Quote from: McrowYeah, 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".

Thanks Mike. You know me, I get fired up and my communication skills go out the window.

Bill

Quote from: droogIt 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.

Yes.  I know.  Everyone is doing it.  Nobody seems to have a problem with it. That makes it OK, I guess. I should just stop caring because everyone is doing it.

Quote from: droogI 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.

How nice of you to allow the authors of those works, whether it's music or an RPG, to have a say in how valuable their work is. I'm sure they are greatful you've even ackowledged their existence.

Let's say you made a cabinet.  You worked really hard on that cabinet -designed and built it with your own two hands. You spent 50 hours building that cabinet. You leave the cabinet in your garage while you go to get some finish for it.  Someone comes in and takes the cabinet and leaves you a $50. You're not going to be upset?  I mean, you may have built the cabinet to sell it, but you were going to charge $300 for it. Why didn't you get a say in it's value?

Quote from: droogTechnology 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.

You'll note I've never said anything about the technology (other than to reference the "magical coke replicating machine").  For me, it's not about the technology, it's about the attitude that seems so pervasive. I disagree the that moral and ethics have to change.  You don't start stealing because people leave their doors open.  You don't violate copyright now just because it's easy. It might be a losing battle, but I won't give up - not yet.

Quote from: James J SkachYou'll note I've never said anything about the technology (other than to reference the "magical coke replicating machine").  For me, it's not about the technology, it's about the attitude that seems so pervasive. I disagree the that moral and ethics have to change.  You don't start stealing because people leave their doors open.  You don't violate copyright now just because it's easy. It might be a losing battle, but I won't give up - not yet.

  Therein lies the problem.

  You're the guy who, when faced with replicators and unlimited energy supplies, doesn't understand why the economic and political structure of society has to change.  You're applying 17th century Lockean property ethics to a phenomenon that Locke simply couldn't have foreseen.

  The issue of abandonware is also relevant to this discussion.  Abandonware are essentially pieces of software that the owners have no intention of ever exploiting commercially.  So rather than let them rot or be forgotten, some people think it better to make them available for free online.

  In the case of out of print RPGs, this strikes me as an excellent idea.  someone owns the copyright but have decided not to do anything with it therefore others do do something with it but don't profit from it in the least.

  That's a completely victimless crime.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThere'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.

Hmm, interesting view. However, to be honest, you can be one of the most hated personae on the net and have a very successful business. HinterWelt's success is more about networking with B&M stores, multiple paths of distribution and advance marketing. Don't get me wrong, online is growing and having more of an impact but it is more about selling a few extra copies still. It will be a few years before the Internet is a major distribution point. Designers are involved in online fora partly for the reasons you site but more as a form of entertainment and as a way to meet people with similar interests.

Now, that said, JimBob had brought up some good points of free stuff vs for sale items. I will not paint it quite so black and white but say there is a time a place for free items. My ISCR (the core rules for Iridium System) are available for free. However, people pay for them with the settings that it powers. That is one strategy.

Now, I, personally (and I cannot speak for anyone else), often do feel a connection to online communities and gaming communities in general. I will send free copies to reviewers who have a good reputation for solid reviews. But guess what, I have sent PDF copies of my books to people interested in looking over the games to see if they are interested. The key difference is that I, the creator, sent them to the person and not some pirate. If a person is not happy with their purchase I have refunded their money because in the end, I do not want someone to buy my books if they are not happy with them. So, free books at the right time to the right people.

Bill

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIn the case of out of print RPGs, this strikes me as an excellent idea.  someone owns the copyright but have decided not to do anything with it therefore others do do something with it but don't profit from it in the least.

  That's a completely victimless crime.

The difference is who decides. That is the key. Should someone wandering through a bargain bin at the LGS decide or should the creator?

I think you know my answer but I am interested in yours.

Bill

Fair enough, but there's also something to be said for the good will you generate from just giving away free stuff to curious people.  You don't just benefit from having Steve D like your games, you also benefit from being "that guy who once gave me a copy of his game for free" and even "that guy who gives away free copies of his stuff".

Quote from: HinterWeltThe difference is who decides. That is the key. Should someone wandering through a bargain bin at the LGS decide or should the creator?

  If you're not using the IP and clearly have no plans to do so then it strikes me as a victimless crime if someone else makes that IP available to others.  If you officially release it under a creative commons license then you're a great guy and people will probably want to buy your stuff because you're great... but if it's just some guy who walked past the bargain bin then it's no skin off my nose.  You're not losing any money and he's not making any from your work.

  If in 10 years time someone wanted to collect all of my old writings and distribute them online for free I wouldn't mind it.  In fact, I'd be flattered.  That goes from my reviews to my longer critical pieces to my articles to my academic theses.

  If someone was making money off of it then I'd be pissed but otherwise it wouldn't really bother me.

In the case of the major abandonware sites, they take down any software where a rights holder contacts them to object to its presence.

Accordingly, I see that as genuinely victimless.  By definition, anything hosted is something that is not being commercially exploited in any way and is a thing that the rights holders do not care enough about to object to its being present.

With rpgs, I think similar guidelines can apply, plus you get stuff like the Fantasy Trip where a guy who doesn't game holds the rights and refuses to allow anyone to reprint the game due to some feud with Steve Jackson.  I feel no particular compunction about protecting his rights, given he is only retaining them in order to prevent anyone playing the game.

These things aren't simple, if someone is commercially exploiting a property, or wishes to retain it on the basis they may commercially exploit it in future, clearly there is a victim.  If the game in question is not being commercially exploited and nobody has any intent of doing so at a later date I struggle to see who is being harmed.

Then there's motive, if someone downloads games but then pays for those they play, is that wrong?  If someone downloads copies of games they already own as backups is that wrong?  Motive matters.

Quote from: BalbinusSimilarly, 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.

As far as I can tell Dan has yet to review HEX. There are three reviews on rpg.net (none of them Dan's) and they had ~1700 views and we have one here that has about 500 views. Those are the only three I know of.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalFair enough, but there's also something to be said for the good will you generate from just giving away free stuff to curious people.  You don't just benefit from having Steve D like your games, you also benefit from being "that guy who once gave me a copy of his game for free" and even "that guy who gives away free copies of his stuff".

Yes, goodwill is a factor but it is also my outlook on business. Customer satisfaction is very important to me. Plenty of companies do just fine with a "You bought it" kind of approach. To me, it is important that fans (I hate using that word) are happy with their purchase. Better if they play the games but if all they do is read and get some entertainment, then that is good too.

I am not trying to say there is no business benefit or I am acting without a strategy but I also feel I am a part of the community. To be honest, I would probably be better off (from a business POV) to not be involved but (for the most part) I enjoy it. Few things in life are truly B&W.

Bill

Quote from: McrowAs far as I can tell Dan has yet to review HEX. There are three reviews on rpg.net (none of them Dan's) and they had ~1700 views and we have one here that has about 500 views. Those are the only three I know of.

He started a big thread in Open talking about how he played it at a con and how it was one of the greatest pulp games ever written, that then led to a lot of enthusiasm in Open about it which I think translated into sales.

Frankly, had I not read Dan's posts about it I wouldn't have bought it, I bought it pretty much on the strength of his recommendation.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you're not using the IP and clearly have no plans to do so then it strikes me as a victimless crime if someone else makes that IP available to others.  If you officially release it under a creative commons license then you're a great guy and people will probably want to buy your stuff because you're great... but if it's just some guy who walked past the bargain bin then it's no skin off my nose.  You're not losing any money and he's not making any from your work.

  If in 10 years time someone wanted to collect all of my old writings and distribute them online for free I wouldn't mind it.  In fact, I'd be flattered.  That goes from my reviews to my longer critical pieces to my articles to my academic theses.

  If someone was making money off of it then I'd be pissed but otherwise it wouldn't really bother me.

Well, setting aside the making money, I am still opposed to someone just firing off free copies.

That said, for me, all someone would have to do is ask me. If it was twenty years down the line, then I would be happy to let the reproduce my works. Heck, I would probably supply them with the pdf (assuming they are still using them. That said, if a person is too lazy to contact the author, form a coherent letter to request the use of the title, then I still feel they are bottom feeders.

As a side note, my books are available as HTML for free off our site. It makes business sense from a preview strategy and I do believe in making rules available to the most people possible.

Bill

The reviews here get 500 views?  I'm surprised, the format of the reviews section is horrible.

Davenport is the John Clute or the Roger Ebert of RPG reviews.  It's as simple as that.

Quote from: BalbinusHe started a big thread in Open talking about how he played it at a con and how it was one of the greatest pulp games ever written, that then led to a lot of enthusiasm in Open about it which I think translated into sales.

Discussions sell more than reviews, I hear.  Often.

Quote from: HinterWeltI am not trying to say there is no business benefit or I am acting without a strategy but I also feel I am a part of the community. To be honest, I would probably be better off (from a business POV) to not be involved but (for the most part) I enjoy it. Few things in life are truly B&W.

  I don't think that's even remotely true.  You'd lose visibility and name recognition.  You really can't buy that kind of thing and in a small business it's absolutely invaluable.

  You hanging out on RPG forums is like SF authors attending cons or indie film-makers attending film festivals.  It's niche marketing and one of the things it's selling is the idea that your games are created by a real person with real care and attention.

  It might not be entirely conscious on your part but the strategy works and is rational given your position.  If I was writing games then the right thing to do would be to steer clear of any game forums because who'd want to give money to a rude arrogant prick like me but you're doing fine.

  You're also a gamer so the draw towards these kinds of communities is the same one we all feel