of your money, and you'll have more fan-made Star Wars movies than you could ever hope for. Enjoy the basement production values.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 09:54:24 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812
How on earth can it be acceptable to sell something on ebay, but not to download that some product? If it's acceptable to sell cd's through ebay, as second hand goods, then it's no less acceptable to download that same cd through a fileshare network. In each case the coyright holder is not compensated. However in the case of the latter, the extra copies generated have a greater chance of promoting the artist and generating interest. That won't happen with each instance of the physical product being sold second hand. In fact the former example sees someone profiting off of another person's work, which is precisely the argument used against filesharing (even when money doesn't change hands).
 
It's an extraordinary double standard.


If you can’t tell the difference it’s because you don’t want to. One is simply transferring the ownership of an item (which was paid for to the artist in the case of a music CD) from one person to another. One person bought the item and only one person has it at any one time.

File sharing is distributing the content to others and any number of people may have a copy at the same time.

When you buy a music CD, you own the CD not the rights to the music on the CD.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 09:56:46 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273815
The people that will download them aren't going to be (or aren't able to be) paying for them either. What then is the problem? The game is shared, which is the purpose of releasing work in the first place, and promoted.

What then is the problem?


Where does your twisted sense of entitlement come from? If you are unwilling, or unable, to pay for something, why should you be entitled to it anyway?

Your “logic” seems to be, if you don’t want to pay for it, then you should be able to get it anyways for free.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 09:57:02 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273700
You have anything to back this absurb claim up, or did you just make it up on the fly?

Gross receipts (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/movies/02year.html) are below the all time highs. (see the chart)


I guess the GLOBAL RECESSION did not play into the ticket sales being flat.

In the article it even states that the oversea investment and hedge funds were down making the studio's wonder where their money was going to come from.

I guess its FILE SHARING
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 10:01:11 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273820
When you scan an OOP book there is a quality loss.

When you compress into MP3 there is a quality loss.

When you make an AVI or MKV of a movie there is a quality loss.

This happens to shrink file sizes or to digitize an analog subject. Anytime you compress the data the software used "Best Guesses" to what the original was supposed to be. Thus the quality loss.


Let me repost what I had said:
No offense but if you can't get an exact duplicate of an electronic medium you are simply doing it wrong.

In any case, a book can be OCR scanned with little to no quality loss.

You can use MP3 with little or no loss to quality if file size is no barrier or you can leave them in .WAV format.

You can burn DVDs without resorting to AVI or MRV formats if quality is a concern.

You don't have to compress unless you are trying to save space.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 10:03:37 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;273822
You know, I'm starting to understand why so many RPGers seem to be poor. The level of knowledge about business and economics is frankly abyssmal on these boards.


This is an interesting point. There is seems to be an awful lot of teeth-mashing about how little the RPG industry pays, for writers for example. Do people actually think that the more people who pirate copies of RPGs the more likely these rates, for writers, will increase?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 10:06:39 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273825
I guess the GLOBAL RECESSION did not play into the ticket sales being flat.

In the article it even states that the oversea investment and hedge funds were down making the studio's wonder where their money was going to come from.

I guess its FILE SHARING


You do know that it was refering to 2007, not 2008, right?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 10:08:52 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273703
(http://kevinchiu.org/emote/facepalm.jpg)


LOL

or

In the case of many of the posts in this thread THE MIDDLE FINGER!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 10:19:26 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;273760
Of course. But the devaluation of creative works is just getting underway.


BULLSHIT!!  Photocopiers copied book. People duped tapes. Used VCR's to copy rentals from blockbuster.

Guess what those ways of duplication has been around since the media started and in some cases before. It has always been relatively easy to duplicate media. And yet the industry is not dead. How can that be? The first photocpoier came out in the 1960's and D&D came out in 1974. People have always wanted to steal things. How did TSR get so big?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 10:29:20 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273821
"An increase in legitimate music sales over the past year did not come close to offsetting the billions of dollars being lost to music piracy, with illegal downloads outnumbering the legal ones sold online by a factor of 20 to 1. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/95-of-music-downloads-are-illegal/2008/01/24/1201025084723.html)"

"Bronfman's decision to hire Griffin, a respected industry critic, demonstrates the desperation of the recording industry. It has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket. (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/03/27/Warners-New-Web-Guru#page1)"

"According to the study, MPAA studios lost $6.1 billion to piracy in 2005, which is consistent with a piracy study conducted by Smith Barney in 2003 that predicted the motion picture industry would lose $5.4 billion to piracy in 2005. (http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/media_centre/documents/2006_05_03leksumm.pdf)"

That was a half-hearted search. Now, provide something for your own claims.


Here is a quote from Portfolio.Com:

"We're still clinging to the vine of music as a product," Griffin says, calling the industry’s plight "Tarzan" economics.

"But we're swinging toward the vine of music as a service."

Instead of combating the insurmountable odds of defeating duplication they are thinking about changing  their business model.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: kogi.kaishakunin on December 16, 2008, 10:36:57 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;273822
So the less profitable the movie industry is, the better the quality of the product, eh?

You know, I'm starting to understand why so many RPGers seem to be poor. The level of knowledge about business and economics is frankly abyssmal on these boards.

Oh well, you'll reap what you sow. The big bad businesses won't see a dime of your money, and you'll have more fan-made Star Wars movies than you could ever hope for. Enjoy the basement production values.


Where on earth did you extrapolate this from my comments?

I have grown weary about all this TIT for TAT on this forum.

New thread idea: Is it at all possible to have a discussion on a forum page without tossing flagrant insults?

Just a thought
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 10:59:20 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273809
I would love to see the computer you have home that allows you to copy BLUE RAY DISKS


I am sure it will come in time. However, my point still stands, a copy of an e-book is the same quality as the original. You can then take that PDF and for far less than purchasing it from me, go print it on LULU. I wont argue that you can find exceptions but that does not define the motivation for purchasing. There are plenty of people who could live without hi-def if it meant they paid $0. So, your example speaks to a subset of a subset (DLers of movies who insist on hi-def). My point speaks to just about anyone DLing printable books (and arguably music & movies).

So, again, why should a person pay after downloading for free?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 11:00:51 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273833
BULLSHIT!!  Photocopiers copied book. People duped tapes. Used VCR's to copy rentals from blockbuster.

Guess what those ways of duplication has been around since the media started and in some cases before. It has always been relatively easy to duplicate media. And yet the industry is not dead. How can that be? The first photocpoier came out in the 1960's and D&D came out in 1974. People have always wanted to steal things. How did TSR get so big?


None were as easy or anonymous as digital copying. Neither were they as cost effective, essentially free, as with digital copying.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 11:04:31 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273840

I have grown weary about all this TIT for TAT on this forum.


'cause you've been here so long.....
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 11:18:35 AM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273840
Where on earth did you extrapolate this from my comments?



Sorry. I must have misconstrued your comments.

As for music and movie industries changing their business model, who's to say the new model won't produce worse content?

The newspaper industry is changing its business model. However, online ads yield only a fraction of the revenue that print ads and subscriptions yield. Most newspapers are going to shed employees, and rely more on wire services and blogging by part-time staffers. Without dedicated, professional labour, the new model newspaper will provide a worse product.

Another example: the recession is leading tv networks to cut costs by filling their air time with cheap reality shows and talk shows. It's not that these shows are more popular than CSI or Supernatural. But they cost way less to produce, and so yield better profit margins. And the creative talent will leave network tv and go to cable programmes.

I anticipate the same thing happening long-term with music and movies. The industries will just go with cheaper models. So enjoy your low-budget teen comedies, slasher flicks, and music retreads.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 11:22:13 AM
I will assume this is a general question. I do not have much hope of you accepting the answer but here goes.


Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812
How on earth can it be acceptable to sell something on ebay, but not to download that some product?

There are several problems here. I will adress the two largest.

It is called chain of ownership. The simplest example is that you purchase from a publisher, then you sell to another person. This makes the assumption you understand the idea of transfer of ownership. This cannot be implied or non-implicit. So, a cell phone sitting on a public bench is still not public property and yours for the taking. In this manner, the resale of second hand goods is assured to be legal because at all points transfer of ownership has been implicit. So, you could have a publisher give you a book, then you sell it to another person. Again, this is legal and moral since the chain of ownership is preserved when the publisher gave;i.e. transfered ownership at no cost to you, the book. It is then yours to resell if you wish.

Second, EBay is not a distribution center. It is a site for reselling used goods (and some new ones but as we are talking about it the used goods part is the pertinent bit). Now, I know several remainder brokers and FLGS that use EBay to sell lots they receive of books. This can give the appearance of a distributor because they are selling many of the same book but the important thing is that the chain of ownership has been preserved. So, again, revisiting the chain of ownership, it does not matter if we have the publisher selling you 1 book or 500, it is still within your rights and moral to resell that product.

Honestly, I do not see how you could disable the second hand market without disabling the retailer market. It is essentially the same thing.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812

If it's acceptable to sell cd's through ebay, as second hand goods, then it's no less acceptable to download that same cd through a fileshare network.

Absolutely not. On e-bay you are selling your copy. On FS networks you are copying and distributing the publishers goods. On e-bay you purchased one copy and it became your property. On FS networks you are taking the publisher's work and copying and distributing. Two very different things.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812

In each case the coyright holder is not compensated.

For one copy only. On FS networks you are taking it on yourself to copy that one copy you purchased and distribute it. That is not your right.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812

However in the case of the latter, the extra copies generated have a greater chance of promoting the artist and generating interest.

This is a benefit, not a justification of your right or an abdication of the company's copyright.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812

That won't happen with each instance of the physical product being sold second hand. In fact the former example sees someone profiting off of another person's work, which is precisely the argument used against filesharing (even when money doesn't change hands).

No, because the chain of ownership has been maintained. A single copy found its way through second hand owners in the case of resale. In FS, a single copy (the "right" you paid for) has found its way, through your duplication, to many owners of which only one would have the proper right to own.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273812

 
It's an extraordinary double standard.

I would not say so but you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Bill
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 16, 2008, 11:59:16 AM
Quote from: CavScout;273850
None were as easy or anonymous as digital copying. Neither were they as cost effective, essentially free, as with digital copying.


All the more reason to stop tilting at windmills and find modes of business that will work with the advances of technology.  

If the music industry had embraced the whole Napster/iTunes type philosophy back in 2000 instead of spending years trying to fight it, they would have been much better off.

Same thing needs to happen with movie studios.  They need to get over the old paradigm of staged releases to the various markets (first theaters, then sales/rentals, then pay-per-view, etc) and embrace a system that uses the new technology - like offering VOD downloads at the same time as theatrical releases.  

It's not like they haven't been down this road before.  Back in the 50's, television nearly killed Hollywood until they came up with the concept of widescreen.  People being able to rent / own / copy movies with a VCR was considered a threat, but they adapted (and kept offering new advances, like surround sound, digital video/sound, etc).  DVDs changed the paradigm again by forcing studios to release every movie for consumer pricing and with the same date for rentals and purchase.  I have no doubt they can adapt again.

RPG companies need to offer more value-add from physical materials than just words on a page.  WotC is actually doing this by offering DDI, dungeon tiles, and minis (they may often be clumsy about it, but they are trying to adapt to the changing marketplace).  The larger RPG companies will likely need to come up with similar strategies if they want to be successful in the long term.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 12:01:54 PM
Quote from: jgants;273872

RPG companies need to offer more value-add from physical materials than just words on a page.  WotC is actually doing this by offering DDI, dungeon tiles, and minis (they may often be clumsy about it, but they are trying to adapt to the changing marketplace).  The larger RPG companies will likely need to come up with similar strategies if they want to be successful in the long term.


Some small press have been doing this since 2002. ;)
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 16, 2008, 12:05:48 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;273875
Some small press have been doing this since 2002. ;)


Yeah, I purposely used the phrase "larger RPG companies" because the small press RPG market is a completely different animal (much like independent music and independent film are completely different from their larger counterparts).
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 16, 2008, 12:16:12 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273850
None were as easy or anonymous as digital copying. Neither were they as cost effective, essentially free, as with digital copying.

The cost of computer hardware to store and play MP3s (let alone DVD copies) is vastly more than just having two cassette players and a few blank tapes.  Nearly everyone did tape copying when I was growing up -- and for a time, the record companies made exactly the same arguments.  Tape copying was cheap, and people were able and more than willing to copy.  

This did motivate the move to CDs, which had better quality sound and more features (i.e. skipping tracks etc.).  In other words, the music industry had to put out a better product to motivate people to buy it.  I believe the same thing will happen in the computer age -- the record industry will be motivated to support more feature-rich services, as is happening with the iPod.  

Quote from: Haffrung;273855
The newspaper industry is changing its business model. However, online ads yield only a fraction of the revenue that print ads and subscriptions yield. Most newspapers are going to shed employees, and rely more on wire services and blogging by part-time staffers. Without dedicated, professional labour, the new model newspaper will provide a worse product.

Another example: the recession is leading tv networks to cut costs by filling their air time with cheap reality shows and talk shows. It's not that these shows are more popular than CSI or Supernatural. But they cost way less to produce, and so yield better profit margins. And the creative talent will leave network tv and go to cable programmes.

I anticipate the same thing happening long-term with music and movies. The industries will just go with cheaper models. So enjoy your low-budget teen comedies, slasher flicks, and music retreads.

You're attributing problems due to copying as applying to network TV -- which is publicly broadcast.  On the one hand, I realize the problems of fast-forwarding past commercials, but certainly distribution of copies isn't a problem, it's just the digital technology in the first place.  Purely personal copies such as TiVo are more of a threat there.  

Also, you're conflating the current credit crisis and recession with digital copying.  Certainly the current economy may well lead to lower budgets for a time.  However, this has nothing to do with filesharing.  These exact same arguments were applied at the introduction of the videotape, which was trivially easy to copy -- it just needed two tape machines.  However, since then movie and TV budgets have gone up enormously.  Look at the old Battlestar Galactica versus the new one.  

Personally, I would be fine with losing blockbuster movies, since I rarely watch them anyway.  However, I don't think it is going to happen.  I suspect that the blockbuster will become even more important, along with televised sports -- because it's the features that go best with high definition that will resist.  

This is what happened with video.  Video didn't kill big-budget movies.  It killed off low budget movies, and especially porno.  The studios were driven to create more impressive films that played well on the big screen, to draw people into the theaters rather than watching tapes at home.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 12:20:37 PM
Quote from: jhkim;273887
The cost of computer hardware to store and play MP3s (let alone DVD copies) is vastly more than just having two cassette players and a few blank tapes.  Nearly everyone did tape copying when I was growing up -- and for a time, the record companies made exactly the same arguments.  Tape copying was cheap, and people were able and more than willing to copy.

Did you set up a thing in your garage and make thousands upon thousands of near perfect quality copies and then have that line of people from around the world to whom you tossed one of those little two-holed gifts from the gods? I remember my Dad getting so pissed because the boxes of thousands of copies of Toys in the Attic were always blocking the lawn mower.

Ah, memories...
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 12:29:07 PM
Quote from: jgants;273872
All the more reason to stop tilting at windmills and find modes of business that will work with the advances of technology.
 

Actually, you try to minimize the illegal activity as much as possible, not accept it.

Quote from: jgants;273872
If the music industry had embraced the whole Napster/iTunes type philosophy back in 2000 instead of spending years trying to fight it, they would have been much better off.


Says who? You? They have “embraced” things like iTunes and others yet they are still losing money.

Quote from: jgants;273872
Same thing needs to happen with movie studios.  They need to get over the old paradigm of staged releases to the various markets (first theaters, then sales/rentals, then pay-per-view, etc) and embrace a system that uses the new technology - like offering VOD downloads at the same time as theatrical releases.


Why? Just because some are willing to violate the law they should change who they prefer or want to do business?

Quote from: jgants;273872
It's not like they haven't been down this road before.  Back in the 50's, television nearly killed Hollywood until they came up with the concept of widescreen.


Citation please. Widescreen predates the ‘50s and was used in films in the ‘20s and 30s.

Quote from: jgants;273872
People being able to rent / own / copy movies with a VCR was considered a threat, but they adapted (and kept offering new advances, like surround sound, digital video/sound, etc).  DVDs changed the paradigm again by forcing studios to release every movie for consumer pricing and with the same date for rentals and purchase.  I have no doubt they can adapt again.


People buying a VCR/DVD of a movie release doesn’t impact the movie theater run nor does it result in a loss of revenue. It is another way of making money.

We are not talking about people paying for electronic copies of stuff they want, we are talking about people taking it without paying for it.

Quote from: jgants;273872
RPG companies need to offer more value-add from physical materials than just words on a page.  WotC is actually doing this by offering DDI, dungeon tiles, and minis (they may often be clumsy about it, but they are trying to adapt to the changing marketplace).  The larger RPG companies will likely need to come up with similar strategies if they want to be successful in the long term.


Last I checked, WotC charged a pretty penny for their “words on a page”. I doubt WotC is thinking to add DDI and minis so they can just give away the core books for free.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 12:34:46 PM
Quote from: jhkim;273887
The cost of computer hardware to store and play MP3s (let alone DVD copies) is vastly more than just having two cassette players and a few blank tapes. Nearly everyone did tape copying when I was growing up -- and for a time, the record companies made exactly the same arguments. Tape copying was cheap, and people were able and more than willing to copy.


Not if you were going to be distributing a number of them. Nothing then compares with the ability to distribute thousands of exact quality copies that one can do with torrent programs.

And what are you referring to? Making a mixed tape for your own use?

Quote from: jhkim;273887
This did motivate the move to CDs, which had better quality sound and more features (i.e. skipping tracks etc.). In other words, the music industry had to put out a better product to motivate people to buy it. I believe the same thing will happen in the computer age -- the record industry will be motivated to support more feature-rich services, as is happening with the iPod.


They didn’t move to CDs to prevent tape to tape copying… the move to CDs made copying easier.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 01:08:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273821
"An increase in legitimate music sales over the past year did not come close to offsetting the billions of dollars being lost to music piracy, with illegal downloads outnumbering the legal ones sold online by a factor of 20 to 1. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/95-of-music-downloads-are-illegal/2008/01/24/1201025084723.html)"

"Bronfman's decision to hire Griffin, a respected industry critic, demonstrates the desperation of the recording industry. It has shrunk to a $10 billion business from $15 billion in almost a decade. Compact disc sales are plummeting as online music downloads skyrocket. (http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/top-5/2008/03/27/Warners-New-Web-Guru#page1)"

"According to the study, MPAA studios lost $6.1 billion to piracy in 2005, which is consistent with a piracy study conducted by Smith Barney in 2003 that predicted the motion picture industry would lose $5.4 billion to piracy in 2005. (http://www.fact-uk.org.uk/site/media_centre/documents/2006_05_03leksumm.pdf)"

That was a half-hearted search. Now, provide something for your own claims.


I refer you to my earlier facepalm.

None of this proves anything; it is at best speculation. At worst it's rubbish dragged up from the interweb. 'Billions lost to piracy'? Do you not see the ludicrous nature of such a statement. Completely groundless speculative hyperbole that you have taken seriously. One downloaded album is not even close to a guaranteed lost sale - if there is ever such a thing.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 01:12:38 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273822

You know, I'm starting to understand why so many RPGers seem to be poor. The level of knowledge about business and economics is frankly abyssmal on these boards.

Oh well, you'll reap what you sow. The big bad businesses won't see a dime of your money, and you'll have more fan-made Star Wars movies than you could ever hope for. Enjoy the basement production values.


Are you suggesting that everyone who plays rpg is a pauper running a business or something? I'm very confused as to the meaning of the first statement.

As for the big bad business ot seeing a dime of my money. Again downloading doesn't preclude the possibility of buying product, quite the opposite in fact.

And is the death of these exploitative industries so terrible? This technology is so popular because it cuts out the need for the middle man and his shoddy business practices. Now artists can sell direct to consumers, as they can with rpg's. This is a good thing. Art shouldn't be determined by how much product it can shift.

What's worse: the industry losing money or the people choked by its business practises?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 01:15:55 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273823
If you can’t tell the difference it’s because you don’t want to. One is simply transferring the ownership of an item (which was paid for to the artist in the case of a music CD) from one person to another. One person bought the item and only one person has it at any one time.

File sharing is distributing the content to others and any number of people may have a copy at the same time.

When you buy a music CD, you own the CD not the rights to the music on the CD.



The only difference is that one is legal, the other isn't.

If you think that the money from a cd goes to the artist, you demonstrate a shocking level of naivete about the music industry and copyright.

If that CD is sold on, the copyright holder gets nothing.

If the CD is downloaded, guess how much the copyright holder gets?

Now tell me what the difference is (beyond the law) between downloading and buying second hand?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 01:30:00 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273760

That sounds to me like those people who shrug off ecological or climate issues with the blase assumption 'the scientists will figure something out.' Maybe they won't. As ad blockers become more prevalent, you'll see fewer rubes willing to bankroll creative endeavours with ads that nobody is watching. But hey, I'm sure they'll think of something . It's not as though it's possible that movies, games, and music could ever be less profitable or attractive to dedicated professionals that they are today.


You're serious? If no one manages to find a way for a musician to make money in the age of the Internets, then this society deserves to collapse.

Shit, you idiot, they're already doing it. What the fuck do you think Youtube is?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 01:33:09 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273761
And all I'm saying is that the market adaptation will likely be for IP content to be less well rewarded. And hence, attract less capital and skill. That happens a lot with capitalism. There may simply be less money to be made in fields that have to compete with free content, and quality may suffer as a result. Why is that so difficult to face?


You mean like it was back in the 19th century, when the under-paying of creative people was so appalling that all we had was a string of no-talent hacks like Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, HG Wells and Jules Verne, Chopin and Tchaikovsky, etc. etc.?
Gee, I guess you got a point there... it wasn't till this modern age of giant megacorporations controlling intellectual properties that we created superior artistic and literary giants like Britney Spears and the fuckface that writes all those Star Trek novels. Clearly, this is a golden age we don't want to see come to an end, lest we fall back into those dark ages of second-rate art and literature like what we had back in the 19th century...

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 01:37:34 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273806
Please send me copies of all your products, I don't want to pay for them. I will promptly host them so others can get them for nothing as well.


Sure you can. All you need to do is include a number of ad-bars in your site, and the profit from people clicking these will go to me. Also, you will take details of who downloads my books, and then this information will be sold to other companies, and I will also get the profits from those. You, in exchange, get a free product.

See, that's not very hard is it?

You dumbfuck.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 01:43:46 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273833
BULLSHIT!!  Photocopiers copied book. People duped tapes. Used VCR's to copy rentals from blockbuster.


Yes, you'll note that back when cassette tapes came out, the record companies made all of the same "Its THEFT" claims and wanted to illegalize cassette recording of songs from records too.
Then when VCRs came out, there was the same doomsaying about that regarding TV shows and movies.

So this is nothing new.  I'm old, and yet I realize what bullshit this "anti-piracy" line the music industry is pushing is because I lived through all of this before; I guess the other old people just don't have as good a memory as me? (pipe smoking does help preserve memory)

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 01:53:25 PM
Quote from: jhkim;273887
The cost of computer hardware to store and play MP3s (let alone DVD copies) is vastly more than just having two cassette players and a few blank tapes.  Nearly everyone did tape copying when I was growing up -- and for a time, the record companies made exactly the same arguments.  Tape copying was cheap, and people were able and more than willing to copy.  


THANK YOU. Someone else who recalls this.

Quote

This did motivate the move to CDs, which had better quality sound and more features (i.e. skipping tracks etc.).  In other words, the music industry had to put out a better product to motivate people to buy it.  I believe the same thing will happen in the computer age -- the record industry will be motivated to support more feature-rich services, as is happening with the iPod.  


Exactly.  If the choice is change or die, they're all going to try to change; some will fail at that, but others will adapt and actually *gasp* create something new. This isn't a threat to capitalism, its capitalism in action.


Quote

This is what happened with video.  Video didn't kill big-budget movies.  It killed off low budget movies, and especially porno.  The studios were driven to create more impressive films that played well on the big screen, to draw people into the theaters rather than watching tapes at home.


Exactly. Or more accurately, video made low-budget movies into direct-to-video movies. Just like the internet will take some movies, songs, and books and make them "direct to free-content" material.

The best stuff, the big-budget stuff, will still be able to get out there in different ways. With movies, for example, I can't imagine many people who'd download Watchmen from a fileshare network, who wouldn't ALSO go see it in theaters and possibly also buy the DVD.  So having it out there won't mean it won't do well.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 01:55:05 PM
Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273820
When you scan an OOP book there is a quality loss.

Of those formats you've mentioned, this one is most true. Even the best scanners cannot produce identical copies of the "analog" product [in this case, the book], and in the case of out-of-print books, the odds of the original being digital and available aren't spectacular. On the other hand, I have many scans of various print products, and most are copied with such fidelity that the human eye cannot detect the difference.

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273820
When you compress into MP3 there is a quality loss.

Conversion of a digital recording [say, a CD] into a single digital audio file need not produce any quality loss; the bits can be copied, one for one, directly from the disk. Compression is unnecessary. If smaller file sizes are desired, codecs such as FLAC can be used. [I prefer to just use the original bit-for-bit copies, personally, but I have unique needs in that department].

Stick a CD in your CD-ROM drive sometime and browse the files; what you're seeing isn't an MP3, it's a bit-for-bit conversion of the original signals. [Which may or may not have formerly been analog; we're talking about the step from "finished product" to "pirated copy," so I'm intentionally leaving off losses arising from the production of the finished product itself.] 44,100 times a second, the original analog-to-digital converter sampled the amplitude of the waveform, assigning it one of 65,536 amplitudes [probably −32768 to 32767, since zero counts]. That precise information is what's available to you on the disk, and it need not be altered in any way to be made into a file which can be exchanged without the need of the original media.

Quote from: kogi.kaishakunin;273820
When you make an AVI or MKV of a movie there is a quality loss.

This also needn't be true. Beyond the initial compression done to get the film on the disk in the first place - Blu-ray mostly now uses H.264/MPEG-4 and/or VC-1, if I recall correctly - you need do none. You really can take the MPEG right off the disk, once the DRM's been dealt with, just as you can take the file right off the CD. [Although the MPEG file really is an MPEG file, and the file on the CD isn't really a .WAV file.]

Anyway, I just wanted to expand upon what CavScout had said. The loss in fidelity from analog object or digital "pressing" needn't be noticeable, and in most cases can be completely absent altogether.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 01:57:17 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273915
I refer you to my earlier facepalm.

None of this proves anything; it is at best speculation. At worst it's rubbish dragged up from the interweb. 'Billions lost to piracy'? Do you not see the ludicrous nature of such a statement. Completely groundless speculative hyperbole that you have taken seriously. One downloaded album is not even close to a guaranteed lost sale - if there is ever such a thing.


Exactly. The music industry was already in decline before Napster hit it big. The "billions lost" is their claims supposing that everyone who ever downloaded any song would also have bought the album that song belonged to.  This is the same way that they get to charge some 12 year old girl a fine of $200 000 for a single celine dion song.

Its all a load of crap.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 02:00:09 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273899

Last I checked, WotC charged a pretty penny for their “words on a page”. I doubt WotC is thinking to add DDI and minis so they can just give away the core books for free.


With books, the name of the game isn't to give away the books for free; its to give away the PDF for free. You buy the print book? Fine, here's the free PDF. You subscribe to our special online service? Cool, here's the free PDF.
The PDF, instead of being seen as another way to make money directly, becomes a supplemental bonus.

Because really, very few people who have the option are just going to print the pdf at kinkos, if the alternative is to go and buy the real book. If they're going to be interested in your product long enough for it to matter, they're going to buy your book anyways.  That's what Baen Books figured out: when they put free online copies of their Sci-fi novels, sales of those novels didn't go down, they went UP!

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 02:02:33 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273905

They didn’t move to CDs to prevent tape to tape copying… the move to CDs made copying easier.


The CD KILLED the cassette. You'll note that vinyl still exists, and the CD still exists.  The Cassette was killed by the release of the CD because the difference in quality between taping a CD and taping a record (or copying another tape) was so much more noticeable that it made copying to a cassette seem really inferior.

And it took quite a number of years from when the CD was released to when a viable affordable CD burner was released.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 02:11:45 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273939
With movies, for example, I can't imagine many people who'd download Watchmen from a fileshare network, who wouldn't ALSO go see it in theaters and possibly also buy the DVD.
Based on previous experience, I would estimate tens of thousands of people will download the film and not buy a DVD or a ticket, but that's not really a telling figure, because as has been mentioned, not every one of those downloads is a lost sale [since not everyone who pirated it would have paid for it, also known as "the Photoshop effect"]. In addition, some of those downloads will be loss leaders.

That said, some of those downloads really are lost sales, and from most people's moral perspective, that's "wrong." On the other hand, the type of crackdown required to eliminate or meaningfully reduce such piracy is likely to either be impracticable [it'd be anathema to the frontier mentality of the net, and would cost a fortune] or flatly impossible for the short-term future. It's just like shipping gold back east from the frontier of America; either you plan for losses, protect the gold yourself, or sit back and wait for civilization to come West while other people make their fortunes. Like the printing press before it, the web democratizes information in a game-changing way; the paradigm has shifted, and either you shift with it, or you cling to the old ways, or you wait for society to catch up to the bleeding edge.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 02:22:04 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273945
And it took quite a number of years from when the CD was released to when a viable affordable CD burner was released.

No kidding: it was eight years before the first CD burner at all was released; I don't think I got my first [half-speed, caddied] CD burner until 1994 or so, roughly 12 years after the CD was first released.

There was a very interesting period in there for computer-generated music, in which the only way to make bit-for-bit copies of the music we'd made was with very expensive digital audio tape [DAT] machines, which shared the same magnetic problems as analog tapes; I was very, very excited when I got my first burner, even though at least half the disks it burned were coasters, and they each cost several dollars.

Now, of course, if I want to give you a copy of my entire back-catalog, I can do so by sending a seven-character URL over e-mail, mobile phone, chat, or other digital medium, and you can suck the entire affair onto your own machine in minutes. As much as I complain about the absence of flying cars and paperless offices, the future has turned out to be fucking awesome for music.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 02:23:57 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273944

Because really, very few people who have the option are just going to print the pdf at kinkos, if the alternative is to go and buy the real book.

I am not convinced of that. Services like LULU make it easier and easier to print out affordable material. For about $11 plus shipping you can print Roma True20 (290 page, B&W interior, color cover). If you get the book for free digitally, you have a pretty easy way to do this that saves you about $15.

More, there are services cropping up that do things like one off burns of DVDs in high def. I suspect you will see more services like this as single rep technology becomes more affordable. It is a similar phenomenon to what has occurred in the book industry.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 02:26:45 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273935
You mean like it was back in the 19th century, when the under-paying of creative people was so appalling that all we had was a string of no-talent hacks like Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, Charles Dickens, HG Wells and Jules Verne, Chopin and Tchaikovsky, etc. etc.?
Gee, I guess you got a point there... it wasn't till this modern age of giant megacorporations controlling intellectual properties that we created superior artistic and literary giants like Britney Spears and the fuckface that writes all those Star Trek novels. Clearly, this is a golden age we don't want to see come to an end, lest we fall back into those dark ages of second-rate art and literature like what we had back in the 19th century...



Nothing stopping today's Dickens from getting their work out. Shit, you're starting to sound more and more like the Forgites, with their contempt for popular tastes and claims of unfair conspiracies by Evil Corporations. You sound like you'd fit right in with Ron and his pals, bitching about how unfair the world is and how true genius isn't appreciated by the brainwashed masses.

Anyway, it's a fallacious comparison. I'm not talking about works that are created by sole artists with little to no overhead. I'm talking about movies, music, and games that require a significant investment of capital and labour just to get off the ground. In some cases, millions of dollars. That's what it costs to pay a bunch of professionals who are older than 23 and have bills to pay and expertise in their fields.

You're apparently ignorant of the value that professional technicians bring to movies, videogames, and music. You can't just churn out that stuff over a few long weekends like you churned out your RPG. And people who are serious about their craft aren't going to do it for a lark - they have mouths to feed. Why in fuck do you think Dicken's novels are so absurdly long? He had a family to support and he was paid by the word.

But like the resentful 20-something geeks who make up the bulk of the downloading fraternity, you seem oblivious to the role of professionals in providing your entertainment. An album is just some guy plunking away on a guitar for an hour or so, isn't it? Anybody with a handcam and a script he wrote while moping around Prague can make a movie, right?

But hey, if your idea of entertainment is fanboy videos on Youtube and the mountain of dross that fills every RPG site downloads page, you will find much to appreciate in the future.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273915
I refer you to my earlier facepalm.

None of this proves anything; it is at best speculation. At worst it's rubbish dragged up from the interweb. 'Billions lost to piracy'? Do you not see the ludicrous nature of such a statement. Completely groundless speculative hyperbole that you have taken seriously. One downloaded album is not even close to a guaranteed lost sale - if there is ever such a thing.


That’s right, anything that contradicts you made-up assertions will be disregard by you as not sufficiently proved or propaganda by “the man”, right?

You demand “proof” all the while knowing you will no accept anything presented.

You are simply a douche bag trying to justify their own unethical behavior. Go Robin Hood, go.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 02:53:34 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273925
The only difference is that one is legal, the other isn't.

If you think that the money from a cd goes to the artist, you demonstrate a shocking level of naivete about the music industry and copyright.

If that CD is sold on, the copyright holder gets nothing.

If the CD is downloaded, guess how much the copyright holder gets?

Now tell me what the difference is (beyond the law) between downloading and buying second hand?


Read Bill’s explanation. If that doesn’t clear it up, you are being deliberately obtuse or are just as dumb as you sound.

When a CD is sold second hand, the number of copies of the protected work does not change. When people file share, the number of copies that are out there of the protected work do change. The owner is not being compensated for these new copies of the work; in the case of the used CD they have been and no new copies have been made.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273937
Sure you can. All you need to do is include a number of ad-bars in your site, and the profit from people clicking these will go to me. Also, you will take details of who downloads my books, and then this information will be sold to other companies, and I will also get the profits from those. You, in exchange, get a free product.

See, that's not very hard is it?

You dumbfuck.


Why do that? I just want to put them up on torrent sites, no fuss, no muss. Why should you make money from them? Just send them, ok? Don't be a pussy who says others should do X while you are unwilling to do so yourself.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 02:58:56 PM
(http://tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:0d4LksY4C98WqM:http://www.orbitcast.com/archives/Home_taping_is_killing_music.png)

:D
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 02:59:09 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273938
Yes, you'll note that back when cassette tapes came out, the record companies made all of the same "Its THEFT" claims and wanted to illegalize cassette recording of songs from records too.
Then when VCRs came out, there was the same doomsaying about that regarding TV shows and movies.

So this is nothing new.  I'm old, and yet I realize what bullshit this "anti-piracy" line the music industry is pushing is because I lived through all of this before; I guess the other old people just don't have as good a memory as me? (pipe smoking does help preserve memory)

RPGPundit


Straw fucking man.

No one here, as far as I can tell, has raised objections to a single user making copies of something they have purchased for their own use. If one buys a CD and wants to rip the song for use on their iPOD I doubt anyone in this thread would raise an objection.

This thread has been about copies being made for others other than the one who purchased it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:02:41 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273951
Nothing stopping today's Dickens from getting their work out. Shit, you're starting to sound more and more like the Forgites, with their contempt for popular tastes and claims of unfair conspiracies by Evil Corporations. You sound like you'd fit right in with Ron and his pals, bitching about how unfair the world is and how true genius isn't appreciated by the brainwashed masses.


Nope. I'm just suggesting that the idea that the current corporate model is somehow a guarantee of quality, and that quality will decline if there is a change in the nature of the market, are both patently absurd notions.


Quote

You're apparently ignorant of the value that professional technicians bring to movies, videogames, and music. You can't just churn out that stuff over a few long weekends like you churned out your RPG. And people who are serious about their craft aren't going to do it for a lark - they have mouths to feed. Why in fuck do you think Dicken's novels are so absurdly long? He had a family to support and he was paid by the word.

But like the resentful 20-something geeks who make up the bulk of the downloading fraternity, you seem oblivious to the role of professionals in providing your entertainment. An album is just some guy plunking away on a guitar for an hour or so, isn't it? Anybody with a handcam and a script he wrote while moping around Prague can make a movie, right?


Again, those professionals will be able to make a profit in the new world you fear so much; they will just have to find DIFFERENT ways to make a profit.  There is no indication whatsoever that there will be a decline in the size of production or in the quality of production of the entertainment industry because of file-sharing.

We aren't doomed to a world of Youtube videos, unless ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE in the entertainment industry are idiots with zero capacity to adapt; which, if they were, would only mean that other people capable of reacting to the new paradigm will come in and take away their jobs.

The argument "I should still be able to keep making profit the same way I always did before because I don't want to make the effort to have to change the way I do things!!" is the battle-cry of the moron, and what's more, the soon-to-be-extinct.

I would imagine that the monks who made good money copying books by hand bemoaned the terrible loss of "quality" that the world would suffer because of the creation of the Printing Press, the "piracy" that this demonic machine allowed, the theft of their livelihoods, and no doubt more than a few predicted that it would soon lead to the end of books altogether; who would want to write a book if it would only end up being cheaply mass-printed, and books would only end up being worth a tiny fraction of what they cost in the age of scriptoriums and illustrated grimoires?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:02:55 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273945
The CD KILLED the cassette. You'll note that vinyl still exists, and the CD still exists.  The Cassette was killed by the release of the CD because the difference in quality between taping a CD and taping a record (or copying another tape) was so much more noticeable that it made copying to a cassette seem really inferior.

And it took quite a number of years from when the CD was released to when a viable affordable CD burner was released.


The CD killed the tape because it is a superior product, not because record companies were worried about tape to tape copying.

Tapes died because they are the vastly inferior product and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:03:48 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;273951
You're apparently ignorant of the value that professional technicians bring to movies, videogames, and music. You can't just churn out that stuff over a few long weekends like you churned out your RPG. And people who are serious about their craft aren't going to do it for a lark - they have mouths to feed.

I don't want to disagree, per se, but I would like to inject another point-of-view. There is a widespread view that professional-quality artistic products require large staffs of specialists, and without rehashing an argument I lost terribly, let me just say that it's becoming less and less necessary. You don't have to be a professional layout artist to do professional-quality layouts anymore; you just need to know what looks good, and the software will do tons of what used to require training and experience. That's not to say anyone with InDesign can produce a Best Buy ad, but there's becoming room in the marketplace for something a step above "guy with scissors" and below "staff of hundreds."

Similar revolutions are taking place in film, where small-crew, small-budget films are becoming more and more professional every day; widespread distribution of digital cameras and comparatively inexpensive editing equipment means you can reduce much of the staff you used to need. Yesterday's big-budget summer tentpole will be something a few guys can make in their garage, tomorrow.

Music, of course, is probably the most obvious [to me]. A lot of the work a dedicated engineer or producer used to accomplish is done by the artist themselves, now. Most of my favorite albums were entirely self-produced, or were produced with small groups of highly talented people, and labor-saving technology. Do you still need to know where to put the mic to get the best recording? Yes, and the computer won't do it for you; on the other hand, that information is broadly available on the internet now, making the benefits of trade school available to anyone with an internet connection.

Does that mean there's no place for massive corporate products? Of course not. For the foreseeable future, major Hollywood studios will crank out big-budget films with crews of hundreds; however, more and more, artists are turning to relatively inexpensive technology to produce effects which used to require massive manpower. Once upon a time, even if you knew how to perform every film-related task, you simply couldn't produce a Hollywood-quality film with a small crew without spending a decade doing it; now it's not only possible, we're becoming blasé about it.

It's nothing new, of course: it used to take a team of scribes many years to produce a good Bible, while today you can run a copy off on your laser printer. It used to take an army to do a good recording of a rock song, while today it can literally be done professionally by a single person [and a few grand in equipment, of course!].

Will people who are serious about their craft do it for a lark? Yes, we will. We'll do it for free. We'll do it even if no one else can see it. Some of us will simply do it, no matter what, because we can't not do it. And yes, technology has made those people more accessible to the world, without the delightful content filter of large corporations full of editors and accountants; this means way more content is available, and it's much more difficult to sort the gold from the dross, although we're working those things out.

But. Will there still be a place for massive corporations churning out massive projects, polished to within inches of credulity? Of course. For the foreseeable future, the professional is reasonably safe from the predations of the technologically-savvy amateur...but that doesn't mean the amateur isn't going to be out there, doing his thing, and sometimes, sometimes, what he or she makes really will be preferred [by some number of people] to the big-budget stuff. That's what makes today so exciting, and tomorrow even moreso.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:04:23 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273953
That’s right, anything that contradicts you made-up assertions will be disregard by you as not sufficiently proved or propaganda by “the man”, right?

You demand “proof” all the while knowing you will no accept anything presented.

You are simply a douche bag trying to justify their own unethical behavior. Go Robin Hood, go.


Please provide evidence of this behaviour.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:07:38 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273956
Read Bill’s explanation. If that doesn’t clear it up, you are being deliberately obtuse or are just as dumb as you sound.

When a CD is sold second hand, the number of copies of the protected work does not change. When people file share, the number of copies that are out there of the protected work do change. The owner is not being compensated for these new copies of the work; in the case of the used CD they have been and no new copies have been made.

You haven't answered the question; try again.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:08:00 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273957
Why do that? I just want to put them up on torrent sites, no fuss, no muss. Why should you make money from them? Just send them, ok? Don't be a pussy who says others should do X while you are unwilling to do so yourself.


You want to put them on a torrent site, please, go ahead. other people might download it, enjoy it, and end up buying it. Or they will buy my sourcebook. or they will register on my site and get me ad revenue (if I chose to have ads).

Your point is ludicrous, and your attempt to prove the other side hypocrites has only confirmed that you have no real understanding of what's going on either in this thread, or the world at large.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:09:34 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273964
Please provide evidence of this behaviour.


Your posts in this very thread suffice.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:10:46 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273967
You want to put them on a torrent site, please, go ahead. other people might download it, enjoy it, and end up buying it. Or they will buy my sourcebook. or they will register on my site and get me ad revenue (if I chose to have ads).

Your point is ludicrous, and your attempt to prove the other side hypocrites has only confirmed that you have no real understanding of what's going on either in this thread, or the world at large.


Sounds good, when are you sending me the files?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:11:51 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273960
I would imagine that the monks who made good money copying books by hand bemoaned the terrible loss of "quality" that the world would suffer because of the creation of the Printing Press, the "piracy" that this demonic machine allowed, the theft of their livelihoods, and no doubt more than a few predicted that it would soon lead to the end of books altogether; who would want to write a book if it would only end up being cheaply mass-printed, and books would only end up being worth a tiny fraction of what they cost in the age of scriptoriums and illustrated grimoires?

That's exactly correct. [As you probably already know.] Better yet were the weavers and millers and other textile-ers, who were so terrified of the labor-saving machines that they smashed them so much that doing so had to be made a capital crime; so famed were they that they've left their mostly-made-up leader's name in our lexicon as a word for "those who fear technology."

It once took a staff of dozens to turn a sheep into a rug, where now it takes one man and a host of machines. It's fucking beautiful.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:13:10 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273959
Straw fucking man.

No one here, as far as I can tell, has raised objections to a single user making copies of something they have purchased for their own use. If one buys a CD and wants to rip the song for use on their iPOD I doubt anyone in this thread would raise an objection.

This thread has been about copies being made for others other than the one who purchased it.


Really? So if someone makes a copy of their CD for their aunt, that's ok? Or is it not? Should they be fined $200 000 per song?

Was making mix tapes for your girlfriend theft?

If I choose to lend a friend a book I bought? Or if I choose to copy the rules of a book I bought, copying them by hand, and then giving them to someone else?

Is it a straw man, or not? Do you think the above things are theft too?

And how is it unethical for me to make a cassette tape of my Doors album for my cousin, but not if I make the same cassette tape and just keep it?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:13:18 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273968
Your posts in this very thread suffice.


posting to a message board is unethical? Please explain how.

Quote from: CavScout;273969
Sounds good, when are you sending me the files?

What infrastructure do you have for hosting torrents, I wonder?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:15:37 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273961
The CD killed the tape because it is a superior product, not because record companies were worried about tape to tape copying.

Tapes died because they are the vastly inferior product and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.


The Record industry was HORRIFIED about tape copying. They tried  to petition the government to violently prosecute tape-copiers in EXACTLY the same ways they do filesharers now, they made the same claims that its "killing the music industry", exactly the same accusations of "theft", etc etc. ad nauseum.

Its just that back then, no one was so stupid as to buy into their shit argument.  And now, because the internet is scary to old men in ways that cassette recorders are not, they have bought into it.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:17:31 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273971
Really? So if someone makes a copy of their CD for their aunt, that's ok? Or is it not? Should they be fined $200 000 per song?

Was making mix tapes for your girlfriend theft?

If I choose to lend a friend a book I bought? Or if I choose to copy the rules of a book I bought, copying them by hand, and then giving them to someone else?

Is it a straw man, or not? Do you think the above things are theft too?

And how is it unethical for me to make a cassette tape of my Doors album for my cousin, but not if I make the same cassette tape and just keep it?


So you are really, seriously, trying to equate making a copies of something you own for your own personal use with distributing copies of something to those who did not purchase it? Really, is that your game?

Just retract your straw man and move on.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:17:59 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273969
Sounds good, when are you sending me the files?


I'm not giving YOU, personally, fuck all. You can feel free to buy my books, or download them from a fileshare network.   But I could think of a lot of other people I'd rather employ as viral marketers than you, thank you very much.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:18:44 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273972
posting to a message board is unethical? Please explain how.


I know you are but what am I.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:18:48 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273967
You want to put them on a torrent site, please, go ahead. other people might download it, enjoy it, and end up buying it. Or they will buy my sourcebook. or they will register on my site and get me ad revenue (if I chose to have ads).

If you're confident of its success as a loss-leader - and I think you probably should be - why haven't you done it? If nothing else, you should just drop the PDF on your site.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: One Horse Town on December 16, 2008, 03:20:03 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273974
The Record industry was HORRIFIED about tape copying. They tried  to petition the government to violently prosecute tape-copiers in EXACTLY the same ways they do filesharers now, they made the same claims that its "killing the music industry", exactly the same accusations of "theft", etc etc. ad nauseum.

RPGPundit


As far as i'm aware, it used to be law in the UK that you could only keep VHS recordings from the telly for 28 days. No-one in their right mind thought that you could police such a thing though.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:20:15 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273974
The Record industry was HORRIFIED about tape copying. They tried  to petition the government to violently prosecute tape-copiers in EXACTLY the same ways they do filesharers now, they made the same claims that its "killing the music industry", exactly the same accusations of "theft", etc etc. ad nauseum.

Its just that back then, no one was so stupid as to buy into their shit argument.  And now, because the internet is scary to old men in ways that cassette recorders are not, they have bought into it.


Because "back then" you couldn't distributed thousands of exact copies over the internet.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:21:10 PM
Quote from: Engine;273970
That's exactly correct. [As you probably already know.] Better yet were the weavers and millers and other textile-ers, who were so terrified of the labor-saving machines that they smashed them so much that doing so had to be made a capital crime; so famed were they that they've left their mostly-made-up leader's name in our lexicon as a word for "those who fear technology."

It once took a staff of dozens to turn a sheep into a rug, where now it takes one man and a host of machines. It's fucking beautiful.


Yes, we got the word "luddites" and "Sabotage" out of the last giant revolution in human progress.  The internet is a revolution in human intellectual progress that in my opinion is on par with the development of the printing press AT LEAST (if not the development of the written script itself). It will utterly transform our entire society, our civilization, how we think, how we learn, how much we know and are expected to know, how we entertain ourselves, how we socialize, etc etc. likely within the lifetime of some of us chatting in this thread.
I can't wait to see what new words we will gain from the stupid dumbfucks who will try to stop social or economic changes from taking place because of the internet.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:21:15 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273976
I'm not giving YOU, personally, fuck all. You can feel free to buy my books, or download them from a fileshare network.   But I could think of a lot of other people I'd rather employ as viral marketers than you, thank you very much.


So you don't believe your own tripe.

or

If filesharing is such a boon to your business, at least point us to those who are filesharing your stuff so we partake of this grand advancement of your business.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:22:33 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273975
So you are really, seriously, trying to equate making a copies of something you own for your own personal use with distributing copies of something to those who did not purchase it? Really, is that your game?

Just retract your straw man and move on.


So these things are ok then, or are they not? Its not a straw man if it leads you to shit your pants at the thought of answering a simple question, you cunt.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:24:59 PM
See, now you're arguing over fair use (a subject over which I have my doubts). But it's still not the same.

Unless, of course, you're saying fair use should be extended to making an unlimited number of copies and distributing them worldwide at little to no cost.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:24:59 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273972
What infrastructure do you have for hosting torrents, I wonder?

...an internet connection?

Quote from: RPGPundit;273974
The Record industry was HORRIFIED about tape copying. They tried  to petition the government to violently prosecute tape-copiers in EXACTLY the same ways they do filesharers now, they made the same claims that its "killing the music industry", exactly the same accusations of "theft", etc etc. ad nauseum.

Its just that back then, no one was so stupid as to buy into their shit argument.

Oh, yes, they did, I fear. Can anyone remember what it was called, the "tax" they got slapped on blank media? I know Canada has one, and I know the Dutch have one, and it seems to me there's a blank-media tax in America's AHRA, too, but it's been too many years for me to remember.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:25:08 PM
Quote from: Engine;273978
If you're confident of its success as a loss-leader - and I think you probably should be - why haven't you done it? If nothing else, you should just drop the PDF on your site.


Mainly because I'm not the publisher. Its up to Clash how he sells my book, not me.  If I were ever actually to start an RPG publishing company, I certainly would do things in a very different way than many do now, and yes, one of these would be that PDFs of the main book of any system would be free, and for other systems they would be free for those who have bought the book.

Registering on the publishing site would give you more free stuff yet, and would give you access to forums and chats, all of which would be designed to generate ad revenue.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:26:17 PM
Tell you what, Pundy...send me the files. I know lots of people that would be happy to get this out in the free digital realm. No cost to you, we'll get that puppy out so people will then buy your product after they've already downloaded it for nothing...

Deal?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:26:27 PM
Quote from: Engine;273970
That's exactly correct. [As you probably already know.] Better yet were the weavers and millers and other textile-ers, who were so terrified of the labor-saving machines that they smashed them so much that doing so had to be made a capital crime; so famed were they that they've left their mostly-made-up leader's name in our lexicon as a word for "those who fear technology."

It once took a staff of dozens to turn a sheep into a rug, where now it takes one man and a host of machines. It's fucking beautiful.


I would only say that the difference with internet piracy and actual innovation is with innovation you have new ways to make something. With internet piracy we are not talking about a new way to make something, just a new way to get something for nothing.

The internet may well become the new way to distribute media, but weren’t not talking distribution in the thread anymore than saying photocopying a book is simply a new way of distributing it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273971
Really? So if someone makes a copy of their CD for their aunt, that's ok? Or is it not? Should they be fined $200 000 per song?

Was making mix tapes for your girlfriend theft?

If I choose to lend a friend a book I bought? Or if I choose to copy the rules of a book I bought, copying them by hand, and then giving them to someone else?

Is it a straw man, or not? Do you think the above things are theft too?

And how is it unethical for me to make a cassette tape of my Doors album for my cousin, but not if I make the same cassette tape and just keep it?

RPGPundit


The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 (AHRA) cover reproductions for personal use;i.e. your computer, back up copies, family members.

Quote
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by §1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 16, 2008, 03:29:25 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273980
Because "back then" you couldn't distributed thousands of exact copies over the internet.


No, instead you sold them one market stalls as physical product.

Isn't it wonderful how the technology has prevented that from now happening and yet the industry rail against something that actually stops real piracy.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:29:46 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273983
So these things are ok then, or are they not? Its not a straw man if it leads you to shit your pants at the thought of answering a simple question, you cunt.


It's still a straw man when you try and mask it behind other questions while beating your chest.

That you aren't man enough to admit it and move is what's telling.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:30:12 PM
You keep saying things about this ad money...but I have ways to block all that shit. So let's just cut to the chase and send out the files. Torrents don't need no stinking ads, do they?

I could put it up on d20 Haven and let people download it, no ads required.

Or do you want to make money and instead of controlling copies, you'll control access to the copies (as best you can) so that you can get the money through advertising?

FWIW, I think you're right int he sense that business practices have to change in many varied and sundry ways - none of which gives anyone the right to make a copy and/or distribute said copies of something not purchased. The great success of the FS movement has been to link these two things in some sort of extortionist-cum-revolutionary (or vice versa) perspective, IMHO.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:32:31 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273990
No, instead you sold them one market stalls as physical product.

Isn't it wonderful how the technology has prevented that from now happening and yet the industry rail against something that actually stops real piracy.

If you sold as many in a stall as can be downloaded in an hour from a torrent, the RIAA would have been all over you like a cheap suit.

I remember stories in the news about busting "pirates" and they'd show banks of video or audio recorders making copies.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:33:46 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273980
Because "back then" you couldn't distributed thousands of exact copies over the internet.

What's the difference? Its the ethical principle you people are standing up for, isn't it?? If it was wrong back then, it's wrong now.

Is it right for you to illegally download a file, if you only ever do it just once? Or to copy it to someone else, if you only ever do it just once? Does it make it any less unethical?

Either any copying is wrong, or none of it is. And the answer to that depends on whether you think that you are actually buying a physical product including all the information on that product (a book or a CD, to do with AS YOU SEE FIT, including to copy as many fucking times as you please, as long as you do not try to resell it), or whether you are only "renting" the rights to a single copy of a product.

The whole question boils down to whether, ethically, intellectual property means one can or cannot freely share a product that HAS BEEN PAID FOR, as many times as he wishes to, including by copying.  Be it one time to someone he knows personally, or a thousand or a million times, it doesn't make a difference to the question at hand.

Because if your answer is no, you cannot freely share the product, then it should be equally illegal to resell a book, or even to lend a book to a friend, because you do not "own" the knowledge in that book, and have no right to give that knowledge away freely to someone else. He should have to buy it, in his own book, just like you did. Letting someone else read or listen to something you paid for is THEFT, by the definition of those opposed to file-sharing.

So let's keep things in context, shall we? MY side is arguing about the practical realities of the modern world. Your side is arguing about a fantasy land of property rights where, if their argument is true, you should either be allowed to make all the copies of a book you want (as long as you don't charge for them), or you shouldn't be allowed to so much as lend a book to anyone, ever, without appropriate compensation to those who own the "intellectual property" that book contains, and that you do not have the right to freely share.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:34:43 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;273990
No, instead you sold them one market stalls as physical product.

Isn't it wonderful how the technology has prevented that from now happening and yet the industry rail against something that actually stops real piracy.


They are the same thing. I am still pirating a product, be it by photo-copying and sending you’re the book or letting you just make a digital copy of the file on my system.

This is where you fail, epicaly.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:37:26 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273995
What's the difference? Its the ethical principle you people are standing up for, isn't it?? If it was wrong back then, it's wrong now.

Is it right for you to illegally download a file, if you only ever do it just once? Or to copy it to someone else, if you only ever do it just once? Does it make it any less unethical?

Either any copying is wrong, or none of it is. And the answer to that depends on whether you think that you are actually buying a physical product including all the information on that product (a book or a CD, to do with AS YOU SEE FIT, including to copy as many fucking times as you please, as long as you do not try to resell it), or whether you are only "renting" the rights to a single copy of a product.

The whole question boils down to whether, ethically, intellectual property means one can or cannot freely share a product that HAS BEEN PAID FOR, as many times as he wishes to, including by copying.  Be it one time to someone he knows personally, or a thousand or a million times, it doesn't make a difference to the question at hand.

Because if your answer is no, you cannot freely share the product, then it should be equally illegal to resell a book, or even to lend a book to a friend, because you do not "own" the knowledge in that book, and have no right to give that knowledge away freely to someone else. He should have to buy it, in his own book, just like you did. Letting someone else read or listen to something you paid for is THEFT, by the definition of those opposed to file-sharing.

So let's keep things in context, shall we? MY side is arguing about the practical realities of the modern world. Your side is arguing about a fantasy land of property rights where, if their argument is true, you should either be allowed to make all the copies of a book you want (as long as you don't charge for them), or you shouldn't be allowed to so much as lend a book to anyone, ever, without appropriate compensation to those who own the "intellectual property" that book contains, and that you do not have the right to freely share.

RPGPundit

Well, not according to US law, as Bill pointed out. There are exceptions for "Fair Use." And that's the crux of the issue - it's the trade-off for getting copyright protection.

It's like when you buy an MP3 and they limit how many devices it can go on. I understand the reasoning, but it completely fucks with fair use.

Of course, they wouldn't have to limit it that way if people weren't so likely to put the purchased material out on a share for the world to have...

Fair Use and Copyright are related, but not exactly the same issue - in the real world of US law or the fantasy world you seem fond of referencing.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:37:59 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273995
Either any copying is wrong, or none of it is.


You are wrong, completely.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:38:02 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273982
So you don't believe your own tripe.


No, I just don't like you. I don't usually share things with people I don't like.

Feel free to PAY for a copy of my book, though, if you want to. Consider it an "annoying prat" tax.

Quote

If filesharing is such a boon to your business, at least point us to those who are filesharing your stuff so we partake of this grand advancement of your business.


Posting direct links to fileshare networks and the like goes against the policy of this site. Clearly not (obviously) because I don't approve of filesharing, but because we do not want this site to get shut down or sued.

However, it really is ludicrously simple, if you really want to illegally download one of my books. I wrote about it on my blog for fuck's sake, just do a search for Forward to Adventure, on the biggest fileshare network in the world, you dolt.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:40:51 PM
So, Pundy, after I download a copy, I can put it on d20 Haven without fear of retribution from you - or clash? I can just put it out there for everyone to take without worrying about ad revenues or anything like that?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:41:09 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273998
You are wrong, completely.


I guess we should keep score:

Questions Pundit Asked that made Cavscout shit his pants in fear at thought of having to answer: 2

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273999
No, I just don't like you. I don't usually share things with people I don't like.

Feel free to PAY for a copy of my book, though, if you want to. Consider it an "annoying prat" tax.


So you don't believe your own tripe. Gotcha.

Quote
Posting direct links to fileshare networks and the like goes against the policy of this site. Clearly not (obviously) because I don't approve of filesharing, but because we do not want this site to get shut down or sued.


There is nothing illegal or would get the site shutdown if you posted direct links to your products at no charge. Just do that. Then how we use them to further your business won't be a concern to you.

Quote
However, it really is ludicrously simple, if you really want to illegally download one of my books. I wrote about it on my blog for fuck's sake, just do a search for Forward to Adventure, on the biggest fileshare network in the world, you dolt.


Illegaly download? Why not link them free here or send them to those who ask for them so that we can help generate you more business?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:42:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;273988
The internet may well become the new way to distribute media...

Well, it has: iTunes, for but one example. Hulu's another. The internet is dripping with new distribution methods, some of which pan out, some of which don't.

Quote from: CavScout;273988
...but weren’t not talking distribution in the thread...

You're absolutely correct that internet piracy and internet distribution are two very different things, and it's worth pointing out the difference between the two. This new Netflix service directly produces revenue that goes to the studio, while going to btjunkie and grabbing the latest release provides, at most, a loss leader of indeterminate value.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:44:16 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274000
So, Pundy, after I download a copy, I can put it on d20 Haven without fear of retribution from you - or clash? I can just put it out there for everyone to take without worrying about ad revenues or anything like that?


I can't speak for Clash.
Also, there is a difference between having a file on a free fileshare network and having a file on a for-profit website (or a for-profit fileshare network); are YOU making money from ad revenues on your site? If you are, and you post someone else's PDF on there, that would be REAL Piracy, because you'd be making a profit off of a product that was not your own.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274001
I guess we should keep score:

Questions Pundit Asked that made Cavscout shit his pants in fear at thought of having to answer: 2


Shit, do I continue to play with you or will you get mad suddenly and lock the thread down again after you are embarrassed, again?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:46:25 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274004
I can't speak for Clash.
Also, there is a difference between having a file on a free fileshare network and having a file on a for-profit website (or a for-profit fileshare network); are YOU making money from ad revenues on your site? If you are, and you post someone else's PDF on there, that would be REAL Piracy, because you'd be making a profit off of a product that was not your own.

RPGPundit

I'm bummed you don't know that I have no ads or money making stuff on my site, Pundy. I thought you loved me...

So you can't speak for clash, but you didn't answer for you - and take into account that I'm not making any money on d20 haven. It's there for my amusement and the hope that some folks might get some useful or amusing stuff for themselves.

So?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:47:14 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273986
Mainly because I'm not the publisher. Its up to Clash how he sells my book, not me.

Don't you own the rights to the work? Or did you sell the distribution rights to him, and you get a royalty? [If so, bad move!] If you own the rights, it's up to you what happens with the work itself, up to and including giving it away.

So do it! If you really can sell more copies by giving some away as digital works, do it. If you're in a legally-binding distribution contract with Clash, just ask him if it'd be okay to include a link to download the book.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:48:05 PM
Quote from: Engine;274003
Well, it has: iTunes, for but one example. Hulu's another. The internet is dripping with new distribution methods, some of which pan out, some of which don't.


Do some degree, yes but I think there is just so much more it can do. I suspect that if companies can ever get a handle on, or a way to dramaticly reduce, unathorized downloading, we'd see more of it.

Quote
You're absolutely correct that internet piracy and internet distribution are two very different things, and it's worth pointing out the difference between the two. This new Netflix service directly produces revenue that goes to the studio, while going to btjunkie and grabbing the latest release provides, at most, a loss leader of indeterminate value.


Yep, I just think some folks are making the two the same thing with their "it's just a new way to do business" mantra.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:48:56 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274002
So you don't believe your own tripe. Gotcha.


No, again, I don't like YOU. I know you really want to have my RPG, but you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that I'm not giving you a copy for free. Go get your own, or buy one if your "ethics" prevents you.


Quote

There is nothing illegal or would get the site shutdown if you posted direct links to your products at no charge. Just do that. Then how we use them to further your business won't be a concern to you.


First, this is a non-commercial site. If I'm using this site to sell my books, then its not that anymore.
Second, my book was published by Flying Mice games. I do not have the authority to decide anything about the sales of my game. That's up to Clash, and I totally support him in however he chooses to sell FtA!

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:49:27 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274006
I'm bummed you don't know that I have no ads or money making stuff on my site, Pundy. I thought you loved me...

So you can't speak for clash, but you didn't answer for you - and take into account that I'm not making any money on d20 haven. It's there for my amusement and the hope that some folks might get some useful or amusing stuff for themselves.

So?


This will be interesting. :D
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 03:49:31 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274004
I can't speak for Clash.
Also, there is a difference between having a file on a free fileshare network and having a file on a for-profit website (or a for-profit fileshare network); are YOU making money from ad revenues on your site? If you are, and you post someone else's PDF on there, that would be REAL Piracy, because you'd be making a profit off of a product that was not your own.

RPGPundit

If it is being downloaded for free would it matter is he is getting ad revenue? I mean, the effect would be the same. People would be downloading for free. You would be receiving the benefit of marketing.

Oh, and James, if you want feel free to snag any of my free downloads. ;)

Bill
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274009
No, again, I don't like YOU. I know you really want to have my RPG, but you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that I'm not giving you a copy for free. Go get your own, or buy one if your "ethics" prevents you.


Then you will allow it for the others who've asked, then. I can't wait.

Quote
First, this is a non-commercial site. If I'm using this site to sell my books, then its not that anymore.


Link them for free, then still non-commercial.

Quote
Second, my book was published by Flying Mice games. I do not have the authority to decide anything about the sales of my game. That's up to Clash, and I totally support him in however he chooses to sell FtA!


You're just being a pussy, as well as a hypocrite, talking up the virtues of filesharing while dodging requests making it easier for others to do it with your own products.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 03:52:24 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274011
If it is being downloaded for free would it matter is he is getting ad revenue? I mean, the effect would be the same. People would be downloading for free. You would be receiving the benefit of marketing.

Oh, and James, if you want feel free to sang any of my free downloads. ;)

Bill

I was thinking this very thing in pestering Pundy...I really should. Maybe Mark has some stuff he'd like to offer and I'd be happy to make it available. I'll ask him Tomorrow before the game starts!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:54:34 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274005
Shit, do I continue to play with you or will you get mad suddenly and lock the thread down again after you are embarrassed, again?


So you're not going to answer either of them, huh?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 03:55:10 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274009

Second, my book was published by Flying Mice games. I do not have the authority to decide anything about the sales of my game. That's up to Clash, and I totally support him in however he chooses to sell FtA!

Not presuming to speak to your contract but if you did not sell him the rights to your game or grant him distribution rights (which you may have) it is up to you. Was this a work for hire? That would seem unlikely but maybe.

Bill
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 03:58:07 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274008
Do some degree, yes but I think there is just so much more it can do. I suspect that if companies can ever get a handle on, or a way to dramaticly reduce, unathorized downloading, we'd see more of it.

Don't worry: your time will come. There was a time, not too long ago, in my country, when if you lived in the right place, you could just lie, cheat, steal, kill, whatever you felt like, and the worst that might happen was someone else would do those things to you. As the population grew, and more people derived more economic value from the area, there were sufficient resources to pay for police forces, and sufficient resources to require them.

The internet will not be the frontier forever; you won't be able to rob and steal with impunity, forever. And it'll be safer, cleaner, more civilized, and safe, clean, civilized people will be very pleased with it. Me, on the other hand, I'll be somewhere else. Probably stealing something.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274006
I'm bummed you don't know that I have no ads or money making stuff on my site, Pundy. I thought you loved me...


I'm sorry; I rarely have time to visit other RPG fora; I look at RPG.net once a week or so, and apart from that only occasionally see some thread in some other forum.

Quote
So you can't speak for clash, but you didn't answer for you - and take into account that I'm not making any money on d20 haven. It's there for my amusement and the hope that some folks might get some useful or amusing stuff for themselves.

So?


If it was up to me, I would allow people to do some kind of banner-link or something; a way that they would be able to  publicize the free product on their forum, but have to come and participate on my company's site.

But its not up to me in FtA!'s case, so that's entirely theoretical.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 16, 2008, 04:00:04 PM
I am finding this thread very interesting and most everyone has done a great job discussing their viewpoints.   I personally have a good understanding of the economics of creativity and I agree that the current culture of entitlement is unhealthy.  It fuels whiny bitches with unnecessary self-importance that allows them to denigrate the worth of actual work.

However, I worship the Gods of Capitalism and their divine law is change or die so whether something is ethical or not, nothing matters more than finding a way to make money by selling stuff to consumers.   I agree that "filesharing" or "illegal downloading" is here to stay and every media business need to adapt or collapse.

Quote from: HinterWelt;273950
For about $11 plus shipping you can print Roma True20 (290 page, B&W interior, color cover). If you get the book for free digitally, you have a pretty easy way to do this that saves you about $15.


At the many conventions I have attended, I have never seen any gamers with POD books, but many of them show up with hard drives full of PDFs.

I suspect very few will go the Lulu route because the setup time and effort supercedes the expected savings.


Quote from: RPGPundit;273986
If I were ever actually to start an RPG publishing company, I certainly would do things in a very different way than many do now, and yes, one of these would be that PDFs of the main book of any system would be free, and for other systems they would be free for those who have bought the book.


I can see having downloads of free ancillary stuff and free "test drive" versions, but I do not see the efficacy of giving away the entire core book PDF.   I think the idea of "buy the hardcopy and get the PDF for free" is a good idea, but I am unsure of just tossing out the PDF to the winds.  I know FFG lets you download the game rules to their boardgames, but that's a safe teaser because they are selling a physical product.

Is there any proof where such a plan has worked out well for a publisher?


Quote from: James J Skach;273994
I remember stories in the news about busting "pirates" and they'd show banks of video or audio recorders making copies.


I remember going to GenCon and seeing guys selling box sets of old TV series on VHS that they had scanned.   A couple years ago, I bought some used DVDs off eBay of some 70s holiday classics and the dude sent me scans from the TV (with chopped up commercials too).
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 04:01:08 PM
Quote from: Engine;274007
Don't you own the rights to the work? Or did you sell the distribution rights to him, and you get a royalty? [If so, bad move!] If you own the rights, it's up to you what happens with the work itself, up to and including giving it away.

So do it! If you really can sell more copies by giving some away as digital works, do it. If you're in a legally-binding distribution contract with Clash, just ask him if it'd be okay to include a link to download the book.


The agreement I have with Clash is that he has the right to publish the current edition of FtA! in English. I get a very generous percentage of all profit.

Clash and I disagree about the filesharing issue, and I have no interest in telling Clash how to run his company.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 04:04:55 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274009
First, this is a non-commercial site. If I'm using this site to sell my books, then its not that anymore.

Right, but you wouldn't be selling your books, you'd be giving them away. And other people with non-commercial sites have offered to host. I have two web servers, one with guaranteed uptime at a colocation facility [this is what I usually resell, if people need hosting; I'd certainly host a few files for free!] and another that's physically in my possession [and thus a little more liberal in terms of what I can put on it]. And JJ's server seems to work delightfully, and I can attest it has no ads.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274009
Second, my book was published by Flying Mice games.

Yes, the book was published by Flying Mice Games, but the intellectual property should still belong to you, unless you sold him sole distributor rights for some reason. Seriously, you should ask him if it'd be okay, but legally, I don't see where there's a problem, since you own the work itself, no matter that he's published it for you. And really, would he object to a loss leader?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;274019

At the many conventions I have attended, I have never seen any gamers with POD books, but many of them show up with hard drives full of PDFs.

I suspect very few will go the Lulu route because the setup time and effort supercedes the expected savings.

LULU is not that hard. A part of it is just knowing it exists. Another is, admittedly, the format of the PDF. Many PDFs are just ports of the print PDFs sent to printers (at least according tot he publishers I have talked to). Obviously this does not apply to digital only products but they were sort of excluded from the original response anyway.

The point being, as services like LULU become easier, catering more and more to the "amateur publisher" it will also become easier for the illegal downloader to get his "value added" print version. I would argue that day is already here and it will only get easier while others, I think, would say it is just on the horizon. Part of that is familiarity with printing and part is whether you are comfortable with technology.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 04:08:57 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274018
I'm sorry; I rarely have time to visit other RPG fora; I look at RPG.net once a week or so, and apart from that only occasionally see some thread in some other forum.

Like my Handwavium? :D

No problem - I'm just having you on about that...

Quote from: RPGPundit;274018
If it was up to me, I would allow people to do some kind of banner-link or something; a way that they would be able to  publicize the free product on their forum, but have to come and participate on my company's site.

Interesting - why do they need to come to your site? How is that applicable in the discussion about file sharing in which I have no obligation in any way to do anything you want to share your file with thousands upon thousands (I wish that many came to d20 Haven!)?

See, I'm being nice - I'm asking. And that, to me, is the fundamental problem with the approach espoused by many - that if they can't come to agreement with the owner of a copyright, artist or middle-man, they can just go take it. Free markets, which you mention up-thread rather strongly (yay!), are predicated on the idea that both sides get to enter into the agreement of exchange of value freely. So either side gets a choice, but if agreement can't be reached, one side just doesn't get to enact the terms they want anyway.

Otherwise, every time I chose not to buy a CD or RPG because I felt it was too expensive, the company could deduct the money from my account anyway. After all, that's what they wanted out of the bargain, right?

Anyway, you've seen through my transparent ploy to get FtA for free!

Quote from: RPGPundit;274018
But its not up to me in FtA!'s case, so that's entirely theoretical.

Why do I have a feeling if you wanted to, clash would OK it...even if he didn't think it was the best idea...
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 04:09:49 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;274019

I can see having downloads of free ancillary stuff and free "test drive" versions, but I do not see the efficacy of giving away the entire core book PDF.   I think the idea of "buy the hardcopy and get the PDF for free" is a good idea, but I am unsure of just tossing out the PDF to the winds.  I know FFG lets you download the game rules to their boardgames, but that's a safe teaser because they are selling a physical product.

Is there any proof where such a plan has worked out well for a publisher?


Well, again, it seems to do well enough for Baen, and they don't even add any bells and whistles. The only thing you need to get a TON of free Sci-fi books from them is to register on their site. And, according to Baen themselves, the books they offer for free online end up experiencing an increase in sales in print, too.

It might not be the exact same way with RPGs, though. That's the problem with innovation, you have to experiment.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 04:09:53 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274020
The agreement I have with Clash is that he has the right to publish the current edition of FtA! in English. I get a very generous percentage of all profit.

I'd take a close look at the verbage of that agreement if I were you, and make sure it covers every means of distribution, and specifically omits digital distribution for the purposes of marketing; generally, you're okay to give your stuff away - like to reviewers, for instance - without your publisher freaking out, unless your publisher owns the work [as record labels like to do].

Otherwise, well, negotiate better next time, 'cause that's a shit deal.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 04:11:58 PM
Quote from: Engine;274022

Yes, the book was published by Flying Mice Games, but the intellectual property should still belong to you, unless you sold him sole distributor rights for some reason. Seriously, you should ask him if it'd be okay, but legally, I don't see where there's a problem, since you own the work itself, no matter that he's published it for you. And really, would he object to a loss leader?


The intellectual property does belong to me. But Clash did all the layout and production of the book; the images in the book were his images, the cover was his cover, etc.

If I were to produce an entirely new edition, new cover, new layout, new illustrations, etc, then that would be another story. But really, I'm not going to bother, because thankfully I don't need to make a living off of my RPG books.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 04:12:27 PM
I always though clash was the man...

I never realized he's The Man!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 04:14:08 PM
Quote from: Engine;273963
You don't have to be a professional layout artist to do professional-quality layouts anymore; you just need to know what looks good, and the software will do tons of what used to require training and experience. That's not to say anyone with InDesign can produce a Best Buy ad, but there's becoming room in the marketplace for something a step above "guy with scissors" and below "staff of hundreds."

Similar revolutions are taking place in film, where small-crew, small-budget films are becoming more and more professional every day; widespread distribution of digital cameras and comparatively inexpensive editing equipment means you can reduce much of the staff you used to need. Yesterday's big-budget summer tentpole will be something a few guys can make in their garage, tomorrow.

Music, of course, is probably the most obvious [to me]. A lot of the work a dedicated engineer or producer used to accomplish is done by the artist themselves, now. Most of my favorite albums were entirely self-produced, or were produced with small groups of highly talented people, and labor-saving technology. Do you still need to know where to put the mic to get the best recording? Yes, and the computer won't do it for you; on the other hand, that information is broadly available on the internet now, making the benefits of trade school available to anyone with an internet connection....



I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I think we'll see a flattening of creative production, where the expensive stuff becomes too risky and today's cheap stuff will look/sound a lot better. So reams and reams of variable quality amateur stuff. The trick, as you note, will be how to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 04:14:50 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274023
The point being, as services like LULU become easier, catering more and more to the "amateur publisher" it will also become easier for the illegal downloader to get his "value added" print version. I would argue that day is already here and it will only get easier while others, I think, would say it is just on the horizon.

My personal guess - and it's little more than that - is that people will adjust to reading books only onscreen [and screens will change format into something a little more useful] before we see print-on-demand being a major force. I used to scoff at the idea of going PDF-only, but the vast majority of my game work is now on a screen, even though the computer technology [in terms of portability and useability, mostly] isn't really there for me. But I'm also hopeful that people will slowly stop using paper so much, and save a few of my beloved squirrels. [Although I think I love them a bit less than, say, you. ;) ]
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 04:15:50 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274014
I was thinking this very thing in pestering Pundy...I really should. Maybe Mark has some stuff he'd like to offer and I'd be happy to make it available. I'll ask him Tomorrow before the game starts!


Jim,
I will be trying an experiment with Zombipocalypse where I give the game away but have a heartfelt plea in the book for the DLer to purchase, either in print or PDF. Would you be interested in hosting it? I will have it elsewhere, on my site and such, but I will be trying to get it to as many places as possible.

Bill
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 04:17:27 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274024
Like my Handwavium? :D

No problem - I'm just having you on about that...


Interesting - why do they need to come to your site? How is that applicable in the discussion about file sharing in which I have no obligation in any way to do anything you want to share your file with thousands upon thousands (I wish that many came to d20 Haven!)?


The name of the game right now is not to encourage filesharing, but about not trying to imagine that clamping down on filesharing is a viable strategy; and replacing that strategy with providing alternatives to filesharing.
Eventually, I think people WILL come up with ways to make a profit even from filesharing. They could, for example, sell ad space on their books/movies/music etc. with payment either being one-time or royalties with projections that include exposure from filesharing. A kind of "product-placement" revenue (like we already see happening in movies, but taking filesharing into account).  Its only a matter of time and technology.
The point is you don't adapt to innovation by trying to turn back the clock and prosecute or suppress innovation/innovators.  You adapt to innovation with more innovation.

Quote

Why do I have a feeling if you wanted to, clash would OK it...even if he didn't think it was the best idea...


He might or might not, but I'm not going to put him in that position; it would be very impolite of me to try to dictate to him how he should sell the product he published.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 04:19:14 PM
Quote from: Engine;274030
My personal guess - and it's little more than that - is that people will adjust to reading books only onscreen [and screens will change format into something a little more useful] before we see print-on-demand being a major force. I used to scoff at the idea of going PDF-only, but the vast majority of my game work is now on a screen, even though the computer technology [in terms of portability and useability, mostly] isn't really there for me. But I'm also hopeful that people will slowly stop using paper so much, and save a few of my beloved squirrels. [Although I think I love them a bit less than, say, you. ;) ]


Oh, and I said earlier int he thread that readers will make FSing even more damaging to the trad model of distribution. We have the Sony reader right now but it is still way too expensive. As we see it come down to $50 or so I think we will see more content that takes advantage of the market. I already do a lot with different electronic formats and I think we will see more features aimed at e-paper as it catches on.

And squirrels be damned. They can live in holes.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 04:22:43 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274031
Jim,
I will be trying an experiment with Zombipocalypse where I give the game away but have a heartfelt plea in the book for the DLer to purchase, either in print or PDF. Would you be interested in hosting it? I will have it elsewhere, on my site and such, but I will be trying to get it to as many places as possible.

Bill

Say no more...I hope you know I'd be honored to do so. We can work out details as needed....
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 04:26:15 PM
Quote from: Engine;274026
I'd take a close look at the verbage of that agreement if I were you, and make sure it covers every means of distribution, and specifically omits digital distribution for the purposes of marketing; generally, you're okay to give your stuff away - like to reviewers, for instance - without your publisher freaking out, unless your publisher owns the work [as record labels like to do].

Otherwise, well, negotiate better next time, 'cause that's a shit deal.


I'm sure he wouldn't freak out if I were to give away review copies, and I was the one who sent out PDF copies to the playtesters here in Uruguay, for example. This is just about me trusting Clash to be the one who decides these things for this product, because we're working together, and mainly because the reason I went with him instead of trying to self-publish was that I didn't want to have to bother with handling all of that end of the thing myself, I just wanted to write the damn book and see it in print.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 04:27:48 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274029
The trick, as you note, will be how to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Thus far, best practice has followed what we kind-of-stupidly call "democratization," which really just means "widespread distribution." [It makes sense in the original Greek, anyway.] Just as we've democratized production, now we democratize gatekeeping; instead of allowing an elite - whether that's a professional editor, or a Rolling Stone reviewer, or whatever - to determine the quality of a few works, we let everyone assess the quality of everything. This can be simple or complex; the simplest is just to count the number of times someone watches [or reads, or listens to] something, but you can also let people pick how many stars it should receive. [Think Newegg, which keeps "best sellers" apart from "best rated," so you can view both.] This falls prey to the tyranny of popularity, in which works which only a minority of people might enjoy - but might enjoy a lot - are rated poorly by the masses; text reviews help, but they're much harder to aggregate; better still is the "people who liked this also liked" method, which lets you figure out, in theory, what people like you liked.

Does it work yet? Not that well, to be honest. But the simple fact that these methods exist, and mutate daily, tells us we're on our way to finding a method of selection that lets both the cockroaches [with their broad environmental tolerances] and the pandas [rare, specialized, but somehow more satisfying to some people than a cockroach] to survive.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 04:35:31 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273981
I can't wait to see what new words we will gain from the stupid dumbfucks who will try to stop social or economic changes from taking place because of the internet.



I for one am not trying to stop change. I recognize the devaluation of any content that can be stored digitally is inevitable. I'm just saying those who feel entitled to getting something for nothing should be careful what they wish for. They may end up rolling around in a mountain of content that is worth exactly what they paid for it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 04:35:34 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274031
Oh, and I said earlier int he thread that readers will make FSing even more damaging to the trad model of distribution. We have the Sony reader right now but it is still way too expensive.

And it doesn't use well; flipping through a book is still too convenient. That said, a tablet PC with some of the multitouch gestures from the iPhone, which is as durable as a book and lighter than a sack of fucking rocks...well, that'll be a beast to contend with. And that's, you know, like a week down the road. :)

Already, I prefer [OCRed] PDFs, simply because of the simplicity of Search [although if Adobe doesn't start using in-place searching the way Firefox does, I'm going to hang someone]. Add cross-linking, and all the other joys of purely digital information - "Computer: find and highlight all instances of the Run feat; include page numbers" - and you've got something compelling.

But not today, not for everyone. Tomorrow, though...
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 04:43:37 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273995
So let's keep things in context, shall we? MY side is arguing about the practical realities of the modern world.


Hang on - you're the one who responds to practical concerns about the dramatic devaluation of IP by waving your hands and saying "I'm sure creators will think of some way to make money from content they have no control over." Who's being practical and who's living in an idealized dream world?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 04:50:33 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273999
No, I just don't like you. I don't usually share things with people I don't like.



But according to the ethos you're defending, you have no right to decide who you share with and who you don't share with. Forward to Adventure is in digital form, sitting on dozens of digitial shelves in the endless etherlibrary of the net. It's no longer yours. It's gone. Anyone can now do anything they like with it - copy it, read it, host it, revise it - and you have no say in the matter. Welcome to the new world of digital free love.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 04:56:37 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274015
So you're not going to answer either of them, huh?


You do understand the point of pointing out a straw man is to not be made to defend something one didn't say.

But keep trying.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:06:15 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274039
Hang on - you're the one who responds to practical concerns about the dramatic devaluation of IP by waving your hands and saying "I'm sure creators think of some way to make money from content they have no control over." Who's being practical and who's living in an idealized dream world?


I have the force of history on my side. This is what has happened before, every time there was a technological advance.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 16, 2008, 05:07:52 PM
Quote from: Engine;274038
That said, a tablet PC with some of the multitouch gestures from the iPhone, which is as durable as a book and lighter than a sack of fucking rocks...well, that'll be a beast to contend with. And that's, you know, like a week down the road. :)

Getting warmer (http://techreport.com/articles.x/16023)...
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:12:48 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274040
But according to the ethos you're defending, you have no right to decide who you share with and who you don't share with. Forward to Adventure is in digital form, sitting on dozens of digitial shelves in the endless etherlibrary of the net. It's no longer yours. It's gone. Anyone can now do anything they like with it - copy it, read it, host it, revise it - and you have no say in the matter. Welcome to the new world of digital free love.


My ethos does not OBLIGE someone to fileshare. The fact that I could share a book I own with someone else doesn't mean I am forced to lend that book to anyone.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 05:13:23 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274042
I have the force of history on my side. This is what has happened before, every time there was a technological advance.


Only in the sense that you continue to continue to confuse technological advances to produce or distribute a product with technological advances to take the products for free. We’re not discussing the pros and cons of digital distribution; we’re talking the theft of products one does not have the rights to.

When people start stealing cars, cars didn’t stop being made. Better locks and alarms came into being and they started putting security and cameras in parking lots.

You’ll see internet providers tracking your movements across cyberspace seeing what you’re downloading before you’ll see the music and movie industries allowing their stuff to be downloaded for free.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:14:03 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274041
You do understand the point of pointing out a straw man is to not be made to defend something one didn't say.

But keep trying.


And you realize that saying the words straw and man concurrently (or repeatedly) do not magically make a straw man out of something that is not.. If you can't answer because you realize that there is no good answer under your own arguments, just admit that your position is logically flawed and get over it, dude.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 05:16:20 PM
Quote from: Engine;274044
Getting warmer (http://techreport.com/articles.x/16023)...

Want. One.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 05:16:54 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274045
My ethos does not OBLIGE someone to fileshare.


Okay. So you think Sony is in the right when they try to deter people from distributing their products without permission?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:17:03 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274046

When people start stealing cars, cars didn’t stop being made. Better locks and alarms came into being and they started putting security and cameras in parking lots.


Now, see, THAT is a straw man. No one is stealing cars or anything else here. There is no shoplifting going on, its not that by sharing a file they are taking away a product that is on the shelf and thus making it impossible for that product to also be sold.

Quote
You’ll see internet providers tracking your movements across cyberspace seeing what you’re downloading before you’ll see the music and movie industries allowing their stuff to be downloaded for free.


I think we'll see some music companies going bankrupt before we see either, hopefully.
And then the others will realize that they're not going to be able to stop this by thrusting their swords at the tide or trying to shout at the sun to force it not to go down.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274045
My ethos does not OBLIGE someone to fileshare. The fact that I could share a book I own with someone else doesn't mean I am forced to lend that book to anyone.

RPGPundit

Yay! You agree with me!

So what steps am I allowed to take to keep someone from getting my files when I don't feel like they should be able to have them?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:19:18 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274049
Okay. So you think Sony is in the right when they try to deter people from distributing their products without permission?


No, I think Sony is wrong for trying to suppress filesharing. I think Sony would be well within their rights to try to find innovative ways to encourage people to get their music directly from them, in whatever medium, by appeal rather than force.

Likewise, I would be against someone theoretically forcing the owner of anything, be it a book, a file, or any other object, to HAVE to share that object with anyone else if they don't want to, as much as I'd be against them trying to force them not to share.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:20:30 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274051
Yay! You agree with me!

So what steps am I allowed to take to keep someone from getting my files when I don't feel like they should be able to have them?


Easy: Don't put them on torrent or emule.

Once you sell said file to someone else, its not your file anymore, its theirs, and its up to them what they do with it, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off it.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 05:25:14 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274047
And you realize that saying the words straw and man concurrently (or repeatedly) do not magically make a straw man out of something that is not.. If you can't answer because you realize that there is no good answer under your own arguments, just admit that your position is logically flawed and get over it, dude.


Let me guess, this is another one of those tirades where you can repeat yourself ad nauseum but I have to keep coming up with different responses or I lose?

But yes, you did raise a straw man (http:// http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=273959&postcount=169). The thread had been about taking a copy of a product one did not purchase themselves and then you swooped in and tried to equate copying for personal use and illegal downloading.

Until you admit as much why should I “answer” derivatives of that straw man that only you set-up so you could gloriously beat it down?

But keep telling yourself you’ve got me “scared shitless” if that makes you feel better.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 05:33:27 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274050
Now, see, THAT is a straw man. No one is stealing cars or anything else here. There is no shoplifting going on, its not that by sharing a file they are taking away a product that is on the shelf and thus making it impossible for that product to also be sold.


That’s not a straw man, that’s an analogy you dipshit.  

You may disagree but that doesn’t change what it is. Illegal downloads are theft, it is just theft of a non-physical product versus a physical product. And you can keep repeating the mantra that illegal downloads don’t impact actual sales but its failure to pass the reality test is obvious to all but the proponents of illegal downloading.

Just like counterfeiting money doesn’t take anything away from anyone yet almost no one would support it.  

Quote from: RPGPundit;274050
I think we'll see some music companies going bankrupt before we see either, hopefully.
And then the others will realize that they're not going to be able to stop this by thrusting their swords at the tide or trying to shout at the sun to force it not to go down.


You can hope for that I suppose but they don't have to stop it, they just need to change the attitude that its ok. Once they do that, they'll have a much easier time of things.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 05:34:16 PM
Quote from: Engine;274044
Getting warmer (http://techreport.com/articles.x/16023)...

Yes...excellent. I am still am hoping for better (read cheaper) e-paper (http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665562069). Soon....oh, yes, soon...

Oh, this vid is cool... (http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=sony+e-paper&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title#)
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 05:36:23 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274053
Easy: Don't put them on torrent or emule.

Once you sell said file to someone else, its not your file anymore, its theirs, and its up to them what they do with it, as long as they're not trying to make a profit off it.


So, if I got a copy of your products and offered them as direct downloads through my signature (no file sharing sites, just a direct d/l like any other PDF folks post here) you won’t get all ass hurt and ban or change it, will you?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 16, 2008, 05:43:01 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274054
The thread had been about taking a copy of a product one did not purchase themselves and then you swooped in and tried to equate copying for personal use and illegal downloading.

Well, actually, the thread was about downloading out-of-print RPGs that one cannot buy through normal channels -- which you tried to equate with downloading of any and all intellectual property.  It's fine for a topic to drift, but just be clear what points you're arguing.  

I don't agree with Pundit's strong anti-copyright stance, but I also have major problems with the current copyright laws.  

As for the turning of technology -- I'd agree that there are inevitable trends, but they don't always go the same way.  Technology of the 19th and 20th centuries worked to favor mass media.  It used to be that people would more often talk to their neighbors for the news, go to see local shows, and play music for themselves.  Mass media technology (first printing, then phonographs and film) changed this so that people became more passive in receiving creativity and less engaged with their community.  The Internet is starting to change that trend, however.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274054
Let me guess, this is another one of those tirades where you can repeat yourself ad nauseum but I have to keep coming up with different responses or I lose?


No, that's more or less your game, with the exception being that you don't even present a real argument to begin with, and then just repeat your non-argument over and over again.

Quote
But yes, you did raise a straw man (http:// http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=273959&postcount=169). The thread had been about taking a copy of a product one did not purchase themselves and then you swooped in and tried to equate copying for personal use and illegal downloading.


AH, so you're saying that copying a CD you purchased, for your auntie or your buddy is "personal use", and not "theft"?

Quote
Until you admit as much why should I “answer” derivatives of that straw man that only you set-up so you could gloriously beat it down?


Defining what is "illegal filesharing" and what is "personal use" is directly relevant to this discussion: if it is "personal use" to make a copy of a CD you bought and give it to your aunt, why is it not "personal use" to take the CD you bought and put it up on Emule?

Quote
But keep telling yourself you’ve got me “scared shitless” if that makes you feel better.


Yup, you seem pretty scared-shitless to me.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:47:43 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274056
That’s not a straw man, that’s an analogy you dipshit.  

You may disagree but that doesn’t change what it is. Illegal downloads are theft, it is just theft of a non-physical product versus a physical product. And you can keep repeating the mantra that illegal downloads don’t impact actual sales but its failure to pass the reality test is obvious to all but the proponents of illegal downloading.


Nope, its not theft. Stealing a car is theft. Copying a movie and selling it on the street is piracy.  Downloading a song from eMule is NEITHER; it is arguably, at most, violation of copyright, and then ONLY if you accept that the original owner of the file shared does not have the right to use the file he legally paid for as he sees fit as long as he doesn't profit from it. That is the only real point of debate.

Quote
Just like counterfeiting money doesn’t take anything away from anyone yet almost no one would support it.  


You see, that's a good example. Counterfeiting and theft are not the same thing; robbing a bank or mugging someone, and taking their money, is theft. Counterfeiting is fraudulently producing money, NOT theft.

It only hurts the argument of the big record companies and the goons who believe in them to try to claim that what's going on is a crime that it clearly is not; calling it "theft" is no more accurate than calling it "rape".

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:50:45 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274056

You can hope for that I suppose but they don't have to stop it, they just need to change the attitude that its ok. Once they do that, they'll have a much easier time of things.


That attitude will never change. Because, for starters, they have so utterly botched the job of public relations by trying to prosecute 12 year olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or threaten grandmothers with prison because their granddaughter downloaded a britney spears song from the computer they barely know how to use.
And, beyond that, because people are smart enough to recognize the difference between robbing  a car and copying a file; and the RIAA's efforts to try to claim that its the same act (and to try to create stiffer punishments for the latter than the former) just turns people off, because the RIAA come off as greedy assholes with a vested interest and no desire to adapt to the times, which is pretty much what they are.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 16, 2008, 05:53:21 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274059
So, if I got a copy of your products and offered them as direct downloads through my signature (no file sharing sites, just a direct d/l like any other PDF folks post here) you won’t get all ass hurt and ban or change it, will you?


Again, I'm not in charge of the policy for FtA!, so you would in fact be filesharing it without permission (unless you got Clash's permission, and mine, and I wouldn't give you mine, not because of any principle about filesharing but because I think you're a total dickface), so yes, you would be banned.

That in no way alters absolutely any point of the argument here. I know you keep wanting to harp on it though, because you are unable to actually address the gaping holes in your own position, and would rather try to distract from the actual goings-on of the debate at hand, which you are so sorely losing.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274065
Again, I'm not in charge of the policy for FtA!, so you would in fact be filesharing it without permission (unless you got Clash's permission, and mine, and I wouldn't give you mine, not because of any principle about filesharing but because I think you're a total dickface), so yes, you would be banned.

That in no way alters absolutely any point of the argument here. I know you keep wanting to harp on it though, because you are unable to actually address the gaping holes in your own position, and would rather try to distract from the actual goings-on of the debate at hand, which you are so sorely losing.

RPGPundit

The way around this would be to release a text only version which you still hold the rights to. Alternatively, Cavscout could "Save As Text" and have his own text version without any of Clash's IP in it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 06:07:48 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274065
Again, I'm not in charge of the policy for FtA!, so you would in fact be filesharing it without permission (unless you got Clash's permission, and mine, and I wouldn't give you mine, not because of any principle about filesharing but because I think you're a total dickface), so yes, you would be banned.

That in no way alters absolutely any point of the argument here. I know you keep wanting to harp on it though, because you are unable to actually address the gaping holes in your own position, and would rather try to distract from the actual goings-on of the debate at hand, which you are so sorely losing.


So, you just a hypocrite of the highest order. I think most of us have concluded that already. You don’t believe the tripe that drivels out of your keyboard regarding how file sharing promotes the sales of products. That you believe that others (the big media corps) don’t have the right to prevent file sharing but will go on to say that Clash or you do is telling.

Stop making excuses Pundit, allow us to share you product with the world so you can reap the immense increase in sales that will surly follow. Adapt or die, isn’t that what you said?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274067
The way around this would be to release a text only version which you still hold the rights to. Alternatively, Cavscout could "Save As Text" and have his own text version without any of Clash's IP in it.


There are numerous ways around it, but I don't think Pundit will take any of them.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 16, 2008, 06:11:11 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274065
Again, I'm not in charge of the policy for FtA!, so you would in fact be filesharing it without permission (unless you got Clash's permission, and mine, and I wouldn't give you mine, not because of any principle about filesharing but because I think you're a total dickface), so yes, you would be banned.

Ummm..no offense...but...huh?

I mean, let's say he purchases a copy - why, then, wouldn't he be able to share it freely by putting alink in his sig. Not necessarily to any file-sharing site, but a link to a site that has this file available.

Why would he need permission from anybody to do this?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 07:50:27 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274073
Ummm..no offense...but...huh?

I mean, let's say he purchases a copy - why, then, wouldn't he be able to share it freely by putting alink in his sig. Not necessarily to any file-sharing site, but a link to a site that has this file available.

Why would he need permission from anybody to do this?


That's a great question.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 16, 2008, 08:51:52 PM
Well, there are a lot of companies that have a free version of their rules that are under an open license to distribute.  Fuzion, D20, Fudge, FATE, the Action! System, Mongoose RuneQuest and plenty of others have a free version of the rules distributed by the publisher.  

I don't think whether Pundit does this or not shows anything more general than him in particular.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 16, 2008, 08:56:17 PM
Quote from: jhkim;274090
Well, there are a lot of companies that have a free version of their rules that are under an open license to distribute.  Fuzion, D20, Fudge, FATE, the Action! System, Mongoose RuneQuest and plenty of others have a free version of the rules distributed by the publisher.


Well, technically they can't really prevent you using "their" rules, just possibly the way they express them.  

Quote
I don't think whether Pundit does this or not shows anything more general than him in particular.


I don't think anybody thinks otherwise.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 16, 2008, 09:15:40 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;273944
With books, the name of the game isn't to give away the books for free; its to give away the PDF for free.


Quote from: RPGPundit;273967
You want to put them on a torrent site, please, go ahead. other people might download it, enjoy it, and end up buying it. Or they will buy my sourcebook. or they will register on my site and get me ad revenue (if I chose to have ads).


Quote from: RPGPundit;273986
... one of these would be that PDFs of the main book of any system would be free, and for other systems they would be free for those who have bought the book.


Quote from: RPGPundit;273995
Either any copying is wrong, or none of it is.


MY side is arguing about the practical realities of the modern world. Your side is arguing about a fantasy land of property rights where, if their argument is true, you should either be allowed to make all the copies of a book you want (as long as you don't charge for them), or you shouldn't be allowed to so much as lend a book to anyone, ever, without appropriate compensation to those who own the "intellectual property" that book contains, and that you do not have the right to freely share.


Quote from: jhkim;274090
Well, there are a lot of companies that have a free version of their rules that are under an open license to distribute.  Fuzion, D20, Fudge, FATE, the Action! System, Mongoose RuneQuest and plenty of others have a free version of the rules distributed by the publisher.  

Actually this is very different from my understanding of what Pundit is suggestiong. The above is still licensed, in some form, while file sharing is unlicensed, unauthorized distribution of illegally copied materials.
Quote from: jhkim;274090

I don't think whether Pundit does this or not shows anything more general than him in particular.

It would seem on the surface of it that Pundit is saying others should embrace this "reality" but that he himself balks at it. That said, yes, this is more an issue of "put up or shut up" for Pundit and does not really extend beyond his case. However, in the broader sense, it does not help his case that he, an advocate of file sharing, is reluctant while I am offering up my core rules free of charge and have been doing so for 6 years now. Now, I may just be one of those "scared old men" dotering along afraid of the internets or maybe, just maybe, I know something in a real practical sense how file sharing, free versions of rules, added value items and such things affects a company's business. Now, I would love to see if a text version of FtA would affect sales. A real time experiment would be neat.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 16, 2008, 09:16:16 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274064
That attitude will never change. Because, for starters, they have so utterly botched the job of public relations by trying to prosecute 12 year olds for hundreds of thousands of dollars, or threaten grandmothers with prison because their granddaughter downloaded a britney spears song from the computer they barely know how to use.
And, beyond that, because people are smart enough to recognize the difference between robbing  a car and copying a file; and the RIAA's efforts to try to claim that its the same act (and to try to create stiffer punishments for the latter than the former) just turns people off, because the RIAA come off as greedy assholes with a vested interest and no desire to adapt to the times, which is pretty much what they are.

RPGPundit


This is all good and well, but there are other consequences here.

I'm neither interested in the welfare of big record companies, nor in legalistic arguments, nor in the new opportunities the internet offers amateurs to showcase the mediocre crap they produce after hours.

I *am* interested in the welfare of those four twenty-year-old geniuses who are practising in the garage right now. In principle they have the talent and the dedication to make a living as full-time musicians.

But even though, as we know from Steve Albini, record deals were not exactly gifts from the heavens in the age before the internet, nowadays they're worth even less.

And to gain attention for your music on the internet, where there are 8 billion websites already, and when you're completely unknown, is a pretty tall order. And after all, they're in it for the music, not the marketing. Which is what the record companies used to do--the same record companies who are increasingly reluctant to sign no-name geniuses because of their massive losses in recent years.

I'd say the chance is greater now than it was 15 years ago that the geniuses will settle for a 9-5 job.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 16, 2008, 10:10:29 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274063

You see, that's a good example. Counterfeiting and theft are not the same thing; robbing a bank or mugging someone, and taking their money, is theft. Counterfeiting is fraudulently producing money, NOT theft.



But surely counterfeiting is a victimless crime. It only hurts big evil bankers and governments, and they're no better than music industry executives.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: StormBringer on December 17, 2008, 12:49:49 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274105
But surely counterfeiting is a victimless crime. It only hurts big evil bankers and governments, and they're no better than music industry executives.
Counterfeiting is a felony for one major reason:  inflation.  Additionally, it is how the government maintains its monopoly over the currency.

If 10% of the population had a 'counterfeited' DVD of Iron Man, the value of the DVDs in the store is decreased not one whit.  However, if 10% of the population counterfeited money, the value of the other denominations decreases.  It would be no different than if the government printed out 10% more money one year, flooding the economy with artificially high amounts of currency.

Otherwise, the government would have just fired up all the mints, printed off 65billion $100 bills, and paid the banking debt back in August.  (As I understand it, that is almost what they are doing, but not exactly)

In fact, then, counterfeiting money is not 'victimless', but the damage is spread out so widely, it seems to be.  Left unchecked, the dollar(euro/pound/yen/&c) would be worthless, as StormBringer dollars would compete with Haffrung dollars in the marketplace, and we would be back to no better than bartering.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 02:00:11 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274071
So, you just a hypocrite of the highest order. I think most of us have concluded that already. You don’t believe the tripe that drivels out of your keyboard regarding how file sharing promotes the sales of products. That you believe that others (the big media corps) don’t have the right to prevent file sharing but will go on to say that Clash or you do is telling.

Stop making excuses Pundit, allow us to share you product with the world so you can reap the immense increase in sales that will surly follow. Adapt or die, isn’t that what you said?


Wow, you'll really do anything for a free copy of FtA!, won't you?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 02:03:50 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;274073
Ummm..no offense...but...huh?

I mean, let's say he purchases a copy - why, then, wouldn't he be able to share it freely by putting alink in his sig. Not necessarily to any file-sharing site, but a link to a site that has this file available.

Why would he need permission from anybody to do this?


Because those are the policies of this forum. The last thing we need is to have to be checking people's sigs on a per-case basis to find out if the product they're sharing is with or without permission, legal or illegal.

And again, there is a big difference from celebrating the fact that my game is on a fileshare network, and facilitating some asshole I dislike and who doesn't represent me to hand out my game with apparent seal of approval in a misguided attempt to piss me off, not out of love for the game, but hate for my person.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 02:07:16 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274096

It would seem on the surface of it that Pundit is saying others should embrace this "reality" but that he himself balks at it. That said, yes, this is more an issue of "put up or shut up" for Pundit and does not really extend beyond his case. However, in the broader sense, it does not help his case that he, an advocate of file sharing, is reluctant while I am offering up my core rules free of charge and have been doing so for 6 years now. Now, I may just be one of those "scared old men" dotering along afraid of the internets or maybe, just maybe, I know something in a real practical sense how file sharing, free versions of rules, added value items and such things affects a company's business. Now, I would love to see if a text version of FtA would affect sales. A real time experiment would be neat.


I find it fascinating how a group of people who are on record as disliking me are making a big deal of trying to turn the topic of this thread away from the issue at hand, and into an attempt to make it about me.  I guess that's what you do when you can't actually win the argument on its own merit.

Again, saying "there's no way you're going to stop filesharing, so stop trying to imprison grandmothers or fine 12 year olds $200k for doing it and start thinking of new ways of making money" in no way means "everyone should be obligated to help people give away their books" much less give them free copies expressly so they can do so.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 02:10:18 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274105
But surely counterfeiting is a victimless crime. It only hurts big evil bankers and governments, and they're no better than music industry executives.


The question here is not about "who does it hurt"; its about whether or not people actually own the books/music/movies they buy.

Counterfeiting is fraud, copying a book is not fraud.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 02:11:04 AM
And given that this has basically stopped being about RPGs at this point, I'm moving it to Off-Topic.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 17, 2008, 02:29:05 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;274097
And to gain attention for your music on the internet, where there are 8 billion websites already, and when you're completely unknown, is a pretty tall order. And after all, they're in it for the music, not the marketing. Which is what the record companies used to do--the same record companies who are increasingly reluctant to sign no-name geniuses because of their massive losses in recent years.

I'd say the chance is greater now than it was 15 years ago that the geniuses will settle for a 9-5 job.

Is this based on any inside information on the scene and/or news reports, or is this just conjecture?  I don't personally know many garage bands, but I know of a number of mid-level artists are quite pleased at the Internet as a medium.  I have seen Internet venues encourage a lot more people, say, to publish books and games than they would have in prior decades.  

True there are a billion bands out there, but that was always true.  It is hard distinguishing yourself from the billion bands to the Internet, but it was always hard distinguishing yourself to the record companies.  It seems to me that the Internet provides a ladder to climb that actually gets you an audience, whereas my impression of the process before was like buying a lot of lottery tickets submitting to record companies.  

Online venues like iTunes and Pandora allow people to grow from mild buzz to being at least "Internet famous".  From being an unknown -- you show at some local venues, get some people who tell their friends online, and put your stuff for sale online.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 17, 2008, 02:56:56 AM
Quote from: Engine;274026
I'd take a close look at the verbage of that agreement if I were you, and make sure it covers every means of distribution, and specifically omits digital distribution for the purposes of marketing; generally, you're okay to give your stuff away - like to reviewers, for instance - without your publisher freaking out, unless your publisher owns the work [as record labels like to do].

Otherwise, well, negotiate better next time, 'cause that's a shit deal.


If he doesn't want to put the book up for fileshare, that's his right. It has nothing to do with what has been said here or with a contract. It's been alluded that the publisher doesn't agree with filesharing so it would be pretty inconsiderate to do so just to prove a point to people incapable of understanding this. Those same people could just as easily go and download the book themselves and seed it (something they were never going to do to begin with).
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 17, 2008, 02:58:41 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274029
I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I think we'll see a flattening of creative production, where the expensive stuff becomes too risky and today's cheap stuff will look/sound a lot better. So reams and reams of variable quality amateur stuff. The trick, as you note, will be how to separate the wheat from the chaff.


The 'expensive' stuff can be done from people's bedrooms and has been for many years now. That again is the beauty of this technological revolution.

You can always download the software you need :D:D
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 17, 2008, 03:11:10 AM
(http://www.wilddamntexan.com/kids/demotivators/Strawman.jpg)
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: mhensley on December 17, 2008, 08:35:43 AM
We need a abandonware site for old rpg's.  There are a lot of old rpg materials that are almost impossible to find anymore- for sale or on the file sharing networks.  It's a real shame to lose information like this.  If you have a rare book that isn't published anymore and the company is dead and gone, do us all a favor and scan that sucker and put it out on the web somewhere.  This seems like a good place-

[LINK REMOVED]

There's tons of pirated books there.  I don't know how they get away with it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 17, 2008, 08:59:07 AM
Quote from: StormBringer;274121
Counterfeiting is a felony for one major reason:  inflation.  Additionally, it is how the government maintains its monopoly over the currency.

If 10% of the population had a 'counterfeited' DVD of Iron Man, the value of the DVDs in the store is decreased not one whit.  However, if 10% of the population counterfeited money, the value of the other denominations decreases.  It would be no different than if the government printed out 10% more money one year, flooding the economy with artificially high amounts of currency.

Otherwise, the government would have just fired up all the mints, printed off 65billion $100 bills, and paid the banking debt back in August.  (As I understand it, that is almost what they are doing, but not exactly)

In fact, then, counterfeiting money is not 'victimless', but the damage is spread out so widely, it seems to be.  Left unchecked, the dollar(euro/pound/yen/&c) would be worthless, as StormBringer dollars would compete with Haffrung dollars in the marketplace, and we would be back to no better than bartering.


Duplicating money can lead to the decrease in value of the legit money; duplicating digital products illegaly can lead to the decrease in value of the legit copies.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 17, 2008, 09:00:44 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274123
Because those are the policies of this forum. The last thing we need is to have to be checking people's sigs on a per-case basis to find out if the product they're sharing is with or without permission, legal or illegal.

But again, I ask - who's permission? In this case it's your game, your IP, your site. IT would be easy to make the policy that if it's your game on your site you're OK with the link.

And let's be clear - the link in his sig could be to my site - where I'll take the risk of hosting your game for all to have.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274123
And again, there is a big difference from celebrating the fact that my game is on a fileshare network, and facilitating some asshole I dislike and who doesn't represent me to hand out my game with apparent seal of approval in a misguided attempt to piss me off, not out of love for the game, but hate for my person.

I didn't know I was an asshole you disliked - I apologize. But I would love to have a copy of your game and I'm sure, given what I've heard, that I'll love it so much I'll share it everyone!

Contrary to popular opinion on this board, I'm not trying to use you as some way to avoid the real issue. I'm using it to point out how I'm giving you the choice - something many here seem unwilling to let the BBE Corps do. See, I'm more than willing to let you say, "Ya know what Jim, I'd prefer you buy a copy - if you want to share it with your friends and such, no big deal. But I won't jsut give you a copy for nothing." I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if I went and took one from a share and put it on d20 Haven with a link from here to there...right? I mean, I understand that you know there's virtually nothing you can do about it without looking a hypocrite (that is, if you tried any action to make me take it down, like a C&D, it would be hypocritical), and here I would be pissing in your face. I'd be saying "Yeah, well, tough - I don't like you so I'm not giving you any money. I'll just take what I please and do with it as I want."

And that is essentially what folks do who file share to the extent having been discussed. That is, the BBE [Media] Company has said "we're offering this product and the terms are you give us $13.99 US and we'll let you have a copy of these 12 excellent songs. We reserve the right to make copies per the law, so part of the agreement is that you won't make copies for anything - except the usual fair use."  And consumers are saying "Nah, we'll just take it and do what we want with it."

Unlike you, those folks making the offer to sell you a CD are making their livelihood from that process. Now we can argue over whether copyright, at all, ever, is a good idea, and whether or not those folks should be making their living in this way. But first we have to establish that if copyright is in place, it should be respected - not ignored because it can be, whether in the service of some (misguided, IMHO) grand vision of the future or not.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 17, 2008, 09:01:02 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274122
Wow, you'll really do anything for a free copy of FtA!, won't you?


I am sure that if I really did want a free copy I could find it. What I am really interested in is if you actually believe the shit you vomit on the forum. It seems you don't.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 17, 2008, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274123
Because those are the policies of this forum. The last thing we need is to have to be checking people's sigs on a per-case basis to find out if the product they're sharing is with or without permission, legal or illegal.


When has it been a policy of this site to not link to PDFs? If it is, you and your staff have been extremely lackadaisical about enforcing it. Should we start reporting links to direct file downloads?

Quote
And again, there is a big difference from celebrating the fact that my game is on a fileshare network, and facilitating some asshole I dislike and who doesn't represent me to hand out my game with apparent seal of approval in a misguided attempt to piss me off, not out of love for the game, but hate for my person.


That "explains" why you balk at my suggestions, but what about the others who have asked for the samething in this thread?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 10:50:42 AM
Quote from: mhensley;274144
We need a abandonware site for old rpg's.  There are a lot of old rpg materials that are almost impossible to find anymore- for sale or on the file sharing networks.  It's a real shame to lose information like this.  If you have a rare book that isn't published anymore and the company is dead and gone, do us all a favor and scan that sucker and put it out on the web somewhere.  This seems like a good place-

[LINK REMOVED]

There's tons of pirated books there.  I don't know how they get away with it.


Ok, I'm going to imagine that somehow you innocently did this not realizing what you were doing, though how that could be given that  ON THIS VERY THREAD there was repeated mention about how posting links to/facilitating the download of "pirated" material is NOT allowed on this forum.

In any case, ever, ever post something like that again, and you'll be banned.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: StormBringer on December 17, 2008, 11:05:42 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274163
Ok, I'm going to imagine that somehow you innocently did this not realizing what you were doing, though how that could be given that  ON THIS VERY THREAD there was repeated mention about how posting links to/facilitating the download of "pirated" material is NOT allowed on this forum.

In any case, ever, ever post something like that again, and you'll be banned.

RPGPundit
In Mr Hensley's defence, that site is not a haven for piracy in particular.  Recently, someone had scans of the Moldvay/Cook B/X books in there, but they were taken down by request of WotC.  Much like Napster in the early days, there are people who will misuse or abuse the system, but overall, it is a central location for publishing all manner of information.

On the other hand, I assume the warning was in regards to the proposed purpose; I have no truck with discouraging thorny legal issues from cropping up.  However, the service itself is legitimate, and would make an excellent resource, especially for people interested in getting their RPG material out to the public.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 11:18:59 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;274147
But again, I ask - who's permission? In this case it's your game, your IP, your site. IT would be easy to make the policy that if it's your game on your site you're OK with the link.


And again, this is not an issue that's relevant to this discussion.
You guys can keep trying to make it so, but it fails to address the question of whether or not its "ethical" for people to fileshare.

Quote
And let's be clear - the link in his sig could be to my site - where I'll take the risk of hosting your game for all to have.


Yes, that would make perfect sense, I would not host my own game here, but I would do so at a competitor's forum.. :rolleyes:

Quote
I didn't know I was an asshole you disliked - I apologize. But I would love to have a copy of your game and I'm sure, given what I've heard, that I'll love it so much I'll share it everyone!


Good, then go buy and/or fileshare one, and stop bringing it up here, you fuck.

Quote
I'm sure you wouldn't be pleased if I went and took one from a share and put it on d20 Haven with a link from here to there...right?


Again, that's different from putting a file on eMule.  There is at least one very significant difference: your forum is in competition with mine.  

Quote
I mean, I understand that you know there's virtually nothing you can do about it without looking a hypocrite (that is, if you tried any action to make me take it down, like a C&D, it would be hypocritical), and here I would be pissing in your face. I'd be saying "Yeah, well, tough - I don't like you so I'm not giving you any money. I'll just take what I please and do with it as I want."


I wouldn't see it as hypocritical at all; in the first place, I've repeatedly said that that pdf in particular was not entirely my creation, so Clash would be well within his rights to do something about it. In the second place, and I don't know how many times I have to say this to you people PUTTING A MOTHERFUCKING FILE ON EMULE IS NOT THE SAME AS LINKING IT IN YOUR .SIG OR PUTTING IT UP IN YOUR FORUM.  One is copying for personal use (again, just like making a copy for your grandma), where the purpose is solely to make a copy for personal enjoyment.  The other is explicitly not "Fair use"; using the file for the benefit of your ideological program (promoting your website) for which you must get author permission. See, that is REAL breach of copyright!

And again, believing that filesharing is a reality does not mean that one is obliged to actively assist and participate in the filesharing of one's own books.  I'm glad that FtA! is out there on the fileshare networks, for example (because it shows that its popular), but I wasn't the one who put it there, and I don't put a copy of it up on torrents or emule.

So the fact that my file is out there, being shared, doesn't mean I have to make your life easy, or Cavscouts, or any of the other assholes who are trying to win points in this discussion by veering massively away from the actual subject in some pathetic attempt to attack the messenger.

Quote
And that is essentially what folks do who file share to the extent having been discussed. That is, the BBE [Media] Company has said "we're offering this product and the terms are you give us $13.99 US and we'll let you have a copy of these 12 excellent songs. We reserve the right to make copies per the law, so part of the agreement is that you won't make copies for anything - except the usual fair use."  And consumers are saying "Nah, we'll just take it and do what we want with it."


Except that's not the deal. They've sold me a CD. That CD has songs on it. I didn't RENT the songs, I didn't LEASE the songs. I've bought the CD. And I should now have a right to freely copy it, so long as I commit no real crime or ethical breach (ie. fraud or piracy by trying to sell it or pass it off as the real thing, using it for profit, using the material without permission for political or ideological purposes, etc).

Quote
Unlike you, those folks making the offer to sell you a CD are making their livelihood from that process. Now we can argue over whether copyright, at all, ever, is a good idea, and whether or not those folks should be making their living in this way. But first we have to establish that if copyright is in place, it should be respected - not ignored because it can be, whether in the service of some (misguided, IMHO) grand vision of the future or not.


Nope, first we have to establish that IT IS BEING IGNORED.  That this is the reality, and that the march of technology makes it increasingly likely that it will continue to be ignored, rather than not.  So that, whether one likes it or not, supposed copyright breach will continue to occur, en masse.

Then all practical solutions must spring from that reality.

And, while we're at it, what "we" must not do, is go around throwing strawmen where the only options are for artists/authors to either be in favour of the death penalty for file-sharers or personally hand out their files to hated enemies for nothing, that somehow the idea that you are not against filesharing must mean that you also forfeit all right to personal property ever.

Again, if you don't like FtA!, you are within your rights to get a book (or convince a friend to give you a copy), and take a steaming dump all over it, and there's nothing I could do about it. But the fact that I recognize that right doesn't mean that I should be obliged to make it easy for you to get that copy.

And THERE's the real bullshit: the idea that your side is the one defending Property Rights. You aren't; you are trying to retroactively steal property from the consumers who bought those CDs, books, and movies, by now claiming that they were only "leasing" the intellectual material on them. Its my side that is defending real Property rights, the property rights of the consumer to make whatever Personal Use they want out of the product they have bought.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 17, 2008, 11:20:52 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274125
I find it fascinating how a group of people who are on record as disliking me are making a big deal of trying to turn the topic of this thread away from the issue at hand, and into an attempt to make it about me.  I guess that's what you do when you can't actually win the argument on its own merit.

Again, saying "there's no way you're going to stop filesharing, so stop trying to imprison grandmothers or fine 12 year olds $200k for doing it and start thinking of new ways of making money" in no way means "everyone should be obligated to help people give away their books" much less give them free copies expressly so they can do so.

RPGPundit


Interesting you would interpret a simple "put up or shut up" offer as "making the whole argument about you". I just offer you the chance to do as you preach. That has no bigger meaning beyond that.

As to the argument at hand, to be honest, it has gotten so muddled I do not see the point. Many seem to be saying that FSing is the new coke or some sort of magic bullet to immense sales. I doubt that. It is a marketing tool like any other. I oppose piracy and the illegal downloading that follows. However, if I do, you seem to wish to paint me as a dottering old fool afraid of the internet, incapable of adaptation and a hypocrite because I do not oppose second hand sales. In reality, the reason I have not "argued with you" is that I thought I had made my case rather clearly. You preferred to use "fuck" as a comma, hyperbole as your logic, and go tit for tat with Cavscout. When you get called on your "Do as I say, not as I do" lecturing, you throw up the old "those who hate me" defense. Weak.

So, in case you do not know, and since you feel me and my business are not even legitimately called a business I will assume you do not, I personally (as the OP framed the original question) think that illegally downloading a book is wrong. No, not a "OMG he killed some one" wrong but more like jaywalking wrong. Nine times out of ten not a big deal but then you get some idiot who decides to risk everything to cross a busy road and causes an accident. We all shake our heads and say what an idiot.

Now, I do not oppose legal file sharing. If an author wishes to share his work then he is free to do so. If he does not wish to, he is free to. There is no "but it is just an idea" kind of thing. I am not talking about ideas, I am talking about the work. You can't copyright ideas. The problem you get with many P2P FS networks is that the decision is taken away from the publisher and the chain of owner ship is severed. A person who makes the decision for the publisher is over riding their rights, their ownership of the work. Just because it is easier to do does not make it right. Digital copies can be easy to distribute but it is little different from making physical copies of a work and handing them out on the street. I daresay it is worse since you have access to a huge distribution network.

That said, as a businessman, insignificant as I may be in your estimation, I realized the issue would be one to contend with from the start of business (let's say 2000 or so). I worked (and still work) in PDM software, file management, data security and management and the like. I saw the opportunities and the pit falls. I have planned for them and taken advantage where I could, put safeguards in place where I could, and don't fret the stuff I cannot change. I do not think the genie will go in the bottle again. I am not confused by the big intertubes. I think some companies see it is intractable definitely. I know most PDF publishers see FSing as their nemesis and that is unfortunately. I can personally dislike something but deal with it intelligently in my business. I believe others can as well. The world is not a binary "You love FS" or "You hate it and this must hate the SHM, E-bay, technology and the intertubes". That is a false dichotomy.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 17, 2008, 11:57:40 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
And THERE's the real bullshit: the idea that your side is the one defending Property Rights. You aren't; you are trying to retroactively steal property from the consumers who bought those CDs, books, and movies, by now claiming that they were only "leasing" the intellectual material on them. Its my side that is defending real Property rights, the property rights of the consumer to make whatever Personal Use they want out of the product they have bought.


So you are saying one could "buy" a copy of one of your products and since they now own it, as their property, they could turn around and sell it anyway they wished, perhaps make some digital copies or perhaps print some books to sell.

Or, as I suspect, will you quickly back-peddle and say they don't have the right to any such thing because when you buy a CD or DVD, you don’t own the actual works on them. If I buy a copy of Episode III I don’t suddenly own a piece of George Lucas’s empire. I simply have the right to watch that movie when I want.

I will admit it is fun watching you imploded as you continue to try and hold on to your ridiculous position as it crumbles in your hands.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 12:00:29 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;274165
In Mr Hensley's defence, that site is not a haven for piracy in particular.  Recently, someone had scans of the Moldvay/Cook B/X books in there, but they were taken down by request of WotC.  Much like Napster in the early days, there are people who will misuse or abuse the system, but overall, it is a central location for publishing all manner of information.

On the other hand, I assume the warning was in regards to the proposed purpose; I have no truck with discouraging thorny legal issues from cropping up.  However, the service itself is legitimate, and would make an excellent resource, especially for people interested in getting their RPG material out to the public.


Fair enough, and yes, the site itself is not a "pirate" site, but he put it in the context of "Come Get PIRATE Stuff HERE!!", which is expressly what I don't want to see happening on this site for legal reasons.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 17, 2008, 12:02:19 PM
This gets to the root of it IMO.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274166

Except that's not the deal. They've sold me a CD. That CD has songs on it. I didn't RENT the songs, I didn't LEASE the songs. I've bought the CD. And I should now have a right to freely copy it, so long as I commit no real crime or ethical breach (ie. fraud or piracy by trying to sell it or pass it off as the real thing, using it for profit, using the material without permission for political or ideological purposes, etc).

It is clear what you can and cannot copy:
Quote from: AHRA
Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by §1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.

So, legally we have some guidance. Sure, you can make a copy for auntie or your ipod.

Now, don't confuse that with the right to sue anyone over infringement. Civil suits have been used as a wepon for a while now. It sucks but really is another matter.

Is it ethical? I addressed this earlier. It comes down to, and James stated it far better than I, to whether you think you have the right to copy a work you did not make. If you think you do then you need to question the greater copyright idea. Remember, there are two components here, copying and distribution. You could copy a CD all you like, fill you garage, as long as you do not distribute. At the root of it is, again, as James say, what are the terms of your purchase. If you believe $13.99 buys the rights and songs and ideas expressed on a CD when purchase it, then you would have no ethical qualms in copying and distributing the album for free or profit. I mean, you have the right to do so correct? You bought the album and you can copy it and give it away to millions of people. Why wouldn't you also be able to sell it?

My reason, is the chain of ownership and the terms you purchase under. You are buying one copy of the original work. I allow you, under that purchase, to make backup copies, copies for your ipod or car or what have you and copies for your relatives. I do not allow you to redistribute my work. I do allow you to resell the copy you have. The division seems pretty clear cut. Either you think you are buying a whole lot more rights than are granted int he purchase of a copy of the work, or you believe the owner of the work is selling you a copy with provisions.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 12:03:35 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274172
So you are saying one could "buy" a copy of one of your products and since they now own it, as their property, they could turn around and sell it anyway they wished, perhaps make some digital copies or perhaps print some books to sell.

Or, as I suspect, will you quickly back-peddle and say they don't have the right to any such thing because when you buy a CD or DVD, you don’t own the actual works on them. If I buy a copy of Episode III I don’t suddenly own a piece of George Lucas’s empire. I simply have the right to watch that movie when I want.

I will admit it is fun watching you imploded as you continue to try and hold on to your ridiculous position as it crumbles in your hands.


The only one crumbling here is you, Cavscout, jumping into more and more inane attempts to stretch my argument rather than face the actual point.

You can't sell copies you make not because you don't have the right to MAKE those copies, but because you don't have the right to SELL those copies. Intellectual Property is, in essence, the right to sell.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 12:06:58 PM
Quote from:  AHRA

Private, noncommercial copies by consumers using "digital audio recording devices" are explicitly protected by §1008. The Senate report defines noncommercial as "not for direct or indirect commercial advantage", offering examples such as making copies for a family member, or copies for use in a car or portable tape player.


And again, there is NO effective difference between that and emule.  Both are making PRIVATE, NONCOMMERCIAL copies. They're not for direct or indirect commercial advantage.
If the law says you have the right to make a copy to give to your aunt, or to your friend next door, it also gives you the right to make a copy to give to a whole group of friends; there's no distinction based on quantity of copies.  So long as you are doing it privately and non-commercially.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 17, 2008, 12:16:13 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274177
And again, there is NO effective difference between that and emule.  Both are making PRIVATE, NONCOMMERCIAL copies. They're not for direct or indirect commercial advantage.
If the law says you have the right to make a copy to give to your aunt, or to your friend next door, it also gives you the right to make a copy to give to a whole group of friends; there's no distinction based on quantity of copies.  So long as you are doing it privately and non-commercially.

RPGPundit


There, you are making an assumption. You have the right to make copies for your relatives, not your 2 million friends. You are not doing it privately. You are being very public, you are using a distribution method. Arguably, you are funding the FS site of your choice with content to draw ad revenue. The examples here are meant to offer further definition;i.e. for a relative or personal use.

Also, the AHRA situation only covers your "auntie" point. You must then take into account copyright law itself. This has to do with distribution of IP. You cannot, even for free, distribute someone else's work.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 17, 2008, 12:44:52 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274175
The only one crumbling here is you, Cavscout, jumping into more and more inane attempts to stretch my argument rather than face the actual point.

You can't sell copies you make not because you don't have the right to MAKE those copies, but because you don't have the right to SELL those copies. Intellectual Property is, in essence, the right to sell.


If I can give them away, why can't I sell them? You've said they are my property, and you the self-described stalwert defender of property rights, why would you tell me I can't sell my own property?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 17, 2008, 01:04:27 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
And again, this is not an issue that's relevant to this discussion.

Of course it is - you like to make it not seem so because it flies int he face of the very thing you espouse. But that's OK because I'm not trying to indict the file sharing by showing how you are hypocritical about it. I'm just showing how your logic fails your own practice so the hyperbolic holier-than-thou tone you like to take can be properly assessed in context. Now that we've pretty much established your only defense sounds like Bill Clinton trying to define what the world "is" is...well...the context is that you're apparently full of shit on this topic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
You guys can keep trying to make it so, but it fails to address the question of whether or not its "ethical" for people to fileshare.

We're simply using you as an example, Pundy. Can't you understand that? You have a product. You espouse the view that file sharing does not harm anyone because nothing is being stolen. So surely you have no problem giving away your product.

And stop hiding behind clash's skirt - copy the text and make it available so we can all bask in the glow of your...umm..brilliance...yeah, that's it, your brilliance. Either that, or shut the fuck up about how your situation is somehow different.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
Yes, that would make perfect sense, I would not host my own game here, but I would do so at a competitor's forum.. :rolleyes:

I'm a competitor? Wow!!! And here I thought we'd established that neither of us saw things that way - more of complimentary. But if that's the way you want it...

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
Good, then go buy and/or fileshare one, and stop bringing it up here, you fuck.

Well, I certainly won't buy one. While I don't file share (because I tend to practice what I preach...hint hint), I might go file-share this one as in this case I have the author's permission! I'm sorry if the subject matter has put you into an uncomfortable box. It was easy to shout down CavScout as his reputation here is...lacking. Perhaps I'm not so easy to do this too because I haven't been as disruptive? But about the only way you'll shut me up about it is to lock the thread or ban me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
Again, that's different from putting a file on eMule.  There is at least one very significant difference: your forum is in competition with mine.

I've never seen myself as such, Pundit. I'm sorry you do. Thanks for clarifying, however. Oh, and by the way, the reasoning is shit. In effect, every file share site is in competition with the legally recognized distributors - that's the fucking point, numskull.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
I wouldn't see it as hypocritical at all; in the first place, I've repeatedly said that that pdf in particular was not entirely my creation, so Clash would be well within his rights to do something about it.

Man-up pussy-boy - stop hiding behind clash's shield. Create a text version (as if one doesn't exist somewhere) and put it out for one and all. Otherwise, shut the fuck up about how it's morally right to file share.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
In the second place, and I don't know how many times I have to say this to you people PUTTING A MOTHERFUCKING FILE ON EMULE IS NOT THE SAME AS LINKING IT IN YOUR .SIG OR PUTTING IT UP IN YOUR FORUM.  One is copying for personal use (again, just like making a copy for your grandma), where the purpose is solely to make a copy for personal enjoyment.  The other is explicitly not "Fair use"; using the file for the benefit of your ideological program (promoting your website) for which you must get author permission. See, that is REAL breach of copyright!

You know, I've been "promoting" my web site all along in my sig - you've never had a problem with it. Suddenly, we're in competition and I'm all about using this to promote d20 Haven. I sense a ban coming based on this bull shit because you can't deal with the fact that you've completely lost the argument by showing what a hypocrite you are.

See, your assumption is that it's about promotion as opposed to distributing the game to as many people as possible. I don't make money on d20 Haven, as I've said. I get absolutely no financial benefit from it. In fact, it costs me money. For all intents and purposes, d20 Haven is just a bunch of friends. So how is that different?

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
And again, believing that filesharing is a reality does not mean that one is obliged to actively assist and participate in the filesharing of one's own books.

Nor one's music, or movies, hey..I sense a theme here.

So if you're not obliged, how does own stop people from doing it? Oh..I know, enforce the law - you know, the one that makes room for Fair Use but still keeps the right to control the distribution in the hands of the copyright holder. Funny, that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
I'm glad that FtA! is out there on the fileshare networks, for example (because it shows that its popular), but I wasn't the one who put it there, and I don't put a copy of it up on torrents or emule.

I doubt Sony puts the music out there either. What the fuck has that got to do with anything? Is there a lawyer here? Could I effectively say that Pundit has failed to defend his claim on this because he's stated he doesn't care - even to the point of telling me to go get it off a file share?

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
So the fact that my file is out there, being shared, doesn't mean I have to make your life easy, or Cavscouts, or any of the other assholes who are trying to win points in this discussion by veering massively away from the actual subject in some pathetic attempt to attack the messenger.

I don't want you to make my life easier - that's hardly what this discussion was about. But the way your actions seems to undercut you stance seems to be very relevant tot he general discussion about the ethics of file sharing. You seem more than willing to allow it - as long as it's not yours. You don't think that informs the discussion?

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
Except that's not the deal. They've sold me a CD. That CD has songs on it. I didn't RENT the songs, I didn't LEASE the songs. I've bought the CD.

Actually, you're wrong.I'll let one of the lawyers tell you why.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
And I should now have a right to freely copy it, so long as I commit no real crime or ethical breach (ie. fraud or piracy by trying to sell it or pass it off as the real thing, using it for profit, using the material without permission for political or ideological purposes, etc).

You can - under Fail User. And trust me I have my issues with Fair Use as the RIAA and friends want to define it. Fortunately, that's not who gets to say so.

However, there are limits to Fair Use, and general population sharing is a violation thereof.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
Nope, first we have to establish that IT IS BEING IGNORED.  That this is the reality, and that the march of technology makes it increasingly likely that it will continue to be ignored, rather than not.  So that, whether one likes it or not, supposed copyright breach will continue to occur, en masse.

Are you contending that it's not being ignored? Is your argument that putting a copyrighted file on a public network for free distribution without the copyright holder's permission falls under Fair Use? If so, you're more fucked in the head than I originally thought.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
And, while we're at it, what "we" must not do, is go around throwing strawmen where the only options are for artists/authors to either be in favour of the death penalty for file-sharers or personally hand out their files to hated enemies for nothing, that somehow the idea that you are not against filesharing must mean that you also forfeit all right to personal property ever.

Good! Because I've done no such thing. Which could be construed as you creating...oh the irony...a straw man.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
Again, if you don't like FtA!, you are within your rights to get a book (or convince a friend to give you a copy), and take a steaming dump all over it, and there's nothing I could do about it. But the fact that I recognize that right doesn't mean that I should be obliged to make it easy for you to get that copy.

I'm not even sure what this means. I've said here that given what I've read, I'd probably find it interesting at the very least.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274166
And THERE's the real bullshit: the idea that your side is the one defending Property Rights. You aren't; you are trying to retroactively steal property from the consumers who bought those CDs, books, and movies, by now claiming that they were only "leasing" the intellectual material on them. Its my side that is defending real Property rights, the property rights of the consumer to make whatever Personal Use they want out of the product they have bought.

That might be the dumbest thing you've ever written. There's a lot to go through that's also inthe running - but this is definitely among them.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 17, 2008, 01:05:28 PM
I have yet to see an explanation from you as to why you are so rabidly against people filesharing. Try actually making a point and not using the following two words:

Straw, and, man.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: One Horse Town on December 17, 2008, 01:12:39 PM
I will shortly be using my newfound powers as a developer of new surveillance technology to track down people who illegally download my products (soon!) so that i can throw dog-shit at their windows, curdle their milk, and hobble their horses.

When i wake up in the 21st century, i'll order a precision military strike on their cat.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: mhensley on December 17, 2008, 01:14:39 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;274165
In Mr Hensley's defence, that site is not a haven for piracy in particular.  Recently, someone had scans of the Moldvay/Cook B/X books in there, but they were taken down by request of WotC.  Much like Napster in the early days, there are people who will misuse or abuse the system, but overall, it is a central location for publishing all manner of information.

On the other hand, I assume the warning was in regards to the proposed purpose; I have no truck with discouraging thorny legal issues from cropping up.  However, the service itself is legitimate, and would make an excellent resource, especially for people interested in getting their RPG material out to the public.


Yeah, it's a pretty well known and supposedly legit site.  It's not like I posted the link to some secret pirate ip address.  I seriously doubt that wotc has bitched about it as there is still a whole lot of D&D stuff on there.  Again I don't know how they get away with it except that no one has sued them yet.  I can't imagine wotc will let this go unchallenged for long.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: mhensley on December 17, 2008, 01:17:44 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274173
Fair enough, and yes, the site itself is not a "pirate" site, but he put it in the context of "Come Get PIRATE Stuff HERE!!", which is expressly what I don't want to see happening on this site for legal reasons.

RPGPundit



well, really i was saying to upload pirate stuff there... just saying
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 17, 2008, 01:29:14 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274186
I have yet to see an explanation from you as to why you are so rabidly against people filesharing.

It's difficult to tell who you're speaking to here, not only because of the lack of quoted material and the use of the indefinite pronoun "you," but also because no one in the thread, as far I can see, is against filesharing. What some people are expressing their objection to is using filesharing networks to distribute copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder.

Intellectual property law is a balance between the rights of the producer and the rights of the consumer; society-level considerations apply as well, since such law will thus also need to strike a balance between the industry and the society within which it operates. The law needs to recognize that producers should receive some benefit for their ideas, while not stifling the usage of those ideas for the benefit of the consumer. Similarly, industries rely on "original" ideas to produce works which are unique or preferable and thus profitable, but this need must be balanced against the need of society for innovation [which requires, as I've said, something to build from].

Mostly, conversation centers on the extremes of each position: how patent law stifles innovation, how filesharing is destroying paid content, and so on. This hyperbolic conversation will continue for the foreseeable future, but useful regulation must keep the balance of consumer and producer in mind if it is to produce the best possible result for each. Grant too many rights to content producers and you stifle innovation; grant too many rights to consumers and there's not enough value in content production to make such industries profitable enough to pursue.

None of this equals "filesharing bad." Like most things, it's simply a tool with no inherent moral value; how it is used determines the legality and morality of the action itself. That use is what we're discussing, not filesharing as a thing itself. And the discussion, if it is to be valuable in any way besides feeding trolls, must possess the balance and subtlety of the issue at hand, and cannot remain a duel between opposing ideologies.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 17, 2008, 01:37:07 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274167
Many seem to be saying that FSing is the new coke or some sort of magic bullet to immense sales. I doubt that. It is a marketing tool like any other. I oppose piracy and the illegal downloading that follows. However, if I do, you seem to wish to paint me as a dottering old fool afraid of the internet, incapable of adaptation and a hypocrite because I do not oppose second hand sales. In reality, the reason I have not "argued with you" is that I thought I had made my case rather clearly.

I also disapprove of file-sharing of works currently being sold for profit from the publisher.  However, could you at least comment on the topic of the thread.  i.e. If there is an out-of-print work from 20 years ago, would you similarly condemn downloading that?  For example, if years from now, your works went out of print and you disappeared for some reason such that no one could contact you, would you disapprove of people sharing your games?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 17, 2008, 01:44:03 PM
Quote from: jhkim;274193
I also disapprove of file-sharing of works currently being sold for profit from the publisher.  However, could you at least comment on the topic of the thread.  i.e. If there is an out-of-print work from 20 years ago, would you similarly condemn downloading that?  For example, if years from now, your works went out of print and you disappeared for some reason such that no one could contact you, would you disapprove of people sharing your games?

Again, in the context the question was asked, no, I would not DL it. I would consider it wrong. Why? Because it is against the law and it is against the wishes of the original publisher. This is implied in that it was for sale at one point. Please do not interpret "it is against the law" to mean I believe everything against the law is immoral or any other extreme interpretation. I merely mean it is one point of consideration in my personal valuation.

Now, condemn is a strong word to me. I would not call for the DLer death but I would consider it wrong. If it was my own work or someone else does not matter. Then again, I am not all that nostalgic about 20 year old games.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 17, 2008, 02:35:22 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274186
I have yet to see an explanation from you as to why you are so rabidly against people filesharing. Try actually making a point and not using the following two words:

Straw, and, man.


Who's against filesharing in general? So far the only one, in this thread, who is unwilling to fileshare their own material is Pundit.

You do understand that attributing a point not being made is exactly what you are trying to prevent others from saying about you, don't you?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 17, 2008, 02:36:56 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274195
Again, in the context the question was asked, no, I would not DL it. I would consider it wrong. Why? Because it is against the law and it is against the wishes of the original publisher. This is implied in that it was for sale at one point. Please do not interpret "it is against the law" to mean I believe everything against the law is immoral or any other extreme interpretation. I merely mean it is one point of consideration in my personal valuation.

Now, condemn is a strong word to me. I would not call for the DLer death but I would consider it wrong. If it was my own work or someone else does not matter. Then again, I am not all that nostalgic about 20 year old games.

OK, thanks.  The point where I differ is that I while I may or may not respect the original publishers, I am not necessarily going to follow their wishes on this or any other point.  I believe that ethically they have a right to reasonable compensation for their work as well as accurate attribution and recognition -- but I don't think that I am obliged to follow their wishes otherwise.  

For example, I recall more than one case of an artist who requested to destroy some or all their works after their death -- and I am generally glad when they were not.  More personally, I encountered this with the True20 system.  I was legally able to distribute most of that because it was under the OGL, but the publishers said that they did not want that material to be released.  My reaction was that I waited years until after the original game was out of print, to minimize the financial impact, but I did eventually make the True SRD (Romantic Fantasy Edition) public.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 03:03:03 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274178
There, you are making an assumption. You have the right to make copies for your relatives, not your 2 million friends. You are not doing it privately. You are being very public, you are using a distribution method. Arguably, you are funding the FS site of your choice with content to draw ad revenue.

Ah, well here we have a different issue; see, I am against COMMERCIAL filesharing that doesn't act with correct permissions from the copyright owners.

Be it some kind of pay-for-membership fileshare network, or limewire-style bundled-with-adware programs.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 03:05:09 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274181
If I can give them away, why can't I sell them? You've said they are my property, and you the self-described stalwert defender of property rights, why would you tell me I can't sell my own property?


You can re-sell your own purchased product (ie. sell a CD to a secondhand music store). You cannot make copies and sell those copies because that would be piracy (real piracy, not what the RIAA claims to be piracy), which is what copyright was intended to protect against.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 17, 2008, 03:08:03 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274217
You cannot make copies and sell those copies because that would be piracy (real piracy, not what the RIAA claims to be piracy), which is what copyright was intended to protect against.

Can you make copies and then give the copies away, from your perspective? If so, why is this meaningfully different from distribution-for-pay?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 17, 2008, 03:12:03 PM
Quote from: Engine;274191
It's difficult to tell who you're speaking to here, not only because of the lack of quoted material and the use of the indefinite pronoun "you," but also because no one in the thread, as far I can see, is against filesharing. What some people are expressing their objection to is using filesharing networks to distribute copyrighted works without the permission of the copyright holder.

Intellectual property law is a balance between the rights of the producer and the rights of the consumer; society-level considerations apply as well, since such law will thus also need to strike a balance between the industry and the society within which it operates. The law needs to recognize that producers should receive some benefit for their ideas, while not stifling the usage of those ideas for the benefit of the consumer. Similarly, industries rely on "original" ideas to produce works which are unique or preferable and thus profitable, but this need must be balanced against the need of society for innovation [which requires, as I've said, something to build from].

Mostly, conversation centers on the extremes of each position: how patent law stifles innovation, how filesharing is destroying paid content, and so on. This hyperbolic conversation will continue for the foreseeable future, but useful regulation must keep the balance of consumer and producer in mind if it is to produce the best possible result for each. Grant too many rights to content producers and you stifle innovation; grant too many rights to consumers and there's not enough value in content production to make such industries profitable enough to pursue.

None of this equals "filesharing bad." Like most things, it's simply a tool with no inherent moral value; how it is used determines the legality and morality of the action itself. That use is what we're discussing, not filesharing as a thing itself. And the discussion, if it is to be valuable in any way besides feeding trolls, must possess the balance and subtlety of the issue at hand, and cannot remain a duel between opposing ideologies.


Cavscout is the answer to this rather long question.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 03:15:46 PM
Quote from: Engine;274218
Can you make copies and then give the copies away, from your perspective? If so, why is this meaningfully different from distribution-for-pay?


In one context, people are profiting from someone else's work without permission. In the other, people are sharing the product they have legally purchased, without using it for profit, fraud, libel, or other abuses.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 17, 2008, 03:30:12 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274185
In effect, every file share site is in competition with the legally recognized distributors - that's the fucking point, numskull.




Exactly. A curious gamer hears about Forward to Adventure and googles it.
After poking around several sites, he sees he can download it from the official publisher for $10 (or whatever the game costs), or from a fileshare site for $0. As matters stand, his attitudes towards intellectual property will pretty much determine which options he chooses. When the attitude that IP is free becomes the norm (an ethos that Pundit has championed), nobody will choose the $10 option anymore.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 17, 2008, 03:32:18 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274220
In one context, people are profiting from someone else's work without permission. In the other, people are sharing the product they have legally purchased, without using it for profit, fraud, libel, or other abuses.




So the owners of IP should content themselves with one customer buying their product, and the other 10 (or 10,000, or million) getting it for free off the one paying customer. Yeah, that's a sustainable business model.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 17, 2008, 03:32:44 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274220
In one context, people are profiting from someone else's work without permission. In the other, people are sharing the product they have legally purchased, without using it for profit, fraud, libel, or other abuses.

RPGPundit

And, in the process, devaluing the work...


...often filed under "other abuses."
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 17, 2008, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274219
Cavscout is the answer to this rather long question.

You'll be relieved, then, to note that CavScout is not against filesharing, rabidly or otherwise.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274220
In one context, people are profiting from someone else's work without permission. In the other, people are sharing the product they have legally purchased, without using it for profit, fraud, libel, or other abuses.

It seems to me that the only difference between the two is whether or not the distributor profits, then, correct? The work is still being distributed without permission of the copyright owner, and the copyright owner is not being compensated for their effort, though people are benefiting from it. How is it just to distribute works without permission, without profit for the copyright holder, so long as you do not profit?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 17, 2008, 03:36:08 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274223
Exactly. A curious gamer hears about Forward to Adventure and googles it.
After poking around several sites, he sees he can download it from the official publisher for $10 (or whatever the game costs), or from a fileshare site for $0.

As an ironic adjunct to the discussion, I attempted last night to locate Forward to Adventure! on various filesharing sites, and failed utterly to do so. I have some more networks to check, but as far as I can tell, FtA! is not available through such channels.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274223
Exactly. A curious gamer hears about Forward to Adventure and googles it.
After poking around several sites, he sees he can download it from the official publisher for $10 (or whatever the game costs), or from a fileshare site for $0. As matters stand, his attitudes towards intellectual property will pretty much determine which options he chooses. When the attitude that IP is free becomes the norm (an ethos that Pundit has championed), nobody will choose the $10 option anymore.


Then at that point people will have to stop thinking of PDFs as a direct profit venture.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 17, 2008, 04:23:59 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274223
Exactly. A curious gamer hears about Forward to Adventure and googles it.
After poking around several sites, he sees he can download it from the official publisher for $10 (or whatever the game costs), or from a fileshare site for $0. As matters stand, his attitudes towards intellectual property will pretty much determine which options he chooses. When the attitude that IP is free becomes the norm (an ethos that Pundit has championed), nobody will choose the $10 option anymore.


If that is the case, why is iTunes making so much money?  Or Netflix?  Why are millions of people using these kind of pay for content services when we all know the exact same content can be found for free?

Clearly, some people do see the value that comes from a well-maintained commercial release of a product.  The trick for businesses is to find a value-add solution.

Quote from: Engine;274227
As an ironic adjunct to the discussion, I attempted last night to locate Forward to Adventure! on various filesharing sites, and failed utterly to do so. I have some more networks to check, but as far as I can tell, FtA! is not available through such channels.


I can guarantee you it was at least on one major network, that has been mentioned several times in this thread, at one time because I saw it on there before (oddly, I could not say the same for Clash's more flagship products, Cold Space or In Harm's Way).  That was a long time ago, though, back when it first came out.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 17, 2008, 04:36:24 PM
Quote from: jgants;274235
If that is the case, why is iTunes making so much money?  Or Netflix?  Why are millions of people using these kind of pay for content services when we all know the exact same content can be found for free?
Because some people - let's even say "most people" - currently believe that filesharing is illegal, or dangerous, or is begging for litigation, or is just plain wrong. And for those people, hey, thanks guys. However, there are a large and growing number of people who believe otherwise, at least enough otherwise to get what they want without paying for it. And for those people - I'm looking at you, Engine! - I say, hey, for shame!

Quote from: jgants;274235
Clearly, some people do see the value that comes from a well-maintained commercial release of a product.  The trick for businesses is to find a value-add solution.
From a practical standpoint, that's definitely the trick. From a moral standpoint, it's too bad that businesses have to abandon their old business model not due to pressure by law-abiding citizens - although that's certainly a pressure now - but because of the efforts of people behaving utterly outside the law. It is what it is, and if you're a content provider, trying to buck this flow is foolish, but it's still too bad that innovation had to come from this cause.

Quote from: jgants;274235
I can guarantee you it was at least on one major network, that has been mentioned several times in this thread, at one time because I saw it on there before (oddly, I could not say the same for Clash's more flagship products, Cold Space or In Harm's Way).  That was a long time ago, though, back when it first came out.
Yeah, it may have fallen off after a while, or I might not have gotten to the networks on which it's to be found. I didn't have enough time this morning to check the remaining popular methods of filesharing, but I certainly will when I'm able.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 17, 2008, 04:39:53 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274234
Then at that point people will have to stop thinking of PDFs as a direct profit venture.

Given the ease with which printed material can be converted into fully-functioning digital versions thereof, this logic would also lead to the conclusion that people will also have to stop thinking of printed books as a direct profit venture. This will certainly be a slower bit of uptake - there is a material difference between the digital copy and the printed copy, namely a physical, material object which the digital copy cannot fully emulate, although print-on-demand and the widespread availability of inexpensive home printing solutions eliminates the majority of that caveat, and will do so more and more as time goes on - but it's inevitable irrespective of that, by the logic you provide.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 17, 2008, 05:08:30 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274234
Then at that point people will have to stop thinking of PDFs as a direct profit venture.



Which is fine for you. But what about the professional layout editor (in this case Clash), sound technician, graphic designer, film editor, software developer, costume designer, mixing technician, copy editor, etc. who makes a living off helping creative individuals turn their ideas into polished professional products? A lot of that work can be pretty dull. Those professionals usually don't get the same kind of creative satisfaction (or credit) for putting a work out there for public consumption. They need a steady paycheque. The riskier and less profitable IP industries become, the more those supporting professionals will turn to other lines of work.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 17, 2008, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: jhkim;274204
OK, thanks.  The point where I differ is that I while I may or may not respect the original publishers, I am not necessarily going to follow their wishes on this or any other point.  I believe that ethically they have a right to reasonable compensation for their work as well as accurate attribution and recognition -- but I don't think that I am obliged to follow their wishes otherwise.  

Understandable and I am not raging against your view. In the grand scheme of things I can think of many worse acts than illegally DLing a 20 year old OOP product. Again, the original question was not "How horrible do you think it is" but if we considered it wrong. To me it is but I can fully understand those who might not.
Quote from: jhkim;274204

For example, I recall more than one case of an artist who requested to destroy some or all their works after their death -- and I am generally glad when they were not.  More personally, I encountered this with the True20 system.  I was legally able to distribute most of that because it was under the OGL, but the publishers said that they did not want that material to be released.  My reaction was that I waited years until after the original game was out of print, to minimize the financial impact, but I did eventually make the True SRD (Romantic Fantasy Edition) public.


And let me be clear on this point John, to me you were wronged. This coming from a publisher operating under the OGL with True20. From what I have heard of the issue, it is one of a publisher not understanding what the hell they were doing. It is why I have spent a lot of time looking over the OGL and knowing how to use it. If you are going to release something under a license and then claim "No, I did not mean that." When I speak of the wishes of a publisher I am speaking the context of two very important issues. The first is their legal rights and the second is their responsibilities to how their product is handled. So, a publisher could say "Hey! I do not want my product file shared!!" But because he thinks it is cool or something he uploads it to a torrent site. If he later says he did not mean for everyone to share it then he has no moral ground to stand on. Responsibility to distribute their product properly is the publisher while the customer should be respectful of the publisher's approach to distribution.

Man, that sounds all high faluntin'.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 17, 2008, 05:50:03 PM
Quote from: Engine;274017
The internet will not be the frontier forever; you won't be able to rob and steal with impunity, forever.


I believe this is very true.   The internet is a very young technology and there is a deeply vested interest by billion dollar megacorps and governments to clamp down on the web.

I suspect that by 2020 the bankrupt US government will find many ways to effectively tax commerce on the web.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274025
And, according to Baen themselves, the books they offer for free online end up experiencing an increase in sales in print, too.

It might not be the exact same way with RPGs, though. That's the problem with innovation, you have to experiment.


The Baen situation is very interesting.  I will look more into that.

What would be the reasons Why or Why Not such a plan would work with RPGs?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 17, 2008, 07:55:39 PM
Quote from: jhkim;274131
Is this based on any inside information on the scene and/or news reports, or is this just conjecture?  


I read spex.de. They have their ears close to the ground.

Quote
I don't personally know many garage bands, but I know of a number of mid-level artists are quite pleased at the Internet as a medium.  


I'm talking "entry-level."

Quote
I have seen Internet venues encourage a lot more people, say, to publish books and games than they would have in prior decades.  


That's precisely the problem. Any old hack with a dial-up uploads his crap. You need to swim through a sea of shit to find the diamonds.

Quote
but it was always hard distinguishing yourself to the record companies.  It seems to me that the Internet provides a ladder to climb that actually gets you an audience, whereas my impression of the process before was like buying a lot of lottery tickets submitting to record companies.


No, you send in a tape, or one of their R&D guys sees a gig of yours and signs you/screws you over. Small- and mid-sized record companies were a great quality filter. If you don't get signed by anybody at all, chances are not so slim you're actually not all that good.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 17, 2008, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;274255

The Baen situation is very interesting.  I will look more into that.

What would be the reasons Why or Why Not such a plan would work with RPGs?


I have had it work very well for me and it is not just my back catalog but my new releases as well. Again, only one point and I hope to experiment more with the model I am going to go at with Zombipocalypse. So, hopefully we will have another data point.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 11:23:00 PM
Quote from: Engine;274242
Given the ease with which printed material can be converted into fully-functioning digital versions thereof, this logic would also lead to the conclusion that people will also have to stop thinking of printed books as a direct profit venture. This will certainly be a slower bit of uptake - there is a material difference between the digital copy and the printed copy, namely a physical, material object which the digital copy cannot fully emulate, although print-on-demand and the widespread availability of inexpensive home printing solutions eliminates the majority of that caveat, and will do so more and more as time goes on - but it's inevitable irrespective of that, by the logic you provide.


I'm not so sure that this in particular will ever come to pass.
Yes, someone could easily print out a dirt-cheap version of a PDF (I've seen a few, here in piracy-rich Uruguay, where many Uruguayan gamers can only ever afford to own pirated RPG books, and indeed those are the only kind that are usually seen for sale in the country itself).
And spending some more, someone could probably print out a half-way decent version.

However, I would not underestimate either the "shiny!" factor or the "laziness" factor in all this; I think people will keep buying the actual print versions of books rather than just printing out their PDFs, because of nice fancy printing or packaging (cool box sets that are more difficult to imitate, or sexy looking hardcovers, or whatever), and because its easier to just buy the damned actual product than to go to all the trouble of going out and trying to print up a decent simulacrum yourself.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 17, 2008, 11:24:54 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274251
Which is fine for you. But what about the professional layout editor (in this case Clash), sound technician, graphic designer, film editor, software developer, costume designer, mixing technician, copy editor, etc. who makes a living off helping creative individuals turn their ideas into polished professional products? A lot of that work can be pretty dull. Those professionals usually don't get the same kind of creative satisfaction (or credit) for putting a work out there for public consumption. They need a steady paycheque. The riskier and less profitable IP industries become, the more those supporting professionals will turn to other lines of work.


I don't forsee the same apocalypse of the entertainment industry you seem to be predicting; however, I suppose it is possible that some jobs will basically cease to be profitable.
But that's happened often with advances in technology of all sorts. The dude who played the piano while they showed silent films had to find somewhere else to play the piano, too, once "talkies" were developed. I don't see that as particularly tragic.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 18, 2008, 12:31:46 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274302
But that's happened often with advances in technology of all sorts. The dude who played the piano while they showed silent films had to find somewhere else to play the piano, too, once "talkies" were developed. I don't see that as particularly tragic.


Yes, this is a perfect example.  See also Vaudeville performers, ventriloquists who aren't comedians, professional-level projectionists, buggy whip manufacturers, elevator operators, etc.

Or if you want to look into the near future, try and figure out how much longer anyone will use cell animators, scale model makers, scene painters, or people who make latex-based special effects.  Heck, if one looks at things like Beowulf or 300, one could even project a loss of makeup artists, costumers, etc.

As time moves on, technological shifts will always take away some jobs to add new ones.  Whether or not file-sharing is illegal and/or unethical is irrelevant to that point.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  And as long as there is potential for profit, big companies will always be trying to produce professional quality, mass market entertainment.  Again, I guarantee these people, or perhaps new people, will find new ways to make money in the entertainment industry.

I find it funny that people like Pierce and Haffrung are bemoaning things like YouTube, when most entertainment industries came up precisely from those kind of beginnings - somebody with money saw something/someone in a sea of mediocrity and found a way to make money off of it.  

And I'm still laughing at the idea that all good performers/artists/actors/etc are filtered out by the studio process (instead of the often-times mediocrity that is "created" by the studio process), and that anyone who can't break in is obviously terrible (as if any person off the street can easily get access to a real promoter and therefore there is no undiscovered talent out there).
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 01:34:29 PM
Quote from: jgants;274393
Yes, this is a perfect example.  See also Vaudeville performers, ventriloquists who aren't comedians, professional-level projectionists, buggy whip manufacturers, elevator operators, etc.

Or if you want to look into the near future, try and figure out how much longer anyone will use cell animators, scale model makers, scene painters, or people who make latex-based special effects.  Heck, if one looks at things like Beowulf or 300, one could even project a loss of makeup artists, costumers, etc.

As time moves on, technological shifts will always take away some jobs to add new ones.  Whether or not file-sharing is illegal and/or unethical is irrelevant to that point.

Necessity is the mother of invention.  And as long as there is potential for profit, big companies will always be trying to produce professional quality, mass market entertainment.  Again, I guarantee these people, or perhaps new people, will find new ways to make money in the entertainment industry.

I find it funny that people like Pierce and Haffrung are bemoaning things like YouTube, when most entertainment industries came up precisely from those kind of beginnings - somebody with money saw something/someone in a sea of mediocrity and found a way to make money off of it.  

And I'm still laughing at the idea that all good performers/artists/actors/etc are filtered out by the studio process (instead of the often-times mediocrity that is "created" by the studio process), and that anyone who can't break in is obviously terrible (as if any person off the street can easily get access to a real promoter and therefore there is no undiscovered talent out there).


These are not good examples. You’ve pointed to revolutions in creating media or even the distribution of media. Illegal file sharing is not either of these. “Buggy whip manufacturers” didn’t go out of business because some one was mass copying and distributing their product.

We're not talking about "new jobs" taking old ones. We're talking about people taking what isn't theirs and giving it to others who shouldn't have it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 18, 2008, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274412
We're not talking about "new jobs" taking old ones. We're talking about people taking what isn't theirs and giving it to others who shouldn't have it.

I think the problem is that we're talking about both things, and often without a clear line dividing them. I think everyone agrees that the internet is a new and valuable distribution medium, and our sympathy doesn't really extend to, say, newspapers who are losing profits because people get their news online: that's the price of progress. But piracy isn't costing people profits because it's a new medium - it's not - it's costing people profits because some people are illegally using this new medium to distribute copyrighted works without permission or profit for the content creator. That's not the inevitable result of the new medium, it's the unfortunate result of a lack of enforcement of copyright laws.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 02:01:24 PM
Quote from: Engine;274414
I think the problem is that we're talking about both things, and often without a clear line dividing them. I think everyone agrees that the internet is a new and valuable distribution medium, and our sympathy doesn't really extend to, say, newspapers who are losing profits because people get their news online: that's the price of progress. But piracy isn't costing people profits because it's a new medium - it's not - it's costing people profits because some people are illegally using this new medium to distribute copyrighted works without permission or profit for the content creator. That's not the inevitable result of the new medium, it's the unfortunate result of a lack of enforcement of copyright laws.


I do think folks are mixing the two, on purpose, because that’s really the only “defense” they can concoct.

Your news example is good. Have digital sources to get your news that is impacting traditional papers is new business need to adapt to. People have new legitimate options to get news and some are going the online route.

Most people would say it would be wrong to walk into Best Buy, use a portable CD burner to copy some CDs and walk out the store with out paying for them. Yet, put those songs on the internet and people suddenly think it is ok to make copies of the same songs, without payment, and that it is some inherent right of technological progress. It makes no sense.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 18, 2008, 02:05:05 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274412
These are not good examples. You’ve pointed to revolutions in creating media or even the distribution of media. Illegal file sharing is not either of these. “Buggy whip manufacturers” didn’t go out of business because some one was mass copying and distributing their product.

We're not talking about "new jobs" taking old ones. We're talking about people taking what isn't theirs and giving it to others who shouldn't have it.


You are missing the forest for the trees.  The point is that temporary setback (if any) from the illegal material will give rise to a new, legal enterprises once the innovation pendulum swings back.  Again, we're already seeing the start of this - VOD, iTunes, Hulu, etc.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 18, 2008, 02:42:27 PM
Quote from: jgants;274417
The point is that temporary setback (if any) from the illegal material will give rise to a new, legal enterprises once the innovation pendulum swings back.

That's what's happening, yes, but does that make it right or just or good? The innovation is possible without the crime; the crime doesn't cause the innovation, the crime and the innovation are effects of the same cause [the internet]. Has the crime spurred innovation? Yes, by showing there's demand. Is the crime necessary for innovation? I don't believe so. [Bittorrent wasn't designed as a tool for crime, but rather a tool for massive distribution without massive bandwidth expenditures, for instance.] Is the crime good, right, or just? No, it is not.

I don't know what "innovation pendulum" you're speaking of, but it's hardly inevitable, desirable, or preferential to have a system whereby criminal actions are the driving force behind your innovation. Can it happen, and can the results be great? Sure. Does it have to? No. Can the results be terrible? Absolutely.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 18, 2008, 03:25:25 PM
Quote from: Engine;274426
That's what's happening, yes, but does that make it right or just or good? The innovation is possible without the crime; the crime doesn't cause the innovation, the crime and the innovation are effects of the same cause [the internet]. Has the crime spurred innovation? Yes, by showing there's demand. Is the crime necessary for innovation? I don't believe so. [Bittorrent wasn't designed as a tool for crime, but rather a tool for massive distribution without massive bandwidth expenditures, for instance.] Is the crime good, right, or just? No, it is not.

Well, that seems to be the point of disagreement.  I agree that it is technically criminal to download out-of-print games, but I believe that this crime can be just and good.  

When I download a MERP module, I do not feel that I am disrespecting either Tolkien or the authors of the module.  I feel perfectly comfortable with my ethics in doing so, and my only concern is whether I would get in legal trouble rather than any ethical quandry.  You may consider me a wanton criminal for this, but so be it.  

Functionally, I think that much technology -- including the Internet -- inherently makes copyright unenforceable.  By allowing peers to communicate over an open network, it inherently becomes almost impossible to stop the transmission of copyrighted material.  This has always been true.  For example, photocopying destroyed the sheet music industry.  

Quote from: Engine;274426
I don't know what "innovation pendulum" you're speaking of, but it's hardly inevitable, desirable, or preferential to have a system whereby criminal actions are the driving force behind your innovation.

Well, another way to phrase that is to say that it's better if the drivers of innovation weren't considered criminal.  For example, a great deal of medical research and innovation was driven by criminal actions -- in particular, I'm thinking of research using cadavers, which in the past was widely criminalized.  Those laws were eventually changed after the value of cadaver research was demonstrated.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 18, 2008, 03:33:29 PM
There's another basic example; film itself did not spell the end of theatre. Nor did television spell the end of movies, or radio.

Certainly, there were theatre performers who were very worried about the movies, refusing to consider them "legitimate" jobs for actors, etc. I mean the idea that a single performance could be shown all over the country (or the world) was a big threat to How Things Were Done before that.

And some theatre, like vaudeville, basically did die out. But other elements survived and adapted.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 18, 2008, 03:59:04 PM
Quote from: Engine;274414
I think everyone agrees that the internet is a new and valuable distribution medium, and our sympathy doesn't really extend to, say, newspapers who are losing profits because people get their news online: that's the price of progress.


Well, my sympathy does extend to newspapers, because I understand how the industry works.  Under the new market model, newspapers will have fewer resources to investigate and report the news. Fewer experienced professionals who know their beat. Less fact-checking and proofing. The quality of the product will suffer. Online newspapers will be cheaper, we'll have more choice, but they will be shitier in most other respects. I expect the same for much of the new digital media - reams and reams of cheap crap.

Fuck, am I the only capitalist here who recognizes that you need profit to consistently attract talent and capital? You get what you pay for. If you don't want to pay, then don't expect much.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 18, 2008, 04:11:31 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274458
Fuck, am I the only capitalist here who recognizes that you need profit to consistently attract talent and capital?

No you are not.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 18, 2008, 04:13:48 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274446
There's another basic example; film itself did not spell the end of theatre. Nor did television spell the end of movies, or radio.


For a better analogy, let's go back to Dickens. His stories were published in fiction periodicals, which were sold in coffee houses and the like. He earned a steady income from the stories because people paid for these periodicals.

Now, let's say someone in England at the time had an invention that allowed him to make thousands of copies of any periodical at the instant of its publication, at no cost to himself. And let's say this person could instantly distribute these duplicates in sufficient quantities outside every coffee house, train station, and dinner club in the country. Again, at no cost to himself.

How do you think these free duplicates would affect the sales of the legitimate periodicals - the ones that are paying Dickens for his work? Is it conceivable that the free duplicates would devalue the legitimate periodicals to the point of the publishers no longer being able to pay Dickens? I think it likely.

And Dickens wasn't in the business of writing his stories simply to express his creativity and earn admiration from his peers. No, he had onerous debts to pay, and ten children to clothe and feed. Without the income from writing in the periodicals, he would likely have returned to being a law clerk. And people who enjoy reading would be poorer for it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 04:18:16 PM
Quote from: jgants;274417
You are missing the forest for the trees.  The point is that temporary setback (if any) from the illegal material will give rise to a new, legal enterprises once the innovation pendulum swings back.  Again, we're already seeing the start of this - VOD, iTunes, Hulu, etc.


Again, shitty irrelevant examples. iTunes may allow you download songs, but is not in the same realm as illegally file sharing songs. In fact, doesn’t iTunes go to some lengths to make sure that it’s songs are shared illegally?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: jhkim;274439
Well, that seems to be the point of disagreement.  I agree that it is technically criminal to download out-of-print games, but I believe that this crime can be just and good.


It may have little impact on anything but really, “just and good”? How so?

Quote
When I download a MERP module, I do not feel that I am disrespecting either Tolkien or the authors of the module.  I feel perfectly comfortable with my ethics in doing so, and my only concern is whether I would get in legal trouble rather than any ethical quandry.  You may consider me a wanton criminal for this, but so be it.


Most people who take things that don’t belong to them have no ethical qualms with what they’re doing. If their ethics stopped them, they wouldn’t be doing it.

You’ve simply decided you don’t care and that there is little risk to being caught.

Quote
Functionally, I think that much technology -- including the Internet -- inherently makes copyright unenforceable.  By allowing peers to communicate over an open network, it inherently becomes almost impossible to stop the transmission of copyrighted material.  This has always been true.  For example, photocopying destroyed the sheet music industry.


It’s not the internet, it’s folks who assume it’s ok to do it because it is easy and hard to get caught.

Quote
Well, another way to phrase that is to say that it's better if the drivers of innovation weren't considered criminal.  For example, a great deal of medical research and innovation was driven by criminal actions -- in particular, I'm thinking of research using cadavers, which in the past was widely criminalized.  Those laws were eventually changed after the value of cadaver research was demonstrated.


And what exactly is making a digital copy of someone else work going to advance? You are not really trying to equate someone copying the latest songs by fifty cent to medical research, are you?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: StormBringer on December 18, 2008, 04:25:59 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;274463
How do you think these free duplicates would affect the sales of the legitimate periodicals - the ones that are paying Dickens for his work? Is it conceivable that the free duplicates would devalue the legitimate periodicals to the point of the publishers no longer being able to pay Dickens? I think it likely.
Three days before they were to hit the shelves, the 4e PHB was on the web in a couple of forms.  Right how, you can hit newsfeeds or torrents and get pretty much any published book you want.  I can copy and paste any Salon article I want into an email and send it to any- and everyone.

As far as I know, 4e is still selling well, Stephen King isn't on the verge of going bankrupt, and Salon is going strong.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274446
There's another basic example; film itself did not spell the end of theatre. Nor did television spell the end of movies, or radio.

Certainly, there were theatre performers who were very worried about the movies, refusing to consider them "legitimate" jobs for actors, etc. I mean the idea that a single performance could be shown all over the country (or the world) was a big threat to How Things Were Done before that.

And some theatre, like vaudeville, basically did die out. But other elements survived and adapted.


You keep trying (unsuccessfully) to liken illegal file sharing to legitimate alternative business.

Illegal file sharing is not a “competing business”. Even you tried to stretch yourself out of your corner by saying as long as it wasn’t for profit it wasn’t a big deal. So why are you trying now to make into a legitimate business alternative?

One can go to the car dealer’s lot and buy their new car, that’s one option.

Buy the same car from a fence who boosted the car off the dealer’s lot is another.

One could also go online and browse cars, across multiple dealer lots, finding the best price, as the last option.

Only two of these are business practices in competition with each other. One is simple criminality.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 04:34:06 PM
Quote from: StormBringer;274469
Three days before they were to hit the shelves, the 4e PHB was on the web in a couple of forms.  Right how, you can hit newsfeeds or torrents and get pretty much any published book you want.  I can copy and paste any Salon article I want into an email and send it to any- and everyone.

As far as I know, 4e is still selling well, Stephen King isn't on the verge of going bankrupt, and Salon is going strong.


Just because a venture remains profitable does not mean revenue has been lost because of piracy. Your "point" seems to be that unless they are in the red, it can't be hurting them.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 18, 2008, 05:48:31 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274446
There's another basic example; film itself did not spell the end of theatre. Nor did television spell the end of movies, or radio.

Certainly, there were theatre performers who were very worried about the movies, refusing to consider them "legitimate" jobs for actors, etc. I mean the idea that a single performance could be shown all over the country (or the world) was a big threat to How Things Were Done before that.

And some theatre, like vaudeville, basically did die out. But other elements survived and adapted.

RPGPundit


I believe you misunderstand though. We are not talking about similar experience, we are talking about precisely the same experience. Theater is not movies. Movies are not theater. There were important differences. A digital book shared on a FS network is (or potentially is) the precise same file the publisher released. There is no difference, not aesthetic or technical. The only difference is one is free and the other is not. Which would you choose and why?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 18, 2008, 06:01:15 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274465
Again, shitty irrelevant examples. iTunes may allow you download songs, but is not in the same realm as illegally file sharing songs. In fact, doesn’t iTunes go to some lengths to make sure that it’s songs are shared illegally?


That's entirely my point - illegal filesharing isn't necessarily the future, the future is in digital content available over the Internet.  The illegal acts exposed an underlying demand in the market - for easily obtainable digital content that is not purchased on a per-item level.

I'm not arguing the ethics of it at this point, BTW, this was all in reference to the (completely baseless) speculation people have made about the professional entertainment industry dying off.  It's not dying off, it's just transforming.

My argument is solely that the transformation, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing (regardless of the inciting incident) and certainly does not spell out a future of doom.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 18, 2008, 07:48:05 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274491
I believe you misunderstand though. We are not talking about similar experience, we are talking about precisely the same experience. Theater is not movies. Movies are not theater. There were important differences. A digital book shared on a FS network is (or potentially is) the precise same file the publisher released. There is no difference, not aesthetic or technical. The only difference is one is free and the other is not. Which would you choose and why?


Let's say I chose the free one. What do you think should happen to me?
Let's say 1.5 million people chose the free one. What do you think should happen to them?
Do you think the book industry should be allowed to charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, that they themselves determine the exact value of, that they themselves regulate, and collect? No other law works in the same way (and is thus SO open for abuse) as the current US "anti-piracy" laws.
or do you think they should all be sent to jail for 12-20 years?

My point is that its a new distribution medium. A play and a Movie are essentially the same thing, only done over different mediums (in fact, early films, before they figured out the "art" of film-making, were precisely plays-on-celluloid).
And not liking it does not do anything to deal with the practical reality that its here, and that millions will be following it.

The answer to this is... what? What exactly is YOUR side's solution?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 18, 2008, 08:18:03 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517
Let's say I chose the free one. What do you think should happen to me?
Let's say 1.5 million people chose the free one. What do you think should happen to them?
Do you think the book industry should be allowed to charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, that they themselves determine the exact value of, that they themselves regulate, and collect? No other law works in the same way (and is thus SO open for abuse) as the current US "anti-piracy" laws.
or do you think they should all be sent to jail for 12-20 years?

My point is that its a new distribution medium. A play and a Movie are essentially the same thing, only done over different mediums (in fact, early films, before they figured out the "art" of film-making, were precisely plays-on-celluloid).
And not liking it does not do anything to deal with the practical reality that its here, and that millions will be following it.

The answer to this is... what? What exactly is YOUR side's solution?


So are you for piracy or just so anti-establishment that you assume the mantle of the former to feel good about yourself?

Your position seems to be "it's ok to steal shit that ain't yours as long as those it belongs to are assholes."
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 18, 2008, 08:40:28 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274283
I have had it work very well for me and it is not just my back catalog but my new releases as well.


Tell us more!  What do you consider "very well" and how does the experiment rank against your other marketing decisions.
 

Quote from: RPGPundit;274517
What exactly is YOUR side's solution?


I suspect the corporation solution will be new technology to either stop filesharing or technology that effectively tracks downloaders.   Currently, filesharing is very easy and very anonymous.  If it becomes even difficult or the downloaders prosecuted becomes tenfold, the numbers will drop radically.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 18, 2008, 08:50:42 PM
Quote from: jgants;274393

I find it funny that people like Pierce and Haffrung are bemoaning things like YouTube, when most entertainment industries came up precisely from those kind of beginnings - somebody with money saw something/someone in a sea of mediocrity and found a way to make money off of it.  


I will try this one more time, and then I give up.

I don't give a flying fuck about people making money off whatever the fuck it may be.

This is not about money vs. poverty. It's about quality vs. mediocrity.

On YouTube I can find what I already know, and I can find what's similar to what I already know. What I can't find in that sea of shit is the new thing that I don't know.

Quote
And I'm still laughing at the idea that all good performers/artists/actors/etc are filtered out by the studio process


Me too. Which utter fool was arguing that?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 18, 2008, 10:02:56 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517
Let's say I chose the free one. What do you think should happen to me?

I mentioned this before but I will repeat. I would punish it like a misdemeanor to be honest. A minor fine for illegal downloading, no prison time and nothing on your permanent record.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

Let's say 1.5 million people chose the free one. What do you think should happen to them?

As above. You aren't actually trying for the "But everyone does it" defense are you?
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

Do you think the book industry should be allowed to charge them hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, that they themselves determine the exact value of, that they themselves regulate, and collect?

Currently i tis my understanding that IP law is largely a civil matter. That is to say, you either defend you IP or you lose it. Also, I answered the question above.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

No other law works in the same way (and is thus SO open for abuse) as the current US "anti-piracy" laws.
or do you think they should all be sent to jail for 12-20 years?

Are you going to ask every question several times? See above.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

My point is that its a new distribution medium. A play and a Movie are essentially the same thing, only done over different mediums (in fact, early films, before they figured out the "art" of film-making, were precisely plays-on-celluloid).

Then you examples are sorely lacking and do not support your point. To take your example it would be more like the theater sells tickets. A guy buys one and copies it then begins handing out his copies for free in front of th eticket office. You walk up and you have a choice, pay for the ticket or take one for free. Which do you take? I would guess the free one.

Simply, you are incorrectly attempting to equate taking something that does not belong to you with a technological advance, the mode it is being done with. I will not argue that P2P networks are an amazing advancement that changes how business is done and on a broader sense the Internet. Hell, I am doing my best to take advantage of it. However, to say that illegal copying and distribution of work is just a evolution of a technology seems to be...morally ambivalent.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

And not liking it does not do anything to deal with the practical reality that its here, and that millions will be following it.

I think we have determined that I am doing far more for the "practical reality" of file sharing than you by far. I am often amazed by the stance that because you denounce some action on moral grounds that you somehow deny the reality of the action or do anything to deal with it. I do not approve of stealing cars. It does not mean I will not lock my doors, leave my car in a high crime area or leave my keys in the car. You can disagree with some action yet still take steps to deal with it, factor it into your business and include innovative ways to capitalize on it with your business.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

The answer to this is... what? What exactly is YOUR side's solution?

I did not know I represented "a side". I think Cavscout has a different solution
from mine and Haffrung probably others from Cavscout and me. I have many plans, precautions and ideas on how to deal with it but I doubt you are truly interested. One item would be my Chargen to add digital "worth" to my works. Another is my release of my core rules for free. Others still I will not share here but suffice it to say that 16 years int he PDM industry has served me well. Some things work, others do not. Some I still do, other get dumped. So, I am not sure what "my side" is but I (HinterWelt as a company) does a fair amount on this front and have it as part of our BP to deal with a new Digital market that actually is larger than just the FSing issue.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 18, 2008, 10:08:41 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;274530
Tell us more!  What do you consider "very well" and how does the experiment rank against your other marketing decisions.

I have had over 300 customers who have mentioned the free copies as a selling point. About twice that number have mentioned the "ability of the site to give you a really good idea about the system/game you sell" as a selling point. Some things I would rather not discuss on the forum as they rely on a certain amount of discretion. The CHARGen, which I many publishers said I was nuts to do, has actually garnered a lot of customers and helped as a value buy. Now, I must admit that the model on the CHARGen should really be more like Brett at Precis in that you should get it as a value add to the purchase of a core rules. Meh. I will know better next time.

Also, the biggest suggestion I can offer publishers is to embed hotlinked ads into their PDFs. It makes a big difference.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 18, 2008, 10:34:55 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274523


Your position seems to be "it's ok to steal shit that ain't yours as long as those it belongs to are assholes."


In all frankness, that would be pretty close to my own position.

Nor do I see what's wrong with it, provided one possesses, as I do, an objective definition of "asshole."
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 12:16:34 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;274557
In all frankness, that would be pretty close to my own position.

Nor do I see what's wrong with it, provided one possesses, as I do, an objective definition of "asshole."


:jaw-dropping:
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 19, 2008, 01:13:22 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274517

The answer to this is... what? What exactly is YOUR side's solution?



My solution is trying to educate people about long-term, aggregate cause and effect. To show them that somebody has to pay for this stuff - that quality entertainment costs time and money to create. And to point out if their 'free' entertainment requires other people to pay for it, then they're assholes. Maybe people will start to see a connection between their behaviour and the content they use.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jhkim on December 19, 2008, 01:25:54 AM
Quote from: jhkim
Well, that seems to be the point of disagreement. I agree that it is technically criminal to download out-of-print games, but I believe that this crime can be just and good.

Quote from: CavScout;274468
It may have little impact on anything but really, “just and good”? How so?

It is good because I believe that sharing creative works is a good end in itself.  That is why, for example, I believe that public libraries are a desirable good, even though they promote people reading books for free rather than paying the publisher who holds the rights.  I think that libraries as well as resources such as Project Gutenberg and Google Books are a boon to research, and promote both learning and literacy.  These are good things.  

I believe such copying is just because it serves the ethical ends that I hold.  It does not actively further justice, but it is not unjust.  It is improperly considered criminal in our legal system, and is let slide because human judges and police have better sense than the written law.  

Quote from: CavScout;274468
Most people who take things that don’t belong to them have no ethical qualms with what they’re doing. If their ethics stopped them, they wouldn’t be doing it.

You’ve simply decided you don’t care and that there is little risk to being caught.

Hinterwelt at least made clear that he is not trying to say that anything criminal was inherently unethical -- just that in this case his ethics matched the current law.  However, you seem to freely equate legality with morality here, implying that any stance that differs from current law is inherently wrong.  I expect you would say the opposite, though, if we were talking about liberal laws you disagree with, such as certain restrictions on smoking or trans-fats or guns.  

I do not agree with the law in this case.  My personal ethics differ from the current U.S. laws on a number of points.  I will also speed on the highway at times, jaywalk, and have even smoked marijuana in the past.  

Quote from: CavScout;274468
And what exactly is making a digital copy of someone else work going to advance? You are not really trying to equate someone copying the latest songs by fifty cent to medical research, are you?

As I noted, copies can help facilitate research and education.  Google Books was only a fledgling effort, but it had great promise -- namely to make the contents of the Harvard (and other) libraries available to the world rather than just Harvard students.  That was hamstrung by a copyright lawsuit.  After settlement, now many scholars complain about how Google Books errs on the side of considering works copyrighted when they are actually in the public domain.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: jhkim;274439
Well, that seems to be the point of disagreement.  I agree that it is technically criminal to download out-of-print games, but I believe that this crime can be just and good.

And I think it's good that you recognize that there's a difference. I believe it's entirely possible for something to be illegal and still just; abandonware piracy, in any context [out of print books, undistributed games, and so on] strikes me as something that should be illegal, but still can be just. I don't know how to reconcile the two in a useful way. I feel the same way about archival of material which is likely to be lost entirely if it is not archived; you shouldn't just be able to copy whatever you want and give it to other people, but someone should maintain the existence of this thing.

I don't personally have any sort of moral problem with someone downloading or distributing out-of-print games that aren't likely to ever be reprinted. While it does possibly betray the wishes of the copyright holder, it doesn't cost them anything, and it provides a great deal of consumer benefit. But that sort of judgment can only be made, I think, on a case-by-case basis, anyway.

Quote from: jhkim;274439
Functionally, I think that much technology -- including the Internet -- inherently makes copyright unenforceable.  By allowing peers to communicate over an open network, it inherently becomes almost impossible to stop the transmission of copyrighted material.

I agree that's true today, and tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future. I don't think it'll persist, and I think that'll be both a great tragedy and a great step of progress. Someday, I think order will be imposed over the vast majority of digital communications, possibly not even over the infrastructure we're using today; but I also think that there will always be some means of getting around these restrictions, and that there will always be people out there using them. No matter how many cops you put in the Matrix, if you and I are connected by a telegraph wire, there's really nothing they can do about it.


Quote from: jhkim;274439
Well, another way to phrase that is to say that it's better if the drivers of innovation weren't considered criminal.  For example, a great deal of medical research and innovation was driven by criminal actions -- in particular, I'm thinking of research using cadavers, which in the past was widely criminalized.  Those laws were eventually changed after the value of cadaver research was demonstrated.

An important point. Our morality and our legality often take some time to adjust. I suppose an argument can be made that many of these decisions only became morally acceptable because they were simply too valuable to pass up, but I'm not one to get hung up on the variation of morality! But I'm not sure how relaxed we should let our moral and legal views of intellectual property to get; just as we'd find it a bridge too far to let medical researchers experiment on healthy humans, there has to be some limit to how far we let this "open access to information" go.

Quote from: Haffrung;274458
Well, my sympathy does extend to newspapers, because I understand how the industry works.

As well it should. The weavers who went out of business because of the loom starved as surely as anyone deprived of their income, and they are deserving of recognition for that. While it's simple for us to say they should simply have purchased a loom of their own, the reality is that only so many would have been able to do so. A poor choice of words on my part, then.

Quote from: Haffrung;274458
Fuck, am I the only capitalist here who recognizes that you need profit to consistently attract talent and capital?

No.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274517
The answer to this is... what? What exactly is YOUR side's solution?

I'm not sure which side I'm on, but it seems to me the best thing to do is to enforce copyright law. I don't think the fines should be heinous, but whatever punishment is involved should be a deterrent. You certainly shouldn't be punished more for downloading or distributing an illegal ebook than you would be for buying or selling a stolen physical copy; today's ridiculous solution of using the civil court system to punish downloaders ends up being so impossibly punishing as to be absurd.

No, you need to deal with this criminal problem with criminal solutions, and that means bringing in the damned government and letting them bring order to chaos. It's definitely not what I want, but I'm not that wild about order offline, either. I'm enjoying living in the days when the internet is a vast, lawless wasteland, but that doesn't change the economic and, er, moral realities.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 08:56:49 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274523
So are you for piracy or just so anti-establishment that you assume the mantle of the former to feel good about yourself?

Your position seems to be "it's ok to steal shit that ain't yours as long as those it belongs to are assholes."


Nope, I'm asking, what's YOUR solution?
The RIAA have made their solution clear: hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and decade+ long prison sentences for "offenders".
Do you agree with that solution?
Is that what you support?
Do you think that will actually solve anything?

And if not, what exactly do you propose?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Narf the Mouse on December 19, 2008, 08:57:00 AM
The only problem I have with it is it's illegal to download stuff like that. If it wasn't, I'd be a very frequent visitor to abandonware sites.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 08:58:12 AM
Quote from: Spinachcat;274530


I suspect the corporation solution will be new technology to either stop filesharing or technology that effectively tracks downloaders.   Currently, filesharing is very easy and very anonymous.  If it becomes even difficult or the downloaders prosecuted becomes tenfold, the numbers will drop radically.


AH, yes, "Crippleware": Creating software that doesn't actually work, but makes damn sure you can't copy anything.  
For about five seconds, until someone gets a "crack" or whatever.

Is that a viable solution?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;274533
I will try this one more time, and then I give up.

I don't give a flying fuck about people making money off whatever the fuck it may be.

This is not about money vs. poverty. It's about quality vs. mediocrity.

On YouTube I can find what I already know, and I can find what's similar to what I already know. What I can't find in that sea of shit is the new thing that I don't know.


Seriously? I find new shit on the internet EVERY DAY.
You must really not be trying very hard.
Every single motherfucking day, I discover and learn something new, thanks to the internet. On youtube, someone sends me some link, and suddenly I have a favorite new show I'd never even heard about five seconds ago. I discover a clip about mormon creation myths, and the youtube links there lead me over to a documentary about the sex abuse scandal in the church; and I'm sure if I surfed along those links long enough, it would lead me to a Monster Truck Rally world championship, just because.

Sorry, but your argument fails, epically. Youtube, just like google or wikipedia or just about anything else that's great about the internet, is about a million times more likely to end up showing you new things than whatever programmed bullshit gets scheduled to be pumped into your brain by network TV.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 09:08:15 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274618
AH, yes, "Crippleware": Creating software that doesn't actually work, but makes damn sure you can't copy anything.  
For about five seconds, until someone gets a "crack" or whatever.

There's no doubt that today's approaches to DRM are more harmful to paying consumers than they are to those who pirate the game. The enormous stir created by EA's adoption of SecuROM completely passed me by, and I realized that's because I'd only played cracked versions, for which the DRM wasn't an issue. In today's arms race, the pirates are way out ahead, so consistently that some of the Blu-ray DRM was cracked before the disks using it were released. And while it's true that most of the SecuROM games take weeks to get out a crack that doesn't involve Y.A.S.U. or SDHide, that's still not very good news for the game devs.

This state of affairs will not continue indefinitely, I do not believe. Increasing enforcement on the internet, different means of distribution, value-added content available only to content subscribers, completely online play requiring a unique ID and internet access, all these things will combine over time to choke the pirate to the dark corners of the internet and out of the mainstream. The days of high-seas adventure are coming...well, to a middle, probably, but an end will come, mark my words.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 09:10:06 AM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274547
I mentioned this before but I will repeat. I would punish it like a misdemeanor to be honest. A minor fine for illegal downloading, no prison time and nothing on your permanent record.


Ok, and this would solve things or stop me, how?
How would you set up an infrastructure to fine 1.5 million users, by the way?
Would that be a fine per file, or a fine for using the program (which I remind you might be used entirely to share legal files), or what?
Because if you were talking fine per file, it would be relatively easy to turn this "misdemeanor" into something that would lead people into utter ruin.
And if it wasn't, how would this be likely to stop anyone, when threatening people with $200000 fines and 12 year prison sentences hasn't stopped anyone now?

Quote
As above. You aren't actually trying for the "But everyone does it" defense are you?


No, I've now moved on from defense into offense.  I'm trying to establish the fact that the other side in this argument is bankrupt of practical ideas, and CANNOT STOP filesharing, so that on the practical side of things, contemplating the morality or immorality of filesharing is completely pointless, rendering the value of their arguments pointless as well.
Unless anyone on your side has a practical plan to stop filesharing from happening, the only purposeful side of this argument is the one that says "filesharing is a reality of new technological advances, so the only thing business can do is to adapt with the times".

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 09:11:13 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274616
Nope, I'm asking, what's YOUR solution?
The RIAA have made their solution clear: hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines and decade+ long prison sentences for "offenders".
Do you agree with that solution?
Is that what you support?
Do you think that will actually solve anything?

And if not, what exactly do you propose?



You’re not asking shit. You assigning position and demanding we defend it.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Narf the Mouse on December 19, 2008, 09:11:43 AM
Except that the amount of enforcement required to end piracy could be turned to tyranny quite easily and with no added 'cost'.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 09:14:35 AM
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;274625
Except that the amount of enforcement required to end piracy could be turned to tyranny quite easily and with no added 'cost'.


Or people would stop....
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 19, 2008, 09:19:49 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623
Ok, and this would solve things or stop me, how?
How would you set up an infrastructure to fine 1.5 million users, by the way?
Would that be a fine per file, or a fine for using the program (which I remind you might be used entirely to share legal files), or what?
Because if you were talking fine per file, it would be relatively easy to turn this "misdemeanor" into something that would lead people into utter ruin.
And if it wasn't, how would this be likely to stop anyone, when threatening people with $200000 fines and 12 year prison sentences hasn't stopped anyone now?

How about just the price of the file originally set plus 10 or 20 percent?

The only way to get to ruin, then, is to abuse the system - in which case you deserve it.

Seems to me you are trying to say "We can't make the deterrent too..deterring." It's rather a silly argument - that we shouldn't consider it wrong because we don't agree on the punishment.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274623
No, I've now moved on from defense into offense.

Likely because even you saw the huge flaw in your "defense."

Quote from: RPGPundit;274623
I'm trying to establish the fact that the other side in this argument is bankrupt of practical ideas, and CANNOT STOP filesharing, so that on the practical side of things, contemplating the morality or immorality of filesharing is completely pointless, rendering the value of their arguments pointless as well.

Yeah - they "everybody does it" argument with a lot of words. There are lots of things we can't stop but still consider wrong.
 
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623
Unless anyone on your side has a practical plan to stop filesharing from happening, the only purposeful side of this argument is the one that says "filesharing is a reality of new technological advances, so the only thing business can do is to adapt with the times".

BTW - who wants to stop file sharing? It's liek the people that try to turn the discussion about illegal aliens into some sort of indictment of all immigration. It's all a dodge, in effect. Which you're good at in many of your arguments...a master debater, if you will.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 09:21:03 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274583
My solution is trying to educate people about long-term, aggregate cause and effect. To show them that somebody has to pay for this stuff - that quality entertainment costs time and money to create. And to point out if their 'free' entertainment requires other people to pay for it, then they're assholes. Maybe people will start to see a connection between their behaviour and the content they use.


"Education", thus far, coming from your side has been mostly about portraying anyone who ever downloaded so much as a bee gees song as being worse than a serial rapist, and responsible for the holocaust.
Yeah. Great job of winning hearts and minds there, guys.

But even if that bridge hadn't already been crossed, burned to the ground and then nuked, the fact is that this sort of argument will NEVER work, as long as you continue to insist on the whole "filesharing is THEFT!" paradigm, because people are smart enough to understand that it is not the same as theft, and have enough sense of self-worth to be pissed off at you treating them like idiots for the sake of the self-interest of corporate fatcats.

I think that an education campaign talking about the amount of work that goes into product and urging people who fileshare to ALSO purchase the finished products of things they plan to enjoy might be able to work, but the whole "filesharing is more evil than fondling a three year old" line is just going to have a damaging effect.

And yes, the opposer of tyrants in me that hates unjust actions and laws looks at every time the RIAA makes some bullshit statement, or when they push laws that will make someone who downloads a partridge family song liable to spend more time in prison than a rapist, or when disney gets microsoft to create computer software that will fuck up my machine on purpose just so no one will watch an unlicensed copy of "high school musical 5", it makes me want to fileshare the fuck out of all of them.

Taking the moral high ground, when you have allies like these cunts, is pretty much off the menu.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 09:26:27 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274629
"Education", thus far, coming from your side has been mostly about portraying anyone who ever downloaded so much as a bee gees song as being worse than a serial rapist, and responsible for the holocaust.
Yeah. Great job of winning hearts and minds there, guys.


You would Godwin a debate on file sharing... classic. No wonder you can't make a viable point in this thread.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 19, 2008, 09:30:09 AM
Quote from: Engine;274615
As well it should. The weavers who went out of business because of the loom starved as surely as anyone deprived of their income, and they are deserving of recognition for that. While it's simple for us to say they should simply have purchased a loom of their own, the reality is that only so many would have been able to do so.


There's a difference here; the product that will replace the traditional newspaper will be lower quality in most respects. The research will be lower quality. The reporting will be lower quality. The veracity of the stories will be lower. The quality of the writing will be lower. But it will be free, convenient, and timely. As someone who cares a lot about the former qualities, I don't regard this as a good trade-off.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 09:35:28 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274631
There's a difference here; the product that will replace the traditional newspaper will be lower quality in most respects. The research will be lower quality. The reporting will be lower quality. The veracity of the stories will be lower. The quality of the writing will be lower. But it will be free, convenient, and timely. As someone who cares a lot about the former qualities, I don't regard this as a good trade-off.


Well, we don’t know what will happen for sure. Currently, the institutions are trying to apply the old paradigm to the new environment and it’s not working. I suspect you’ll have pay-for sites for news that will be better quality than the free brethren out there.

What the papers are fighting, and what is related to the file sharing question, is the belief that so many people have that if it’s on the internet it should be free.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 09:35:29 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274629
Taking the moral high ground, when you have allies like these cunts, is pretty much off the menu.

I agree with the RIAA and MPAA that distribution of copyrighted works without permission is illegal and unsustainable, but the means they go about pursuing those who do it is absurd and unjust. Simply because I agree with them on one issue does not mean I agree with them on all issues, and trying to paint anyone who doesn't support piracy with the same brush is a tactic of desperation.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 09:37:02 AM
Quote from: Engine;274634
I agree with the RIAA and MPAA that distribution of copyrighted works without permission is illegal and unsustainable, but the means they go about pursuing those who do it is absurd and unjust. Simply because I agree with them on one issue does not mean I agree with them on all issues, and trying to paint anyone who doesn't support piracy with the same brush is a tactic of desperation.


Why do you support Nazis?

;)
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 19, 2008, 09:40:01 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274620
Seriously? I find new shit on the internet EVERY DAY.
You must really not be trying very hard.


You must be using a definition of "novelty" I am not familiar with.

Quote
I discover a clip about mormon creation myths, and the youtube links there lead me over to a documentary about the sex abuse scandal in the church; and I'm sure if I surfed along those links long enough, it would lead me to a Monster Truck Rally world championship, just because.


So, novelty = "random, vaguely interesting factoids hitherto unknown to me, including but not limited to non-verifiable 'journalism' by one of five hundred million billion internet blogger schmucks with a chip on their shoulder and no credentials to back it up."

Awesome.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 09:44:15 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;274637
You must be using a definition of "novelty" I am not familiar with.


He did say "new shit".
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 19, 2008, 09:47:50 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274629
"Education", thus far, coming from your side has been mostly about portraying anyone who ever downloaded so much as a bee gees song as being worse than a serial rapist, and responsible for the holocaust...





Wholly shit, this has touched a nerve. Did your mom abandon you as a child to move in with a music executive or something?

You were the only one in this thread resorting to ad hominem, poisoning the well, excluding the middle, making absurd exaggerations, and employing sundry other cheap and dishonest rhetorical devices. Is it really that hard for you to discuss this subject rationally?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 09:51:04 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274624
You’re not asking shit. You assigning position and demanding we defend it.


Except that if you don't really have any kind of a solution to the problem, you're essentially just mentally wanking, aren't you?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;274628
How about just the price of the file originally set plus 10 or 20 percent?

The only way to get to ruin, then, is to abuse the system - in which case you deserve it.


Again, the question emerges, if threats of $200K US dollar fines haven't been an effective deterrent, how are fines of US $1.20 going to do it?

Quote

Yeah - they "everybody does it" argument with a lot of words. There are lots of things we can't stop but still consider wrong.


Sure, but if you can't even envision an effective program to deal with it, where the end game is something other than say, repressive tyranny for all, you're basically fucked, aren't you?
I mean, the "war on internet 'piracy'" is basically the same as the "war on drugs" or the "war on bad language" or whatever.  At best, you're firing arrows at the tide. At worst, you're so blinded by your idea of this being an "evil that must be stopped" that you'd be willing to ruin people's lives who don't deserve it and create an environment of oppression for everyone.
 

Quote
BTW - who wants to stop file sharing? It's liek the people that try to turn the discussion about illegal aliens into some sort of indictment of all immigration.


The problem is that your side takes "filesharing of copyrighted works" and translates that into the word "Piracy", or even "Theft", neither of which are truthful descriptions either.

Quote
It's all a dodge, in effect. Which you're good at in many of your arguments...a master debater, if you will.


Uh huh. So, as far as solutions go, you've got nothing either, huh?

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 09:59:53 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274631
There's a difference here; the product that will replace the traditional newspaper will be lower quality in most respects.

The early stocking frames could only knit 8 rows per inch, which is very unpleasantly coarse fabric. However, it could be produced at much lesser cost-per-unit, and more importantly, could be improved upon, whereas the techniques of hand knitting were pretty well tapped out in terms of new ideas.

Quote from: Haffrung;274631
The research will be lower quality. The reporting will be lower quality. The veracity of the stories will be lower. The quality of the writing will be lower. But it will be free, convenient, and timely. As someone who cares a lot about the former qualities, I don't regard this as a good trade-off.

I think there will continue to be a market for high-quality, well-researched, well-written, trustable news; I don't think you're alone in desiring those things. That print newspapers continue to exist at all shows at least that much. What I think will happen, over time, is that those qualities will increase in online news reportage - like William Lee's increase in knitting to 20 stitches per inch, famed automaton designer Vaucanson's powered loom, Jaquard's combination of Vaucanson's punch cards with Bouson's endless loop, ad infinitum.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 10:00:32 AM
Quote from: Haffrung;274631
There's a difference here; the product that will replace the traditional newspaper will be lower quality in most respects. The research will be lower quality. The reporting will be lower quality. The veracity of the stories will be lower. The quality of the writing will be lower. But it will be free, convenient, and timely. As someone who cares a lot about the former qualities, I don't regard this as a good trade-off.

Righhht.. because the written press has done such a sterling job of investigative reporting in, say, the last 8 years.  How much shit did the Bush administration do, for just one example, that we NEVER WOULD HAVE EVEN HEARD OF if it hadn't been for bloggers or internet reporters bringing the news to the attention of the world?

Personally, I'd think its more likely that you will have truths come out when you have one million freelance reporters answerable to no one than when you have a half-dozen bought-and-paid-for newspapers answering to large corporations.

Yes, you will also have more bullshit, and yes, this will require (*GASP*) critical fucking thinking to discern truth from bullshit.  I know this seems like a lot of work to those who prefer their facts spoonfed to them like pablum with the "just trust us" logo smacked on for good measure, but if you do develop some critical thinking skills, its not very hard to discern the truth from the bullshit on the internet, or anywhere else for that matter (which leads you to become amazed at how much bullshit gets passed off as news and how many lies get passed off as truth by the "Mainstream media").

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 10:06:50 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
Again, the question emerges, if threats of $200K US dollar fines haven't been an effective deterrent, how are fines of US $1.20 going to do it?

Commonality. Not many of us know someone who's been hit with US$200,000 fines, but if rates of enforcement increase, it will quickly become apparent that you can't do the thing wrong without being caught, which just isn't true today.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
The problem is that your side takes "filesharing of copyrighted works" and translates that into the word "Piracy", or even "Theft", neither of which are truthful descriptions either.

Well, "piracy" works fine, because that term has come to specifically mean, "distribution of copyrighted works without permission from the content owner." Whether that translates into "theft" is certainly a question, but I believe in most cases that piracy leads to decreased profits, which is certainly a sort of theft. In the event that it doesn't lead to decreased profits, it's not theft, but it's still piracy. That's how I'd use the words, anyway, but you'll notice I've not really been using the word "theft."

Ultimately, I think it's more useful to define the words as you please, and then have a conversation around them, but you've already split us into "sides," which is ridiculous in the first place, so I don't think this is going to be that kind of conversation.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 19, 2008, 10:23:39 AM
Quote
Again, the question emerges, if threats of $200K US dollar fines haven't been an effective deterrent, how are fines of US $1.20 going to do it?


Criminal behaviour is detered more by increasing the chances of being caught, than by increasing the punishment.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 10:35:30 AM
Quote from: Engine;274651
Commonality. Not many of us know someone who's been hit with US$200,000 fines, but if rates of enforcement increase, it will quickly become apparent that you can't do the thing wrong without being caught, which just isn't true today.


And how will you be keeping track of the millions of downloads that go down on Emule, Torrent, etc. EVERY DAY? Where will the infrastructure for this come from? How will fairness be assured? How will it not be turned into an excuse for a police state on the internet?

Quote

Well, "piracy" works fine, because that term has come to specifically mean, "distribution of copyrighted works without permission from the content owner."


Only because the Record Companies have made an ongoing campaign of changing it from the original meaning of "reproduction of copyrighted works for the purpose of SALE without permission".
Which, ironically, has served to give the real crime of piracy a better image; since the Record Companies have also lead most people to feel that piracy is not really bad.

Quote
Whether that translates into "theft" is certainly a question, but I believe in most cases that piracy leads to decreased profits, which is certainly a sort of theft.


If you have a vegetable shop, and I choose to take a seed from a tomato I bought from you and use it to grow my own tomatoes, am I committing "Theft" by denying you to make money?

Shit, you're one step from saying that big corporations have an inalienable right to make money. Should people who choose to buy local instead of shop at Wal-mart be charged with theft, or should the local shops be charged with theft for stealing away wal-marts customers?

Sorry, but theft is NOT defined by the decrease of profits.
Its defined by the physical removal of actual material goods, which internet filesharing is not doing under any circumstances. Its not taking away money the Record industry has already made, and its not stealing CDs from the counter.

[/quote]Ultimately, I think it's more useful to define the words as you please, and then have a conversation around them, but you've already split us into "sides," which is ridiculous in the first place, so I don't think this is going to be that kind of conversation.[/QUOTE]

I don't see that its particularly ridiculous. There are clearly two overall sides in this debate, each side may accommodate a spectrum of varied views but it doesn't negate the fact that you're on Cavscout's side.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 10:49:11 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274643
Except that if you don't really have any kind of a solution to the problem, you're essentially just mentally wanking, aren't you?


There's have been several put forth already, all of which you have declared unreasonable or unworkable.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
The problem is that your side takes "filesharing of copyrighted works" and translates that into the word "Piracy", or even "Theft", neither of which are truthful descriptions either.


Did you just say you will misuse words or make ridiculous comparisons because you perceive the “other” side of doing it also?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 10:56:05 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274658
And how will you be keeping track of the millions of downloads that go down on Emule, Torrent, etc. EVERY DAY? Where will the infrastructure for this come from? How will fairness be assured?

I have absolutely no idea. Well, not "no idea," but I'm certainly not familiar with the details! While I'm confident a method of policing the internet will be developed, I personally am not the person who knows what it'll be, if indeed any person knows.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274658
How will it not be turned into an excuse for a police state on the internet?

I strongly suspect that eventually you're going to see similar standards online as off-; there may be pendulums to one direction or the other in the meantime, including draconian times and wild west times, but I think the end result will be something in between, something more like what you see offline.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274658
Only because the Record Companies have made an ongoing campaign of changing it from the original meaning of "reproduction of copyrighted works for the purpose of SALE without permission".

The definition I used has been the definition I've seen in common use since long before the RIAA got involved; software piracy was called software piracy even when it wasn't for profit.

In many ways, "piracy" is prejudicial, because pirates on the high seas were doing things much worse than sharing copyrighted works, for profit or otherwise, but I'm not one to get overly worked up about that sort of thing. For my part, you can choose to call "unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works" whatever you'd like - "frebulizing," perhaps? - and I won't mind, if "theft" and "piracy" have connotations [or nonliteral or indirect meanings, in the case of "theft"] you don't agree with.

Quote from: RPGPundit;274658
There are clearly two overall sides in this debate, each side may accommodate a spectrum of varied views but it doesn't negate the fact that you're on Cavscout's side.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I think the issue is complex and possesses many spectra of viewpoints, many dimensions along which various aspects of the issue are distributed. Viewing it as a number line, with zero in the middle and each "side" extending outward from there, robs the issue of subtlety and accuracy, as if you'd tried to render a hypercube as a position on a line.

Oh, well. At least you don't view it as a binary state. That's something, anyway.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: James J Skach on December 19, 2008, 11:05:23 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
Again, the question emerges, if threats of $200K US dollar fines haven't been an effective deterrent, how are fines of US $1.20 going to do it?

You're classic, Pundy. $1.20 is to little, $200,000 "oppressive nanny state tryanny."

I'll challenge you. Right out, is the act of sharing a file that you purchased ethically right or wrong? Is taking the creative work of an individual who did not give you permission, and passing it on to 1 friend, OK? How about 100 friends? How about 1,000? How about 1,000,000? How about every other person who wants it, so that the original creator gets nothing but the $1 you gave him?

If you say no, how do you expect creators to ever make money in the future? Do you feel the same about patent?
How is IP ever protected?

Let's leave out the holier than thou, populist bull shi...ummm..perspective aside for the moment. Because you seem to want to bounce back and forth between some kind of man-of-the-people thing and...well...everybody does-it-and-you-can't-stop-it-so-it's right thing...

Just answer - without any of the other sideshow stuff. Is it OK to take someone's creative, copyrighted work and copy and distribute it?

Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
Sure, but if you can't even envision an effective program to deal with it, where the end game is something other than say, repressive tyranny for all, you're basically fucked, aren't you?

No, not really. I don't necessarily agree with the approach the RIAA has taken, but I don't think they're evil for doing because of assholes like you. It's like this weird thing where you're saying "Nyah, nyah! You can't stop us!" Then they come along and hammer folks, and you shout "Tyranny! Oppression!" It's quite amusing, really. In fact, I'd say they've hit a nerve and found the deterrent - or you, and folks like you, wouldn't be so darn upset about it.


Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
I mean, the "war on internet 'piracy'" is basically the same as the "war on drugs" or the "war on bad language" or whatever.  At best, you're firing arrows at the tide. At worst, you're so blinded by your idea of this being an "evil that must be stopped" that you'd be willing to ruin people's lives who don't deserve it and create an environment of oppression for everyone.

See how you do this? I'm not for the war on bad language, whatever that is. I'm not against the war on drugs, though I think it's the best use of resources, it is enforcement of the current law. And it's not a property issue. So you've brought up, from all I can tell, to completely irrelevant issues in an attempt to distract. Couple this with a straw-man rush to extreme - "evil that must be stopped"? - and you get the perfect Pundit "argument". Say nothing in response - but use a lot of words that sound like you're some kind of gonzo hack rip-off. Beautiful.
 
Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
The problem is that your side takes "filesharing of copyrighted works" and translates that into the word "Piracy", or even "Theft", neither of which are truthful description either.

For the most part, I think people do that - the translation - for two reasons. Shorthand is the first. And for those who have a problem grasping the issue, analogy. Now neither might not be good, but in most cases I see here, people get the distinction. The fact that you keep saying it, and making this "your side" thing tells me you're just grasping, really.


Quote from: RPGPundit;274644
Uh huh. So, as far as solutions go, you've got nothing either, huh?

No, in fact, the more I think about it - and the more I watch you squirm about it - I think the enforcement of the law as it currently exists where people are taking a huge risk - the risk of complete ruin - for violating copyright is just fine. Again, the fact that you don't like it because it's "oppressive" "tyranny" only solidifies this.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 11:09:35 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274658
Sorry, but theft is NOT defined by the decrease of profits.
Its defined by the physical removal of actual material goods, which internet filesharing is not doing under any circumstances. Its not taking away money the Record industry has already made, and its not stealing CDs from the counter.


Utterly ridiculous. Information can be stolen, whether it has physical form or not. Identity theft rarely requires the removal or loss of physical records.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 19, 2008, 11:12:34 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;274533
Me too. Which utter fool was arguing that?


You did.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity
No, you send in a tape, or one of their R&D guys sees a gig of yours and signs you/screws you over. Small- and mid-sized record companies were a great quality filter. If you don't get signed by anybody at all, chances are not so slim you're actually not all that good.


Quote from: Spinachcat;274530
I suspect the corporation solution will be new technology to either stop filesharing or technology that effectively tracks downloaders.   Currently, filesharing is very easy and very anonymous.  If it becomes even difficult or the downloaders prosecuted becomes tenfold, the numbers will drop radically.


In another hour, I might finally stop laughing at this.

Does anyone truly, seriously think that full Internet regulation is even remotely possible?  

Look, I work for a major player on the Internet (owning nearly 50% of all domain registrations in the world).  We have our own PAC that is somewhat influential in congress with regards to Internet laws.  

And let me tell you, it's all we can do to put any kind of dent in real, serious Internet crimes like child pornography, identity theft, domain hijacking, or hacking.  And those are real, serious crimes that nearly everyone is against.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 11:17:25 AM
Quote from: jgants;274667
Does anyone truly, seriously think that full Internet regulation is even remotely possible?


Who needs "full Internet regulation"? And why are you applying the extreme, like Pundit, to the position?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Pierce Inverarity on December 19, 2008, 11:24:11 AM
Quote from: jgants;274667
You did.


Actually, no.

But keep on keeping on.

Quote
In another hour, I might finally stop laughing at this.

Does anyone truly, seriously think that full Internet regulation is even remotely possible?  


Again, no I don't.

Hysterical laughter seems to impair reading comprehension in a major way.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: jgants on December 19, 2008, 11:34:46 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274669
Who needs "full Internet regulation"? And why are you applying the extreme, like Pundit, to the position?


My point is that we can't even stop the waves of crime that are very real and very serious crimes that nearly everyone is against.  Or even online gambling, which has a large force of people against it.

How can there be any hope then in stopping the crimes almost no one cares about like file-sharing?

The very fact the Internet is world-wide makes any real enforcement and prevention improbable at best.  

We could try to filter out all the world's bad content, I suppose, but just ask Australia how well that plan is going - it literally took a 16 year old less than an hour to break their $84 million porn filter (don't worry - a US boondoggle of bigger proportions will be headed our way soon if the FCC continues with its "free broadband for everyone" plan).
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: jgants;274667
Does anyone truly, seriously think that full Internet regulation is even remotely possible?

Yes. Not with today's infrastructure, and not with today's near-utter lack of police presence online, but yes, I think something like "full internet regulation" is possible, at least to within something like the tolerances we experience offline. [I mean, it's not like we have "full offline regulation," either; people can still rob and steal and kill and jaywalk and speed and get away with it.]

However, yes, it will require massive changes to the way the internet handles information, and how internet applications handle identification, and an even more massive change to how we fund "cybercrime" units; I suspect if you compare the ratio of cops offline to people offline, and then compared the ratio of cops online to people online, the results would be saddening.

It'll also require some kind of international accord, at least to some degree, as well as negotiations of delineation in terms of jurisdiction and prosecution. All these details, and millions more, will need to be worked out, just as we've had to work them out for the last 10,000 years of civilization. But just as, yes, it was difficult and complicated [and probably at the time looked impossible] to tame the various frontiers, it will be difficult and complicated, and probably look impossible, to tame the intartubez. I have little doubt it'll be done.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 11:52:56 AM
Quote from: jgants;274674
My point is that we can't even stop the waves of crime that are very real and very serious crimes that nearly everyone is against.  Or even online gambling, which has a large force of people against it.

How can there be any hope then in stopping the crimes almost no one cares about like file-sharing?

The very fact the Internet is world-wide makes any real enforcement and prevention improbable at best.  

We could try to filter out all the world's bad content, I suppose, but just ask Australia how well that plan is going - it literally took a 16 year old less than an hour to break their $84 million porn filter (don't worry - a US boondoggle of bigger proportions will be headed our way soon if the FCC continues with its "free broadband for everyone" plan).


I am not following. Are you saying unless something is stopped 100%, there is no point in trying to stop it?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Engine on December 19, 2008, 11:57:34 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274677
I am not following. Are you saying unless something is stopped 100%, there is not point in trying to stop it?
No, he's pointing out the difficulty of enforcing national regulations on an international network with a distributed infrastructure and multiple means of obscuring the origin of data or requests for data, and he's right to do so, but, "it's hard," isn't really a reason not do to something, either.

That said, I'm not saying we should bring law to the internet; I'd personally love it if I could just steal shit forever. But I don't think it's sustainable, and I don't think it's inevitable. We just invented this internet thing, like, yesterday, and expecting to have utter control over it today is unrealistic, but so is anticipating that we'll never find a way to do so.

[edit: I also think the same tools, methods, and infrastructure alterations that'll make it possible to limit the more severe actions on the internet will be the ones used to stop things like illegal filesharing, so the solution to the big problem will be the solution to the little ones, too.

And, topically, check it out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology). The RIAA at least understands their ridiculous current tactics aren't helping them, although I'm not sure their new tactics are going to be any better.]
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: HinterWelt on December 19, 2008, 12:14:57 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623
Ok, and this would solve things or stop me, how?

It would discourage the casual illegal downloader. Some have already said in this thread that the current laws discourage them. Mostly, this is my opinion about the punishment, currently, being out of proportion with the crime. We do not imprison jaywalkers but the point of the law is not to stop jaywalkers, IMO, but to make them pause and think about what they are doing, look both ways then jaywalk. Similar here. I would like to see this be the kind of thing where someone stops, thinks about the grief that might come their way, and consider purchasing the product legitimately. So, you have incorrectly assumed that "my side" is about stopping illegal downloads when, Bill's "side" is really about encouraging commerce, prodding people to do the right thing.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623

How would you set up an infrastructure to fine 1.5 million users, by the way?

I wouldn't. As with many laws, the goal is not to punish 100% of offenders, it is to try and shape the cultural behaviors so that people "know" someone who did wrong and was punished.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623

Would that be a fine per file, or a fine for using the program (which I remind you might be used entirely to share legal files), or what?

Off the top of my head? I would shoot the idea of it just being an offense. You do it, you get a fine. Do it again, a bigger fine. Or maybe just a flat fine per infraction. Honestly, that would probably be how lawyers would look at it since it is how it is handled now. However, my preference would be to see people look at it like speeding or jaywalking or such. Not, murder or rape.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623

Because if you were talking fine per file, it would be relatively easy to turn this "misdemeanor" into something that would lead people into utter ruin.
And if it wasn't, how would this be likely to stop anyone, when threatening people with $200000 fines and 12 year prison sentences hasn't stopped anyone now?

It would be an attempt to change the culture. To create the view that if it is not wrong, at the very least it is inconvenient. The other side of the solution is to provide access to the digital media at least as easy as FS networks. I think a lot of progress is being made on that front. Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible to compete with free. Free is a powerful sales agent.

Punishment is not the only element of the solution. To view it as such, and try to frame my responses as such, is a bit disingenuous of you.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623

No, I've now moved on from defense into offense.  I'm trying to establish the fact that the other side in this argument is bankrupt of practical ideas, and CANNOT STOP filesharing, so that on the practical side of things, contemplating the morality or immorality of filesharing is completely pointless, rendering the value of their arguments pointless as well.

I disagree. Personal ethics and morality is always of concern. What I consider wrong, another may not. I need to account for that but that does not mean I cannot choose to reject an action as wrong and immoral. I do not illegally download files nor do I pirate copyrighted works. This does not mean I ignore a market trend or the reality of FS networks. I have said it before and will reiterate, I am not opposed to FSing. I am opposed to piracy and illegal downloading. You seem to favor all three and conflate them.
Quote from: RPGPundit;274623

Unless anyone on your side has a practical plan to stop filesharing from happening, the only purposeful side of this argument is the one that says "filesharing is a reality of new technological advances, so the only thing business can do is to adapt with the times".

Again, I do not know that I have "a side" more than just me. That said, FSing is a reality. You would be surprised, I believe, at how close some anti-piracy and document tracking software is though. I do not think it will be long before you have the ability to "ping" documents when someone logs on. It is common practice in a lot of high end doc management systems currently on the market.

That said, I do not seek to stop FSing. I want to stop illegal downloading and piracy. The former, IMO, is not as bad as the latter but I think they are both wrong. I would like to see the culture change and have the technology enable the change that illegal downloading would no longer be necessary. I think there are some interesting alternatives even now with some of the PDF previewing software available.

So, I think you want to attack someone who supports the points you seem to want to argue.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 12:51:35 PM
Quote from: Engine;274678
No, he's pointing out the difficulty of enforcing national regulations on an international network with a distributed infrastructure and multiple means of obscuring the origin of data or requests for data, and he's right to do so, but, "it's hard," isn't really a reason not do to something, either.


I don’t think he was simply saying it was hard…

Quote
That said, I'm not saying we should bring law to the internet; I'd personally love it if I could just steal shit forever. But I don't think it's sustainable, and I don't think it's inevitable. We just invented this internet thing, like, yesterday, and expecting to have utter control over it today is unrealistic, but so is anticipating that we'll never find a way to do so.

[edit: I also think the same tools, methods, and infrastructure alterations that'll make it possible to limit the more severe actions on the internet will be the ones used to stop things like illegal filesharing, so the solution to the big problem will be the solution to the little ones, too.

And, topically, check it out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology). The RIAA at least understands their ridiculous current tactics aren't helping them, although I'm not sure their new tactics are going to be any better.]


I suspect that this is the way that piracy will be curbed. Going after all the individuals is difficult; going after the more limited number of access points (ISPs) will be easier.

What’s interesting is the article shows declaiming album sales (which also includes digital song downloads). Perhaps there is causation and not just correlation that as piracy increases, album sales fall.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 01:59:13 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274662
Did you just say you will misuse words or make ridiculous comparisons because you perceive the “other” side of doing it also?


No, "filesharing" is an actual description of what's being done, albeit you can further specify that something is "filesharing of copyrighted material".

Whereas "Piracy" and "Theft" are not correct descriptions of what is going on at all.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 02:07:08 PM
Quote from: Engine;274663
I have absolutely no idea. Well, not "no idea," but I'm certainly not familiar with the details! While I'm confident a method of policing the internet will be developed, I personally am not the person who knows what it'll be, if indeed any person knows.


I'm willing to accept that as a position statement of what you would like to see evolve; about equal in rhetorical value to my own position that the inability to control the transfer of information with new technology will lead to an adaptation in how we handle the economics of this information.

Unfortunately, I have a lot of trouble seeing your projection coming to pass without either massive repression of what makes the internet so useful, and/or seriously compromising the utility of countless services to "law-abiding" customers who weren't even filesharing copyrighted material in the first place!

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 02:27:17 PM
Quote from: James J Skach;274664

I'll challenge you. Right out, is the act of sharing a file that you purchased ethically right or wrong? Is taking the creative work of an individual who did not give you permission, and passing it on to 1 friend, OK? How about 100 friends? How about 1,000? How about 1,000,000? How about every other person who wants it, so that the original creator gets nothing but the $1 you gave him?


I don't believe it should be legally wrong (though obviously, current lawmakers in many countries, most notably the U.S., disagree with me on that, thanks in no small part to massive lobbying on the part of the music and film industries).
As to whether or not it is ethically wrong, I think that's a very nuanced issue. In it, I choose to side on the position, similar to what JKim has said here, that the ability for people to receive information is paramount.  I would go on to say that there's even a "social justice" element to it, living in a third world country, I can say that for some people, the ONLY way they could have access to certain books will be to fileshare them, because said books are either completely unavailable to them by other means, or priced in such a way that it would be impossible for them to afford it by other means.
So I think that in cases like these, the ethics of equality of information access is more important than the ethics of intellectual property, especially since the latter has been extended to the level of abusiveness by greedy corporations not wanting to let go of their profits.  Its an issue not unlike the right for people in third world countries to have access to affordable medicine.
On the other hand, I do not think there is any particular ethical value on some spoiled little shit from a first world country hording game books he downloads from the torrents;  even though I also happen to believe that in most cases said little shit would be unlikely to actually pay for any of what he was downloading and hoarding; if forced into that position, he simply would stop downloading, but its doubtful he'd step up to actually purchasing anything.   So at worse, I don't believe there's any net loss.

Quote
If you say no, how do you expect creators to ever make money in the future?


In the case of BOOKS, which is what we're talking about here, I don't think there's any real difficulty in this. Let's discount, first of all, the aforementioned "spoiled little shits", who wouldn't buy anyways.  The people we're left with who are filesharing after that are either:
1. People who buy books AND fileshare books
2. People who fileshare because they cannot buy for some reason, either because they lack access to those books or they cannot afford those books at this time.

In the case of number 1, there's nothing that needs doing, those people ARE buying books, and if they download a book they find useful enough, they will go on to buy the hard copy, because its much better to own a book than just a PDF.
In the case of number 2, the solution is time and access. Some people can't afford to buy books now, but if they're able to continue having an interest in the topic of the books (ie. roleplaying) thanks to filesharing, eventually, when they have money, they'll be more likely to buy books than if they had been cut off from the hobby due to poverty.
Other people can't buy books because they can't get to affordable books now: in Uruguay, just about every gamer I know has bought pirated RPG books, because there are NO regular RPG books to buy.  Almost every single gamer I've ever spoken to here was unequivocal in saying that if they'd only bring in gaming books to the country, those books would be purchased. And indeed, in the brief periods when books occasionally came in, those books sold out with amazing speed.  If gaming books were imported here, or especially if they were published here at affordable prices, people who are currently filesharing these books would buy them.

Quote

No, not really. I don't necessarily agree with the approach the RIAA has taken, but I don't think they're evil for doing because of assholes like you. It's like this weird thing where you're saying "Nyah, nyah! You can't stop us!" Then they come along and hammer folks, and you shout "Tyranny! Oppression!" It's quite amusing, really. In fact, I'd say they've hit a nerve and found the deterrent - or you, and folks like you, wouldn't be so darn upset about it.


I don't see that they've found a deterrent at all. The downloading is going on now more than ever! What they have done is made a few "examples" of people who didn't deserve to have their lives ruined, including prosecuting a few people who were later proven innocent, and have set up a very nice little "protection racket" on the side where they threaten to sue people unless they're paid thousands of dollars.
That's what I'm upset about.

Quote

No, in fact, the more I think about it - and the more I watch you squirm about it - I think the enforcement of the law as it currently exists where people are taking a huge risk - the risk of complete ruin - for violating copyright is just fine. Again, the fact that you don't like it because it's "oppressive" "tyranny" only solidifies this.


Wow. Ok then, you're in favour of grandma losing her house because her 12 year old grandniece downloaded a britney spears song. Gotcha.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 02:28:42 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274665
Utterly ridiculous. Information can be stolen, whether it has physical form or not. Identity theft rarely requires the removal or loss of physical records.


"Identity theft" isn't the actual crime in question though; that would be fraud, embezzlement, illegal use of credit cards, breach of confidentiality, etc.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 02:31:55 PM
Quote from: jgants;274674
My point is that we can't even stop the waves of crime that are very real and very serious crimes that nearly everyone is against.  Or even online gambling, which has a large force of people against it.

How can there be any hope then in stopping the crimes almost no one cares about like file-sharing?

The very fact the Internet is world-wide makes any real enforcement and prevention improbable at best.  

We could try to filter out all the world's bad content, I suppose, but just ask Australia how well that plan is going - it literally took a 16 year old less than an hour to break their $84 million porn filter (don't worry - a US boondoggle of bigger proportions will be headed our way soon if the FCC continues with its "free broadband for everyone" plan).


And that's the worst part of this crusade; just like the "war on drugs"; the taxpayer and consumer and people who haven't done anything remotely wrong will end up paying for all of this, in massive quantities, for "solutions" that don't work.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 02:34:57 PM
Quote from: Engine;274678
No, he's pointing out the difficulty of enforcing national regulations on an international network with a distributed infrastructure and multiple means of obscuring the origin of data or requests for data, and he's right to do so, but, "it's hard," isn't really a reason not do to something, either.

That said, I'm not saying we should bring law to the internet; I'd personally love it if I could just steal shit forever. But I don't think it's sustainable, and I don't think it's inevitable. We just invented this internet thing, like, yesterday, and expecting to have utter control over it today is unrealistic, but so is anticipating that we'll never find a way to do so.

[edit: I also think the same tools, methods, and infrastructure alterations that'll make it possible to limit the more severe actions on the internet will be the ones used to stop things like illegal filesharing, so the solution to the big problem will be the solution to the little ones, too.

And, topically, check it out (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122966038836021137.html?mod=rss_whats_news_technology). The RIAA at least understands their ridiculous current tactics aren't helping them, although I'm not sure their new tactics are going to be any better.]


The size of the internet doubles every how many years?
And the processing power of computers?

And you really expect bureaucracies to ever be able to catch up? They're trying to enforce solutions based on what computers and the internet was like 10 years ago!
I mean fuck, they're trying to implement solutions for Napster... who the fuck even uses Napster anymore?
By the time they get around to trying to stop one form of filesharing, three other generations of filesharing programs have come and gone.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Spinachcat on December 19, 2008, 03:08:03 PM
Quote from: HinterWelt;274549
I have had over 300 customers who have mentioned the free copies as a selling point. About twice that number have mentioned the "ability of the site to give you a really good idea about the system/game you sell" as a selling point.


Awesome!  Thank you for the info.  THIS is very interesting.


Quote from: RPGPundit;274629
"Education", thus far, coming from your side has been mostly about portraying anyone who ever downloaded so much as a bee gees song as being worse than a serial rapist, and responsible for the holocaust.


Fully agree!  Every time I have to sit through those annoyings warnings in the front of a DVD, it makes me want to steal shit out of spite.


Quote from: CavScout;274636
Why do you support Nazis?


Pfeffernusse.  So fucking tasty.  Makes me wanna goosestep to the bakery for a dozen right now.


Quote from: RPGPundit;274646
this will require (*GASP*) critical fucking thinking to discern truth from bullshit.


If the future of democracy depends on the masses developing critical thinking skills, we are sooooo fucked.


Quote from: jgants;274667
Does anyone truly, seriously think that full Internet regulation is even remotely possible?


Absolutely!

I was in high school in the early 80s when I saw a huge room full of computers that had *almost* one gigabyte of memory.   Now the $20 dingle on my keychain has 5 gigs.

I grew up in a USA where torture and imprisonment without trial was absolutely abhorrent.  That was Russian Commie shit!  Today, its not even a major issue except for the far left fringe.  So-called "liberal" Democrats in Congress refused to defend FISA and the country happily went along.

The combo of technology evolving at remarkable speeds with a population passively accepting tyrannical repression makes Internet regulation not only possible, but likely in the 20 year future.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 06:33:36 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274691
No, "filesharing" is an actual description of what's being done, albeit you can further specify that something is "filesharing of copyrighted material".

Whereas "Piracy" and "Theft" are not correct descriptions of what is going on at all.


You better get cracking, it seems the internet disagrees with you. You need to convince alot of sites to change their definitions of piracy.

Or, as you would say, you need to adapt to the internet man, it thinks piracy is copying software and music, so you need to adapt to it!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 06:36:28 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274699
And that's the worst part of this crusade; just like the "war on drugs"; the taxpayer and consumer and people who haven't done anything remotely wrong will end up paying for all of this, in massive quantities, for "solutions" that don't work.


The consumer pays for the losses in revenue of the legit business entities too. But, I pay for Wal-Mart's shrinkage and losses to shoplifting as well. I don't expect employee or consumer theft to be made "legal" just because it cost the paying customer.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 19, 2008, 06:52:14 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274730
The consumer pays for the losses in revenue of the legit business entities too. But, I pay for Wal-Mart's shrinkage and losses to shoplifting as well. I don't expect employee or consumer theft to be made "legal" just because it cost the paying customer.


If you don't like paying for Wal-mart's shoplifting losses, you can always not shop at Wal-mart.  When Disney convinces the US Government to dedicate $94 million dollars into a system of internet monitors that gets taken down in the first 5 minutes of its being operational by a 14 year old hacker, or gets cracked within 24 hours of its development so that its now useless, you're paying that bill as a taxpayer, whether you like it or not.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 19, 2008, 07:00:59 PM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274734
If you don't like paying for Wal-mart's shoplifting losses, you can always not shop at Wal-mart.  When Disney convinces the US Government to dedicate $94 million dollars into a system of internet monitors that gets taken down in the first 5 minutes of its being operational by a 14 year old hacker, or gets cracked within 24 hours of its development so that its now useless, you're paying that bill as a taxpayer, whether you like it or not.


There's a lot of shit I pay for with tax dollars that I don't like; enforcing the law really isn't one of them.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: StormBringer on December 19, 2008, 07:09:58 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat;274704
Pfeffernusse.  So fucking tasty.  Makes me wanna goosestep to the bakery for a dozen right now.
Agreed.  One of the things I really miss about the Air Force is that the BX stocked those every year.  Mmmmm...
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 05:58:39 AM
Quote from: James J Skach;274664

If you say no, how do you expect creators to ever make money in the future?


They are making money right now and people are still downloading.

But maybe, just maybe, the idea of creative work as a tool for making money has had it's day. Time for a new paradigm.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 06:04:34 AM
Quote from: Pierce Inverarity;274533


This is not about money vs. poverty. It's about quality vs. mediocrity.

On YouTube I can find what I already know, and I can find what's similar to what I already know. What I can't find in that sea of shit is the new thing that I don't know.





Me too. Which utter fool was arguing that?




Are you seriously suggesting that nothing that you can download for free is any good?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 06:16:32 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274665
Utterly ridiculous. Information can be stolen, whether it has physical form or not. Identity theft rarely requires the removal or loss of physical records.


YOu really don't understand theft do you.

If you have something and i take it, but you still have that thing - there is no theft!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 06:20:27 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274730
The consumer pays for the losses in revenue of the legit business entities too. But, I pay for Wal-Mart's shrinkage and losses to shoplifting as well. I don't expect employee or consumer theft to be made "legal" just because it cost the paying customer.
If you'r ehappy to compensate Wal Marts losses then you might as well legalise shoplifting.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 06:23:06 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274736
There's a lot of shit I pay for with tax dollars that I don't like; enforcing the law really isn't one of them.


Paying increased costs to offset stolen goods isn't paying for law enforcement.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 11:56:10 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274854
They are making money right now and people are still downloading.

But maybe, just maybe, the idea of creative work as a tool for making money has had it's day. Time for a new paradigm.


Again, irrelevant point. Whether they can still make some money, or any at all, with rampant piracy does not imply that piracy has not effect.

"As long as they are in the black, piracy is not hurting them" is not valid point.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 11:58:10 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274858
YOu really don't understand theft do you.

If you have something and i take it, but you still have that thing - there is no theft!


So I can't steal your personal information, or steal your password as long as you don't forget that same information? Keyloggers don't really steal information because the person typing doesn't forget it?

Please... it is you who doesn't understand.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 12:00:41 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274859
If you'r ehappy to compensate Wal Marts losses then you might as well legalise shoplifting.


This makes no sense... We "compensate" for many crimes. Taxes, for example, pay for the prisons we put people who break the law... are you suggesting we really shouldn't have any laws at all, since they all cost us?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 12:02:52 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274862
Paying increased costs to offset stolen goods isn't paying for law enforcement.


Just imagine if I had claimed that...
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 12:09:28 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274855
Are you seriously suggesting that nothing that you can download for free is any good?


Should read it again and apply critical thinking skills. What you imply is not what was said.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Narf the Mouse on December 21, 2008, 12:22:41 PM
There's a name for someone who does work without getting compensated for the results.

It's 'Slave'.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 01:23:47 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274883
Again, irrelevant point. Whether they can still make some money, or any at all, with rampant piracy does not imply that piracy has not effect.

"As long as they are in the black, piracy is not hurting them" is not valid point.
The relation to the making of money is precisely the point!

You are talking in ludicrous absolutes. You haven't even proven to me how downloading an album, which we have established (despite your inability to see the fact) cannot be considered theft, equates to a decrease in revenue or a loss of earnings.

If organisations are making money then there is no real problem related to 'piracy' is there!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 01:29:56 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274884
So I can't steal your personal information, or steal your password as long as you don't forget that same information? Keyloggers don't really steal information because the person typing doesn't forget it?

Please... it is you who doesn't understand.


You are now talking about something completely different. Gaining access to anther's personal information (identity theft as the cops call it) is a totally separate issue and is (more) serious for obvious reasons. There is no loss of earnings through someone taking my identity and, were it not for what the identity thief can do with my details (ie TAKE my money, which IS theft; and more besides) I wouldn't care if someone knew my passwords bank details. They in and of themselves do not make me money (and thus constitute no loss of earnings) and have no intrinsic monetary value.

'Stealing' someone's music, via download, doesn't gain the downloader access to the details of anther's bank account or identity either.

Quote from: CavScout;274885
This makes no sense... We "compensate" for many crimes. Taxes, for example, pay for the prisons we put people who break the law... are you suggesting we really shouldn't have any laws at all, since they all cost us?


You are arguing that you are happy to pay extra costs to deal with Wal Marts shop lifting losses (whcih are no different from losses due to damage etc). Given that doing so allows Wal Mart to stay in business quite healthily, why do you worry about a few items going missing? What does it matter? Now explain how it's different if you download?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 01:32:08 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274888
Should read it again and apply critical thinking skills. What you imply is not what was said.
Oh get a life, ffs.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 21, 2008, 01:32:53 PM
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;274892
There's a name for someone who does work without getting compensated for the results.

It's 'Slave'.
Meaning?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 01:47:41 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274901
The relation to the making of money is precisely the point!

You are talking in ludicrous absolutes. You haven't even proven to me how downloading an album, which we have established (despite your inability to see the fact) cannot be considered theft, equates to a decrease in revenue or a loss of earnings.

If organisations are making money then there is no real problem related to 'piracy' is there!


So, if they make any money, piracy has no effect? Is that really going to be your claim?

Shoplifters have an effect on the stores they steal from, regardless if the stores still make money or not.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 01:55:30 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274905
You are now talking about something completely different. Gaining access to anther's personal information (identity theft as the cops call it) is a totally separate issue and is (more) serious for obvious reasons. There is no loss of earnings through someone taking my identity and, were it not for what the identity thief can do with my details (ie TAKE my money, which IS theft; and more besides) I wouldn't care if someone knew my passwords bank details. They in and of themselves do not make me money (and thus constitute no loss of earnings) and have no intrinsic monetary value.

Please send me your ATM pin numbers then. Also, send me the name on your checking account along with the routing and account number. Since you “don’t’ care” if people have that info since it “doesn’t make you money”.
Quote
'Stealing' someone's music, via download, doesn't gain the downloader access to the details of anther's bank account or identity either.

Who made the claim that it did? What was said that “theft” occurs regardless if the victim remains in possession of the information. Your passwords can be stolen even though you still know them yourself. Good try with the straw man though, I guess.
Quote
You are arguing that you are happy to pay extra costs to deal with Wal Marts shop lifting losses (whcih are no different from losses due to damage etc). Given that doing so allows Wal Mart to stay in business quite healthily, why do you worry about a few items going missing? What does it matter? Now explain how it's different if you download?

Really? I said I was “happy to pay” them? You and you flimsy ass straw men. Please show where I was “happy” to pay.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 21, 2008, 01:58:38 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274906
Oh get a life, ffs.

Don’t get all pissy just because you are called on your straw men building. You will sound like Pundit, a whiny little cunt.
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;274907
Meaning?

That you should read it again and apply critical thinking skills.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 21, 2008, 11:43:52 PM
Quote from: CavScout;274736
There's a lot of shit I pay for with tax dollars that I don't like; enforcing the law really isn't one of them.


Enforcing the law? I agree.
Enforcing a badly-designed law inefficiently at great cost? No.

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: RPGPundit on December 21, 2008, 11:45:14 PM
And yes, you could say "slave"; or you could, you know, engage in slightly less over-dramatic bullshit and say "amateur"!

RPGPundit
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 22, 2008, 12:22:33 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274986
And yes, you could say "slave"; or you could, you know, engage in slightly less over-dramatic bullshit and say "amateur"!


Say what? Did you just really tell someone to be "less over-dramatic"?

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 22, 2008, 03:04:33 AM
Quote from: CavScout;274910
So, if they make any money, piracy has no effect? Is that really going to be your claim?

Shoplifters have an effect on the stores they steal from, regardless if the stores still make money or not.


As has been ssaid countless times now: the big corporations are still in business - and still getting away with unethical practises of their own - and people are downloading. If the Simon Cowell's of the world are still able to exploit gullible kids then I'm not really sure what your problem with these practises actually is, as you have yet to explain anything.


Quote from: CavScout;274912
Please send me your ATM pin numbers then. Also, send me the name on your checking account along with the routing and account number. Since you “don’t’ care” if people have that info since it “doesn’t make you money”.

Who made the claim that it did? What was said that “theft” occurs regardless if the victim remains in possession of the information. Your passwords can be stolen even though you still know them yourself. Good try with the straw man though, I guess.

Really? I said I was “happy to pay” them? You and you flimsy ass straw men. Please show where I was “happy” to pay.


Why on earth would I send you my pin numbers for any reason? You are a cock. Did you not read what I wrote? Wouldn't be the first time. Conflating identity theft with filesharing is so utterly fatuous as to be stupidity incarnate.

The problem of identity theft isn't so much whether the information is taken or how, but what happens with that information. If i download one of your songs it's pretty likely I wont' be able to use that to break the law in a variety of devastating and life shattering ways. So wake up!
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Narf the Mouse on December 22, 2008, 07:17:09 AM
Quote from: RPGPundit;274986
And yes, you could say "slave"; or you could, you know, engage in slightly less over-dramatic bullshit and say "amateur"!

RPGPundit

There's a difference and I think, if you look at it rationally, I think you'll understand that common social context holds here - Something done voluntarily is not slavery.

On the other hand, something done with expectation of compensation for results is slavery when that compensation is not received.

On the other hand, even the amateur expects appreciation and applause.

How many of these freeloaders even send a thank-you note?
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 22, 2008, 10:32:26 AM
Quote from: Narf the Mouse;275029
There's a difference and I think, if you look at it rationally, I think you'll understand that common social context holds here - Something done voluntarily is not slavery.

On the other hand, something done with expectation of compensation for results is slavery when that compensation is not received.

On the other hand, even the amateur expects appreciation and applause.

How many of these freeloaders even send a thank-you note?
what a load of utter shit.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Haffrung on December 22, 2008, 01:30:21 PM
Pundit, you've critiziced the folks who disagree with you in this thread for being on the same 'side' as lawyers for the entertainment industry. Apparently, our credibility is undermined by the company we keep.

How about the company you keep in this debate? Read Ghost Whistler's posts. He apparently does not believe in capitalism, he hates 'the man', and dreams of a future of digital free love. This clod, and hundreds of thousands of resentful losers like him, are the company you keep.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 22, 2008, 02:48:27 PM
Quote from: Haffrung;275104
Pundit, you've critiziced the folks who disagree with you in this thread for being on the same 'side' as lawyers for the entertainment industry. Apparently, our credibility is undermined by the company we keep.

How about the company you keep in this debate? Read Ghost Whistler's posts. He apparently does not believe in capitalism, he hates 'the man', and dreams of a future of digital free love. This clod, and hundreds of thousands of resentful losers like him, are the company you keep.
Now what the fuck is this supposed to mean?

Being anti=capitalism makes me a clod does it?

What a tolerant man you are.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 22, 2008, 07:21:36 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275014
As has been ssaid countless times now: the big corporations are still in business - and still getting away with unethical practises of their own - and people are downloading. If the Simon Cowell's of the world are still able to exploit gullible kids then I'm not really sure what your problem with these practises actually is, as you have yet to explain anything.


What the fuck is it with you and straw men? Really, is it so hard not to throw one up so constantly?

You get asked if you think that as long as a company makes money then piracy is having no effect, which seems to be your claim. Your response is to say companies are mean to people so, I guess, it is then ok to pirate their materials.

So, is your position now going to be that the companies are making money and are mean, then it is ok to illegally download their material because now you’re just “sticking it to the man”?

Quote
Why on earth would I send you my pin numbers for any reason? You are a cock. Did you not read what I wrote? Wouldn't be the first time. Conflating identity theft with filesharing is so utterly fatuous as to be stupidity incarnate.


You said, and I quote:
“I wouldn't care if someone knew my passwords bank details. They in and of themselves do not make me money (and thus constitute no loss of earnings) and have no intrinsic monetary value.”[1 (http:// http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=274905&postcount=425)]

It was an exercise to show that, like Pundit, you don’t believe the crap you are spewing in this thread.

Quote
The problem of identity theft isn't so much whether the information is taken or how, but what happens with that information. If i download one of your songs it's pretty likely I wont' be able to use that to break the law in a variety of devastating and life shattering ways. So wake up!


You’ve already broken the law by downloading it. Sending me your bank details doesn’t mean you will be subject to “devastating and life shattering” things either.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 23, 2008, 02:52:58 AM
Quote from: CavScout;275223
What the fuck is it with you and straw men? Really, is it so hard not to throw one up so constantly?

Why don't you go and learn what a straw man is before failing again to actually explain your side of the argument. YOu have yet to answer the question and your continued attempt at labelling everything that anyone says that you don't like as a 'straw man' is laughable.

As was said in the very quote you label as a 'straw man', the industry is still in business despite what you call 'rampant piracy'. So what then is the problem? And while you explain that, perhaps you could also justify the costly unethical exploitation of the artists working within, if the rights of the artist and the profits of the industry are so important to you.

Or are you, as I suspect, just a sad reactionary.

Quote
You get asked if you think that as long as a company makes money then piracy is having no effect, which seems to be your claim. Your response is to say companies are mean to people so, I guess, it is then ok to pirate their materials.

If business is still in business then what is the problem. That's what I asked you. Don't avoid the fucking question and twist what people are saying. I have never once justified downloading or whatever in the way you are saying, that's your inference. But then I'm not the one who views the world in such simple minded reactionary and anachronistic terms.

Quote
So, is your position now going to be that the companies are making money and are mean, then it is ok to illegally download their material because now you’re just “sticking it to the man”?

Do grow up.

Quote
You said, and I quote:
“I wouldn't care if someone knew my passwords bank details. They in and of themselves do not make me money (and thus constitute no loss of earnings) and have no intrinsic monetary value.”[1 (http:// http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=274905&postcount=425)]

It was an exercise to show that, like Pundit, you don’t believe the crap you are spewing in this thread.

Your insistence in assuming that identity theft is the same as filesharing is so beyond stupid that explaining for a third time what the differences are would be a waste of time. You I suspect don't want to know and insist on these flawed examples to try and make a point, while ignoring the fact that even if I believed that my details, were i to be stupid enough to post them on here, would not fall into the hands of people who would use them to shaft me (by committing, amongst other things, actual theft), I still wouldn't give them to you. Why? Because you are a fucking cock.

Quote
You’ve already broken the law by downloading it. Sending me your bank details doesn’t mean you will be subject to “devastating and life shattering” things either.

That assumes I trust that you (a prize imbecile of spectacular proportions) and everyone else with access to this site, is entirely truistworthy.

You really don't understand the concept of identity theft do you. Dimwit.

THere are lots of laws that, by breaking them, don't detract from anyone's quality of life. You have yet to provide any evidence that filesharing equates to lost earnings when in fact it is more likely to increase earnings. That is the morality we are now dealing with, so you can keep your pathetic 'law'. Law doesn't = morality and copyright law exists only to protect financial self interest. Hardly moral.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 23, 2008, 09:12:27 AM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275295
Why don't you go and learn what a straw man is before failing again to actually explain your side of the argument. YOu have yet to answer the question and your continued attempt at labelling everything that anyone says that you don't like as a 'straw man' is laughable.


Like Pundit, you think you can raise a point not made by the other side and demand they answer for it or defend it. It is pathetic and a very weak debate tactic. This thread has had many arguments made and I most certainly have not “labeled everything anyone said” that I dislike a straw man. Even your rhetoric is the suck.

Quote
As was said in the very quote you label as a 'straw man', the industry is still in business despite what you call 'rampant piracy'. So what then is the problem? And while you explain that, perhaps you could also justify the costly unethical exploitation of the artists working within, if the rights of the artist and the profits of the industry are so important to you.

Or are you, as I suspect, just a sad reactionary.


Again, what is your point? It seems to be that as long as a company makes some money, they can’t be being hurt by piracy. Toss in an accusation of how they are mean companies and then you have validity for the piracy too.

You spend a huge portion of a thread trying to tell us piracy is not really a bad thing, and should be accepted. Then, when things simply don’t go your way, you switch gears and instead go with piracy simply has no effect on things, you see these companies are still making money and, by the way, they are mean to their workers.

PS: Saying I must “justify the costly unethical exploitation of the artists working within, if the rights of the artist and the profits of the industry are so important to you” is a fucking STRAW MAN.

A music company could the biggest dicks on the planet, stealing their stuff isn’t right.

Quote
If business is still in business then what is the problem. That's what I asked you. Don't avoid the fucking question and twist what people are saying. I have never once justified downloading or whatever in the way you are saying, that's your inference. But then I'm not the one who views the world in such simple minded reactionary and anachronistic terms.


Umm… ok. Are you not saying that piracy is ok as long as a company is in the black? Are you not saying it is ok because you think the guys in the suits are mean? If it’s not, then I’d suggest working real hard on trying to come up with some new points because that’s exactly how you’re sounding.

Quote
Do grow up.


You’re being asked to clarify statements you have made. Maybe when they are put back to you you’ve realized how inane the comments were and now wish to disown them.

Quote
Your insistence in assuming that identity theft is the same as filesharing is so beyond stupid that explaining for a third time what the differences are would be a waste of time. You I suspect don't want to know and insist on these flawed examples to try and make a point, while ignoring the fact that even if I believed that my details, were i to be stupid enough to post them on here, would not fall into the hands of people who would use them to shaft me (by committing, amongst other things, actual theft), I still wouldn't give them to you. Why? Because you are a fucking cock.


Actually, I am just calling you on your assertion that you didn’t care if someone had your bank information because, as you stated, they themselves didn’t make you money. Much like Pundit you profess very strong convictions that you won’t even give lip service to yourself.

But, even here, you raise a straw man, attributing and argument not made. I never said “identity theft is the same as file sharing”. I didn’t. Identity theft was used to show how the notion, that you did make, that as long as one remained in possession of the data, the copying of said data did not cause harm nor should be considered a bad thing.

Quote
That assumes I trust that you (a prize imbecile of spectacular proportions) and everyone else with access to this site, is entirely truistworthy.


So, your claim about not caring about it was a blatant lie, correct?

Quote
You really don't understand the concept of identity theft do you. Dimwit.


I do, it’s the taking of something (not necessarily physical) that doesn’t belong to you.

Quote
THere are lots of laws that, by breaking them, don't detract from anyone's quality of life. You have yet to provide any evidence that filesharing equates to lost earnings when in fact it is more likely to increase earnings. That is the morality we are now dealing with, so you can keep your pathetic 'law'. Law doesn't = morality and copyright law exists only to protect financial self interest. Hardly moral.


If filesharing, as you claim, is likely to “increase earnings” why have music sales continued to slump while filesharing has continued to increase? I have shown statistics that show decreased sales, for music in particular, while you’ve simply claimed a few things, dismissed what you didn’t like, built straw men, and demanded things of others you wouldn’t even try yourself.

You keep wavering between the concept that piracy should be illegal and piracy doesn’t really hurt anyone. It’s like you know the points are untenable so you hope that by shifting between each quickly you’ll never have to defend either.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: Ghost Whistler on December 23, 2008, 01:59:11 PM
Quote
Like Pundit, you think you can raise a point not made by the other side and demand they answer for it or defend it. It is pathetic and a very weak debate tactic. This thread has had many arguments made and I most certainly have not “labeled everything anyone said” that I dislike a straw man. Even your rhetoric is the suck.


blah blah blah.

Quote
Again, what is your point? It seems to be that as long as a company makes some money, they can’t be being hurt by piracy. Toss in an accusation of how they are mean companies and then you have validity for the piracy too.


If you're too stupid to understand my point then you're too stupid to engage with, quite frankly. I'm not going to repeat myself or use simpler language just so someone as argumentative and ignorant as you can join in.

Quote
You spend a huge portion of a thread trying to tell us piracy is not really a bad thing, and should be accepted. Then, when things simply don’t go your way, you switch gears and instead go with piracy simply has no effect on things, you see these companies are still making money and, by the way, they are mean to their workers.


Try making sense next time.

Quote
PS: Saying I must “justify the costly unethical exploitation of the artists working within, if the rights of the artist and the profits of the industry are so important to you” is a fucking STRAW MAN.


Post script is just that, Einstein. YOu don't put 'PS' in the middle of a message!

Moaning about filesharing while ignoring the greater evil is stupid. You can keep your straw man and shove it up your backside.

Quote
A music company could the biggest dicks on the planet, stealing their stuff isn’t right.


No matter how many times you've had theft explained to you, you simply refuse to understand what it means. Or how it works, or the effect it has, or indeed anything related to filesharing.

Ignoring the fact that musicians are exploited by record companies is just moral convenience made by reactionary fuckwits who are too stupid to realise that changing the system benefits them as well.

Quote
Umm… ok. Are you not saying that piracy is ok as long as a company is in the black? Are you not saying it is ok because you think the guys in the suits are mean? If it’s not, then I’d suggest working real hard on trying to come up with some new points because that’s exactly how you’re sounding.




I'm saying exactly what I said. Your continued attempts to misrepresent my every fucking word are proving tiresome indeed. I don't feel any great need to clarify my points to you anymore; either understand them or fuck off. Either is fine with me.

Quote
You’re being asked to clarify statements you have made. Maybe when they are put back to you you’ve realized how inane the comments were and now wish to disown them.


wah wah wah.

You can stop stamping your feet now, i'm sure mummy will be along soon to wipe your bum.

Quote
Actually, I am just calling you on your assertion that you didn’t care if someone had your bank information because, as you stated, they themselves didn’t make you money. Much like Pundit you profess very strong convictions that you won’t even give lip service to yourself.


You seem to be labouring under the incorrect assumption that both he and I somehow owe you something and that we should feel obliged to molify a spoilt child. Unfortunately for you, I feel no compulsion to furnish you with fuck all, never mind being stupid enough to post sensitive information.

Quote
But, even here, you raise a straw man, attributing and argument not made. I never said “identity theft is the same as file sharing”. I didn’t. Identity theft was used to show how the notion, that you did make, that as long as one remained in possession of the data, the copying of said data did not cause harm nor should be considered a bad thing.


Backtrack much?

Quote
If filesharing, as you claim, is likely to “increase earnings” why have music sales continued to slump while filesharing has continued to increase?


Assuming that to be true (and they certainly haven't slumped enough to put the bigwigs out of business) for the sake of this pathetic exercise, it could be for all manner of reasons, such as a global recession. Just the same as every scenario and theory you pose. I doubt there's anyone without a vested interest gullible enough to ascribe even a significant portion of that to 'piracy', especially given the benefits to the spreading of material through filesharing (ie promotion). Furthermore to take this assumed fact to be true in isolation from all other aspects of the music industry would be very stupid.

Quote
You keep wavering between the concept that piracy should be illegal and piracy doesn’t really hurt anyone.


I have never once said that 'piracy' should be illegal at all.
Title: PDF Ethics Gray Zone?
Post by: CavScout on December 23, 2008, 02:37:39 PM
Quote from: Ghost Whistler;275410
blah blah blah.


Is this your way of accepting the validity of the criticism leveled at you?

Quote
If you're too stupid to understand my point then you're too stupid to engage with, quite frankly. I'm not going to repeat myself or use simpler language just so someone as argumentative and ignorant as you can join in.


So, you really don’t have a point other than quickly jumping from untenable position to untenable position ranting about how the affected companies are making some money and how mean they are to people.

Quote
Try making sense next time.


You’ve seem to have confused you agreeing with something and it making sense.

Quote
Post script is just that, Einstein. YOu don't put 'PS' in the middle of a message!


Oh noes! Grammar police!

HINT: It’s for effect dumb ass.

Quote
Moaning about filesharing while ignoring the greater evil is stupid. You can keep your straw man and shove it up your backside.


Greater evil? Is fileshareing some resistance movement against an overlord that I am unaware of? It would appear we are back to “company X is bad so taking their stuff is good!”

Quote
No matter how many times you've had theft explained to you, you simply refuse to understand what it means. Or how it works, or the effect it has, or indeed anything related to filesharing.


And no matter how many times it has been explained to you, you refuse to understand that illegal filesharing is wrong. You don’t like certain terms because it highlights that it is wrong and is the reason you spend time trying to parse words and their meaning instead of actually defending the actual act being defined with the words.

Quote
Ignoring the fact that musicians are exploited by record companies is just moral convenience made by reactionary fuckwits who are too stupid to realise that changing the system benefits them as well.


Illegal filesharing is not “changing the system” is taking something that does not belong to them. If one doesn’t like how a company acts, they boycott them, they don’t continue to use their products but find ways to essentially steal them without paying for them.

Again, do you see yourself as Robin Hood or something?

Quote
I'm saying exactly what I said. Your continued attempts to misrepresent my every fucking word are proving tiresome indeed. I don't feel any great need to clarify my points to you anymore; either understand them or fuck off. Either is fine with me.


What have I misrepresented? Do I have to quote each instance where you’ve used companies making money at all as “proof” that piracy doesn’t affect business revenue or how many times you insisted that music companies “exploiting” musicians means they should have their music illegally downloaded excused?

Are you going to state that these are not some of your main points?

Quote
wah wah wah.

You can stop stamping your feet now, i'm sure mummy will be along soon to wipe your bum.


Umm… ok. The only one throwing a tantrum is you. So…

Quote
You seem to be labouring under the incorrect assumption that both he and I somehow owe you something and that we should feel obliged to molify a spoilt child. Unfortunately for you, I feel no compulsion to furnish you with fuck all, never mind being stupid enough to post sensitive information.


I am under the impression that you both have hardons for “the man” and so support, without thought, anything you perceive that hurts them. When pressed to logically apply your stand you balk.

For example, you plead you can’t post or give information you said didn’t matter if stolen/taken because they “themselves didn’t make you money”. Now, you protest it is “sensitive” information.

Like Pundit, you’ve simply been shown to be a hypocrite.

Quote
Backtrack much?


How is pointing out that an assertion you claim to have been made by me actually hasn’t been to be seen as “backtracking”? One does not back-track on what they didn’t say. Backtracking would be saying bank information wouldn’t be a big deal if stolen and then cry about how sensitive the same is when asked to share it.

See the difference?

Quote
Assuming that to be true (and they certainly haven't slumped enough to put the bigwigs out of business) for the sake of this pathetic exercise, it could be for all manner of reasons, such as a global recession. Just the same as every scenario and theory you pose. I doubt there's anyone without a vested interest gullible enough to ascribe even a significant portion of that to 'piracy', especially given the benefits to the spreading of material through filesharing (ie promotion). Furthermore to take this assumed fact to be true in isolation from all other aspects of the music industry would be very stupid.


We don’t have to “assume” it to be true, it is. Almost no numbers referenced so far include 2008 sales, you know where there was a recession, and deal with a number of years back to the early 2000s.

You are basically refuting out-of-hand numbers you claim to not yet have seen. You’ve said anything that refutes you is simply wrong.

So, let us try something different. You claim piracy is “helping” sales, please show us how?

Quote
I have never once said that 'piracy' should be illegal at all.


You certainly did not, that should read “should not be illegal”.