Wow...I agree with JimBob..I knew the day would come..I just knew it.

Quote from: JimBobOzViolating another's copyright is wrong not because of the financial harm - even if there were any - but because "copyright" is quite literally the right to make copies. If you produce something, you should be able to determine what people will do with it. If you take a picture of your family, you don't want it copied and pasted up on every telephone pole in the neighbourhood. If you write a story, you can publish it, or not, or publish it alone, or in a collection - you made it, you get to control it. Violating copyright is like violating privacy; even without any actual tangible material harm, it's wrong.

Like I said, I've been having a running argument with my older brother for years about this, from music to software. What I've come to understand is that there are those in the world who think my idea is immediately theirs once it passes from my mind to paper/sound/bytes. I've got news for y'all - that was the entire point of copyright - to enshrine in law the fact that this is not the case.

Now you can, again, put all the little semantic arguments you want in front of it - including the magical coke-copying machine - and it doesn't change the fact. You can change the laws and customs - many are trying - but that doesn't change them, as they exist, now.

As JimBob says, it's literally the right to make copies. So even a coke-copying magical replicator is theft.  You're making an unlicensed copy of the coke.

And please, let's not get into fair use.  I'm not talking about fair use. As I've stated parenthetically, I think fair use is an issue.  So don't equate taking a song and putting it on your iPod for 10 years with borrowing a book from a friend for a couple of days.  The latter is covered under fair use, the former is not. [EDIT: When I say taking, I mean copying without permission.]

The problem is, no sooner do I agree with JimBob then I disagree. I think it is something about which having concern is not silly or over-reactionary. Do I lie awake at night worried about it? No. But I think we do a disservice to ourselves and our culture if we do not attempt to turn the tide on this common midset that in this case, because we're talking about ideas and not cans of coke, we're not stealing.

Quote from: BalbinusSteve D, Levi, Dan Davenport, folk listen to what they say so giving them a freebie may generate additional overall sales.

  I understand this and am myself the beneficiary of such practices (though not with RPGs) but from Levi's description, gaming is this huge loving community where people get free stuff and everyone's friendly.  Because he's not a complete idiot, I suddenly wondered whether he was right but because I'm a massive prick I wasn't invited to the party.

  Steve D's a good guy to give free stuff to.  He's hugely popular over at the purple place, he's a relentless cheerleader for the stuff he likes and the stuff he doesn't like he never mentions.  He's kind of the Paul Ross of game forums.

Quote from: James J SkachLike I said, I've been having a running argument with my older brother for years about this, from music to software. What I've come to understand is that there are those in the world who think my idea is immediately theirs once it passes from my mind to paper/sound/bytes. I've got news for y'all - that was the entire point of copyright - to enshrine in law the fact that this is not the case.

You're wrong.

Ideas are not protected by any laws at all.

The particular manner or expression of an idea is protected by the law, in the form of copyrights and patents.

But the particular manner or expression of an idea is a pretty important thing. Shakespeare's sonnet, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" has as its idea "love." Likewise, When Harry Met Sally. Same idea, different expression. As it happens, Shakespeare's sonnet is now public domain - anyone can use that particular manner or expression of the idea of love, it's passed out of his hands into the public's hands, now. But When Harry Met Sally, it'll be a while yet.

The confusion between ideas and their expression is a common one in discussions of copyright. Ideas are not protected at all. "You stole my ideas!" Maybe I did - tough shit. I just can't steal the way you expressed your ideas, but I can steal all your ideas quite happily and legally.

Both people in favour of copyrights, and those against them, commonly confuse ideas and their expression. It's an important distinction.

Quote from: James J. SkachAs JimBob says, it's literally the right to make copies. So even a coke-copying magical replicator is theft.  You're making an unlicensed copy of the coke.

It's not theft. It's copyright violation. That's a different thing. A person can sneak into my house and rummage through my underwear drawers, but take nothing - no material harm was done, nothing was stolen - but it's still a violation of my privacy. However, "violation of privacy" is not "theft." Likewise, "copyright violation" is not theft. Not in law, morality, or logic.

It's not about theft, nor is it about money. If you copy without permission, make a bucketload of money and give it all to the copyright owner, you are still committing a crime - violating their copyright. "But I made him extra money!" Doesn't matter. Suppose you sneak into my home, rummage through my drawers, from what you find write up a resume for me, pass it on to someone you know, and as a result I get offered my dream job making a quarter of a million bucks a year - you still violated my privacy. That this violation happened to benefit me is irrelevant.

Quote from: James J. SkachI think we do a disservice to ourselves and our culture if we do not attempt to turn the tide on this common midset that in this case, because we're talking about ideas and not cans of coke, we're not stealing.

Whereas I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we don't clearly understand the concepts involved.

• Ideas are not protected in law, only the particular manner or expression of the ideas.
• Copyright is not about money, but about the right to make copies.
• Violation of copyright is not theft, it is violation of copyright.

We do a disservice to ourselves by having muddled understandings of things which we think are important.

QuoteBut I think we do a disservice to ourselves and our culture if we do not attempt to turn the tide on this common midset that in this case, because we're talking about ideas and not cans of coke, we're not stealing.

It may be that you've already lost, if you view it that way. Look, I've never actually got around to doing the fileshare thing (I'm probably just too lazy to download, because it involves actually installing stuff and hunting for files), but nobody out here in the Real World appears to have the slightest qualms about it. We've been listening to music at work two months before the radio plays it.

I don't mind shooting people some bucks for their work (tell you what, though, international shipping from the US shits me). That's a personal issue, though, not an ethical one. I give them a donation for their services to me in producing good shit, because I feel some solidarity.

Technology has unlocked one box that you'll never close again. Filesharing is here to stay, and eventually, it's morals and ethics (not to mention business practices) that will have to accomodate to the new state of affairs. It's what always happens.


Their finger’s in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can’t sell bottled water when it’s freely flowing
MC Lars

Quote from: JimBobOz

• Clash Bowley of Flying Mice Games tells us of sending out 25 copies of a game to people who said they'd review. Only one reviewed it; the rest never even thanked him.

Ummm - that's not at all the case. They all thanked me, and several were kind enough to tell me privately what they thought of it. Please don't assume that I felt mistreated or anything on that. I was asked a direct question, and I answered it truthfully. I was not complaining or anything, just stating a fact. Actually, several people who received the game for review have been rather vocal about what they think of it, they just haven't done the review yet.

Otherwise, I completely agree with your summation, and with Bill's feelings on it. It's akin to violation of privacy, and whenever it happens - and it does, even to lowlife small press like me, I know for a fact - it hurts me personally. I feel violated and angry.  

-clash

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI understand this and am myself the beneficiary of such practices (though not with RPGs) but from Levi's description, gaming is this huge loving community where people get free stuff and everyone's friendly.

Not... quite.  Here's a (hopefully) better overview of how I see it.

At base, it's this screwy jumble of people that bicker incessantly, but which manages to function on the level that we do communicate and have pretty reasonable financial relationships.

But the more that any person treats it like a community of friends, the more it starts to act like one to them, in a lot of ways.  The occasional email going "Hey, I figured this might be right up your alley" isn't the best part of this, or even the most important - it's just the most tangibly obvious.  And this isn't hard to do, in my experience.

Anytime you get close to publishers that have had their files tossed about, or otherwise feel that they have been burnt by the general populace of gamers online, that bit about treating it like a community of friends starts failing to operate.  (The extreme example is Kevin Siembada, who feels that he's been mistreated when no such thing has actually occurred.  Milder examples - people who have suffered smaller losses and simply chosen to be cagey as a result, abound).

Clearer?

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut the more that any person treats it like a community of friends, the more it starts to act like one to them, in a lot of ways.  The occasional email going "Hey, I figured this might be right up your alley" isn't the best part of this, or even the most important - it's just the most tangibly obvious.  And this isn't hard to do, in my experience.

Actually, this is right.  If you generally treat people ok and figure they will do likewise, mostly they do do likewise.

If you assume people will fuck you over, that tends to end up happening too.

So I sort of get Levi's point, if we do something that causes someone that would otherwise be a good contributor to start figuring they're going to be fucked over, we probably lose their input which makes us poorer for that, to the extent we valued their input.

Thus, if we ripped off Kenneth Hite say, so he stopped posting online, we'd have lost his input which would suck.

Generally the online world is like a mirror of one's conduct I find, the more reasonably one acts the more reasonably one tends to find others act.  Those who act like dickwads find much dickwaddery.  Those who act positive find it a largely positive place.

We control our environment often far more than we realise.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBill;

I gotta say, I'm not a fan of the comparison either.  And I'm weird about the whole bootlegging thing.

I can see how people are missing my point. Yamo said that piracy exists, there is noting we can do about it so shut up and take it. What I am saying is there are a number of unethical, immoral and criminal acts that are performed every day. Should we just accept that they are here to stay? No. I never said child abuse==ip infringement. If you prefer, insert fraud, murder, cheating on your taxes.

The simple point is just because something is practiced regularly does not mean one should compromise their moral stand just because it is convenient to do so. If that loses respect with people I consider immoral...so be it.

Bill

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAt base, it's this screwy jumble of people that bicker incessantly, but which manages to function on the level that we do communicate and have pretty reasonable financial relationships.

  Here's how I see things.

  Gamers like to talk about gaming and therefore congregate together in various online communities.  These communities tend to be good places to go if you want to pimp your game or get a better profile.

  As a result, gaming professionals are attracted to such communities and in the  hope of increasing their sales they hand out free review copies or free copies of things to people that are clearly opinion formers.

  If you know how to manage a community properly you can effectively turn an unknown game into an overnight success, but should you fuck up that management you can easily turn a community against you.  This results in a sizeable number of game designers having a love-hate relationship with online communities... they hate them because sooner or later a group of people will be rude about them but they love them because they're good ways to drum up sales and, frankly, gamers are the only people who are ever likely to have any respect for what they do.

  There's no friendship involved, there's just niche-market economics.

  Game designers aren't giving you free stuff because you're their friend... they're giving you free stuff because you're an opinion former.  It's the same thing as celebrities being given free clothes.

Yeah, there is no way Bill was making a comparison of  the immoral magnitude of the two. He's just saying in his opinion they are both immoral things. Immoral things are not something we should just "get used to".

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalHere's how I see things.

Interesting.

Okay, let me ask this, then...

Why am I, do you think, an "opinion-former"?

Because my whole take on gaming is really the only thing that sets me apart.

I agree with Bill - IP piracy is an immoral thing, whether or not it is also theft. Getting complacent about immoral things is not a beneficial situation. It hurts us all.

-clash

Quote from: Levi KornelsenInteresting.

Okay, let me ask this, then...

Why am I, do you think, an "opinion-former"?

Because my whole take on gaming is really the only thing that sets me apart.

It's your cute turtle avatar.

I mean, one can't not like that.

So, because we don't want to upset cute turtles (and who does?) we do as you say.

More to the point, Mr A is correct that you are an opinion former, it's because of your posting history of course.  Similarly, I suspect if I were to post about a historical game being particularly good and accurate more people would pay attention than if some random guy said it, on that limited front I think what I say carries some weight.

Steve D, he just has a history of posting cool stuff, that makes him an opinion former.  Plus we all like Steve D, or in my case worship him as a god and burn those who disagree with him.

You've been a mod at RPGnet for starters, giving you quite a high profile straight off the bat.  I'm the wrong guy to ask though because aside from seeing your posts on here and noticing you as a mod at the purple place I've really no idea what you stand for or what your opinions on anything is.

If Balbinus says you're an opinion former then I take his word for it but I really don't know... which is why I couldn't get my head around the fact that you got free stuff.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYou've been a mod at RPGnet for starters, giving you quite a high profile straight off the bat.  I'm the wrong guy to ask though because aside from seeing your posts on here and noticing you as a mod at the purple place I've really no idea what you stand for or what your opinions on anything is.

If Balbinus says you're an opinion former then I take his word for it but I really don't know... which is why I couldn't get my head around the fact that you got free stuff.

It's not the modding, actually Levi isn't that clear cut an opinion former as he tends to be known mostly for reasonable thought about theory, but if I had a new indie game then having Levi post about how great it was would be worth sales potentially as his reputation as a thoughtful theory guy would lead many to figuring he knows what he's talking about.

I would be inclined to show Levi my new indie game, because him talking about it would get other indie guys to look at it (not that Levi is really part of the indie clique, but they do pay attention to what he says), and them talking about it would directly result in sales.

Similarly, if I get Dan Davenport to write a good review of my game that will likely lead to bigger sales.  Dan Davenport is clearly the most important opinion former IMO, I suspect the massive sales of Hollow Earth Expedition owe a great deal to Dan writing about how great he found it.