I've downloaded many things before... some I have kept and some I went out and bought the real product. It's a complicated issue that I hope to see solved in coming years. Obviously people have to be able to make money for producing work, and obviously we have to have some sort of "fair use" laws in place... the trick is finding the middle ground between the two.

Well, for one thing "downloading free to keep" will never be part of "fair use" laws. The two are polar opposites.

Quote from: James McMurrayWell, for one thing "downloading free to keep" will never be part of "fair use" laws. The two are polar opposites.

That depends on whether the copyright has slipped into public domain or not. Assuming we are mostly talking about RPG products however, then yes, none of those are old enough to be public domain yet. Even if the laws were changed and copyrights on written works made much shorter, I doubt they would make it any shorter than 50 years or so, thus making RPGs "safe" for some time. Then again though, I'm not sure that digital media should be able to be copywritten anyway. I certainly think it's debatable.

Once something is in the public domain, fair use no longer applies.

Quote from: James McMurrayOnce something is in the public domain, fair use no longer applies.

Of course.

I'll say this for pirates, they helped me when a big company told me I was basically shit outta luck due to their copy protection.

I bought homeworld cataclysm from sierra, a great game I recommend, BTW, even tho sierra can kiss my ass.

Anyway, it would NOT run on my computer due to a problem with their copyp[rotection not liking my CD drive. I called them and was told it was a known flaw called "the hourglass bug" and the solution was to buy a new CD drive.

I refused, and asked for a refund as I would not buy a new drive due to their problem. I was more of less hung up on by their customer "service".

I checked their webpage and found a forum that said anyone listing pirate patched would be banned. I looked for a patch on some pirate sites and hey!  Some very nice hacker/pirates in germany cheerfully sent me a little file that killed the hourglass bug and let me play the game I HAD BOUGHT AND PAID FOR LEGALLY, which was more that the company that made it did.

So, the legal company told me I was shit outta luck after buying one of their products legally, the pirates helped me use the game I'd paid for.

Danke, guys.

In that case the pirates were helping a person who'd bought something legally after the company wouldn't, so AFAIC they provided a legitmate public service to me and a lot of other people who bought that game.

Quote from: ZalmoxisOf course.

I was just trying to point out that your statement about fair use and slipping into the public domain didn't make any sense, since if it's in the public domain fair use cannot apply.

Anti-piracy is, for all intents and purposes, unenforcable.  As long as there are decentralized distribution networks, I will eventually be able to find whatever I want online to download for free and use without concern.

That doesn't make it right.

Quote from: James McMurrayThat doesn't make it right.

That's irrelevant.  If you can't enforce it, then it doesn't mean shit.

Ummm.... ok.

Smarter folks than I:

Free Stuff against Piracy

And for you lazy fucks that can't be assed to click the link, I'll sum up the gist of it in a nice quote, just for you

QuoteThe first is what you might call a "matter of principle." This all started as a byproduct of an online "virtual brawl" I got into with a number of people, some of them professional SF authors, over the issue of online piracy of copyrighted works and what to do about it.

There was a school of thought, which seemed to be picking up steam, that the way to handle the problem was with handcuffs and brass knucks. Enforcement! Regulation! New regulations! Tighter regulations! All out for the campaign against piracy! No quarter! Build more prisons! Harsher sentences!

Alles in ordnung!


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

I, ah, disagreed. Rather vociferously and belligerently, in fact. And I can be a vociferous and belligerent fellow. My own opinion, summarized briefly, is as follows:

1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.

2. 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.

3. 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.

Eric Flint is one smart cookie.  I tend to agree with him on the basis of piracy.  But, having not been on the business end of any real damage from piracy, it's really easy for me to be of that opinion.

If I were selling a PDF and my sales went from 100 a week to zero at the same time as the PDF was offered on piracy networks ... that'd probably leave me feeling less charitably inclined toward the theory that "piracy can't really hurt your profits."

Long-term, what's going to answer my questions is seeing how various models actually survive in the market.

Quote from: TonyLBEric Flint is one smart cookie.  I tend to agree with him on the basis of piracy.  But, having not been on the business end of any real damage from piracy, it's really easy for me to be of that opinion.

.

Emphasis mine.

That's just it, Tony. He IS on the business end of things, and this was his response.... to make his shit FREE, thus scoping the pirates, and finding the customers who were willing to pay for the hardcopy.  It cost him nothing to write the story (time...yadda yadda), the business cost is in printing and shipping.

Personally, I think that is a serious failing of the PDF only concept of publication.

There is a related article I can't be assed to find right now, from the Music side of things (where piracy is THE big issue). It was written by Courtney Love when she was still reasonably lucid... which sort of hurts the entire argument, but there ya have it.

She suggested that her next album would not be released through the industry, but on line for free, soliciting donation from fans. Of course, as an artist she makes fuck all from the album sales anyway (which was the thrust of her article), but from touring and selling herself, but again, she's in the business of selling an easily reproduceable 'product'... much as a PDF is.

Quote from: SpikeThat's just it, Tony. He IS on the business end of things, and this was his response.... to make his shit FREE, thus scoping the pirates, and finding the customers who were willing to pay for the hardcopy.

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part.  Not "on the business end, as opposed to the consumer end."  More like "On the business end of a rifle ... i.e. the bits where the bullets come out, rather than the one from which you aim and shoot."

I'm on the business side of the equation too, and I haven't seen any signs that piracy is hurting my business.  But maybe other people are getting screwed much more thoroughly than I am.  I certainly don't have such a broad base of evidence that I can say "I'm absolutely certain that piracy is a non-issue!"  It would be disrespectful to the people who genuinely have been hurt (if any).

Does that make more sense as a distinction?