TheRPGSite

Oh for fucks sake:

Quote from: JArcanePiracy is a popular term amongst RIAA types for the implications of it, but it's not at all the correct term for intellectual property violations.

Quote from: Sosthenes"Software piracy" seems to be the common term, but it's about as bad as calling computer criminals "hackers". A pirate is a maritime robber. He takes stuff from other people by force. With copyright infringement, (most of the time) force isn't a factor. Comparing someone who swaps CDROM's with the latest games to murderers of the seven seas is utterly ridiculous, a ruse used by some companies and agencies to spread FUD.

Quote from: dictionary.com2. the unauthorized reproduction or use of a copyrighted book, recording, television program, patented invention, trademarked product, etc

So "pircay" does not apply to RPGs?

:wtfsign:

People spend money to create games, and sell those games to recover the money and get paid for their time.

For someone that wants people to keep making games as releasing them electronically, refusing to respect that process is short-term, narrow-minded, tunnel-vision, moron-greedy, shit-headed infantile stupidity.

Semantics need not apply.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenPeople spend money to create games, and sell those games to recover the money and get paid for their time.

For someone that wants people to keep making games as releasing them electronically, refusing to respect that process is short-term, narrow-minded, tunnel-vision, moron-greedy, shit-headed infantile stupidity.

Semantics need not apply.

So basically you agree with me that piracy does apply to RPGs and is only something an asshat would do?

Quote from: McrowSo basically you agree with me that piracy does apply to RPGs and is only something an asshat would do?

I don't give a damn about the name.

It's something only an asshat would do.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI don't give a damn about the name.

It's something only an asshat would do.

gotcha....yeah, no matter what you call it, it sucks.

Names and terms do matter. Each word, unless truly ancient and forgotten, awakens some associations. Calling someone a "pirate" might be romantical for some, but it also evokes images of pillaging, plunder and worse.

This is no case of independent language evolution, it's pure Orwellian. Po-Mo "everything's okay, cause there's no truth" crap won't get us far.

I'm a gamer, I'm all for pirates and ninjas. Until someone gets a shuriken in the eye...

Interestingly, you could take someone's game book, type the entire thing up as you saw it without copying a single actual word and sell it, or give it away completely legally.

Then there is the topic of just how long IP remains 'copyrightable' and how long someone should be able to profit from it. No single solution is viable or fair.  In theory, if the copyright expired with the death of the creator, the creator's heirs are robbed of his hard work, presumably on their behalf. For a particularly valuable property, you create the real probability that someone will get murdered to 'free it up'.

The idea that 'information wants to be free' is an interesting meme, though of course without semantic ground to stand on. Information doesn't want anything.  No one creates in a vacuum, and the wider variety of sources you have to draw upon, the richer the resultant work CAN be... on the other hand, you have an inherent right to profit from your own labors.

The Music industry is particularly troublesome, as the people making the money in general are not the artists, who are typically paid peanuts for their actual work (thus the touring...) and quite often don't actually own the rights to their own work. Thus, in theory, the pirates are stealing from robber barons, rather than the artists themselves.


Of course, in RPG terms, this isn't the case. With very few exceptions the actual people doing the work are the originators of the idea, or contract laborers, so the piracy is directly from the mouths of the artists themselves.

Of course, the impact of piracy on actual income is poorly understood. If joe gets a free online copy of BW from fred, and never buys a real copy, in theory Joe and Fred took money from Luke, who created BW. If Joe would not have bought the game anyway, then there was no real loss, only percieved loss.  Of course, the possiblity that Joe will like the game and go out and actually BUY a copy means that their act of piracy actually PUT money in Luke's pocket.  Never mind the intangibles like increased product visibility, celebrity and immortality via influence.

This is the sort of thing Ethesists make their money talking about. Lawyers build careers on defining IP law to the benefit of clients.

Knee jerk dismissal of piracy as inherently bad? Understandable and possibly accurate.  Developing a real disdain for anyone who even jokingly refers to commiting piracy? Overdeveloped, irrational hatred.

The word "software piracy" or "music piracy" is fine by me, as a colloquialism for "IP infringement", and I also generally support the idea of IP protection. (The exceptions aren't really worth going into.) But the use of the word "theft" is annoying, particularly when you've read speeches from business executives comparing copying a song to theft of tangible goods. The harm in the former case is entirely speculative, depending on how much the copier would have paid for the song if copying wasn't an option. Often the answer is zero.

On top of that, IP in theory is a contract between society and creators, with an understanding that the fruits of creation will be given to society after a period of monopoly ownership by the creator. The more that IP is viewed as "real property", the more the balance tips toward rights holders in a manner which I think is unfair. Essentially our entire culture risks becoming corporatized.

Quote from: SpikeOverdeveloped, irrational hatred.

Could be.

I've never claimed to be rational about everything.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenCould be.

I've never claimed to be rational about everything.

Ah... well it's all good then. :D

Quote from: SpikeInterestingly, you could take someone's game book, type the entire thing up as you saw it without copying a single actual word and sell it, or give it away completely legally.

Not if the game is patented, but few creators go to the trouble even if they have made something that's patentable.

Quote from: SpikeAh... well it's all good then. :D

Let me put this in really selfish terms.

The act damages the relationship, in an already bitterly screwy subculture, between the people that make the games we play, and the people who play them, in a broad and poisonous way.

That is, it damages my relationship with the people that make my games.

Why should I ever react with anything but outright contempt for that?

Give me one reason.

There are people that dislike terms like piracy and hackers. 10 or 15 years ago they may have had a point, but the language has moved on.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenLet me put this in really selfish terms.

The act damages the relationship, in an already bitterly screwy subculture, between the people that make the games we play, and the people who play them, in a broad and poisonous way.

That is, it damages my relationship with the people that make my games.

Why should I ever react with anything but outright contempt for that?

Give me one reason.

It damages them how?  In the extremely short sighted term you could say you lost a sale to Joe if Joe never buys your book.  You lost money, and in your case you lost trust for Fred, who you probably didn't know anyway. I don't know about you, but I have a hard time trusting absolute strangers.

In your personal case, I understood you made games for free. You don't lose anything. Maybe I missed when you crossed into profit making, but there ya have it.

Now, on the other side, less personal, you have various creators that are HAPPY with small scale privacy because it gets their name out there, it gets them 'exposure'. I've seen, and I wish I had a quote or link handy, at least one small press game publisher more or less condone piracy, because they weren't getting those sales anyway, and it is more or less free advertising.

I KNOW I've seen publishers give away free PDF's of their entire game, hoping someone will actually buy it. For that I can direct you to comments in the Panty Explosion review.  How does that relate to piracy other than the explicit choice of the creator? Both result in free dissemination of the game at no monetary profit to the creator.

Lack of choice in the matter might suck, certainly. In fact, I'll even just say lack of choice sucks. On the other hand your reaction was so visceral as to make me think you were overreacting all out of proportion to events as they unfolded.  Did an act of piracy ruin your life? The life of someone you love?  Did you have a relative who made a bootleg of a movie and spent the rest of his life in jail?

Quote from: SpikeIt damages them how?

It damages trust.

In any creative endeavor, a basic, fundamental level of trust is essential.

Liking one another is not essential.  Basic trust is.

I view the entire online tabletop RPG community - the whole thing, and all it's parts - as one enormous creative endeavour.

Yes, I'll be selling a game in future, very small-scale.  If I get 500 sales, I'll be content.  I have also had my games dowloaded thousands of times.  I have written articles, I have a board dedicated to looking at the fundamentals of play and working on them.  I can't count the hours.

And this approach has worked, for me.  It has paid me back, in respect, in trust returned.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt damages trust.

In any creative endeavor, a basic, fundamental level of trust is essential.

Liking one another is not essential.  Basic trust is.

I view the entire online tabletop RPG community - the whole thing, and all it's parts - as one enormous creative endeavour.

Yes, I'll be selling a game in future, very small-scale.  If I get 500 sales, I'll be content.  I have also had my games dowloaded thousands of times.  I have written articles, I have a board dedicated to looking at the fundamentals of play and working on them.  I can't count the hours.

And this approach has worked, for me.  It has paid me back, in respect, in trust returned.

Frankly, I find that all a bit strange.  Trust between people involved in the actual endeavor, creative and business? Certainly there should be, though the horror stories are enough to drive one to the 'comforting' arms of lawyers anyway.

Trust between the creator and the populace at large?

Don't buy it.  Certainly a bit between artists and fans, but only tangentally to our actual conversation.  

Trust between everyone you've ever talked to about gaming? Don't buy it. Yet that is what you are selling to me. Further, we're talking specifically a financial trust, though you may be implying a more universal trust.

Frankly, Levi, for as much as you are a nice guy, I don't buy you as a saint.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI view the entire online tabletop RPG community - the whole thing, and all it's parts - as one enormous creative endeavour.

  I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense to me.

  How am I part of the same "creative endeavour" as you if we never game together or share ideas?  How is my not trusting you not to rape me while I'm tying my shoes hurting gaming?  I really have no idea what you're saying.

What on earth does this have to do with anything saintly?

I don't have to look out my peephole in the morning into the hallway of my building to check for muggers.

That's basic, fundamental trust.

So what... you're saying that because some guys don't pay for games you're affraid of being mugged in your hallway?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSo what... you're saying that because some guys don't pay for games you're affraid of being mugged in your hallway?

I'm saying that game companies, and game writers, in this industry, should be able to do things like hold a playtest without a legalese NDA.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm saying that game companies, and game writers, in this industry, should be able to do things like hold a playtest without a legalese NDA.

An NDA has fuck all to do with piracy, and everything to do with trying to keep secret what the game is actually like before it's release. You could successfully argue that it does have to do with issues of trust.

On the other had, maybe that trust has to do with lack of trust in the quality of the game.

Seriously... NDA's in the RPG industry make about as much sense as pinstriped referees in a game of street hockey.

NDA's are about geeks playing at being business men... it's nothing to do with piracy.

Quote from: SpikeSeriously... NDA's in the RPG industry make about as much sense as pinstriped referees in a game of street hockey.

We are, basically, a cottage industry.

A cottage industry that nobody else gives a shit about, except as a cheap laugh once in a rare while.

We are incredibly well networked - dealing with at least one small personal network is a requirement for entry into the hobby.

We are unbelievably dedicated to our hobby.  We love it.

The people that provide the one service we need most - creation of new games - are almost completely undifferentiated from us.

Most of our game companies and game producers make puny amounts of money.  We know this.  They talk to us all the time.

I honestly don't comprehend how, given that situation, any of us would want to do a single damn thing to screw with those relationships.

And before you go on about "what relationships?"...

I have, in my hard drive right now, over thirty games that were given to me as PDFs from people in gaming.  Not one of them has met me face-to-face.  Most of them haven't exchanged more than a few hundred words with me.  I have written not one review.  This doesn't count the ones I won as prizes in the Indie Game contest.

Those relationships.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe people that provide the one service we need most - creation of new games - are almost completely undifferentiated from us.

Most of our game companies and game producers make puny amounts of money.  We know this.  They talk to us all the time.

I honestly don't comprehend how, given that situation, any of us would want to do a single damn thing to screw with those relationships.

  Well bully for you but I, and in fact I'm willing to bet the VAST majority of gamers have never received a fucking thing for free from a game developer.  I've spent hundreds and hundreds of pounds on games I've never played, I've spend a lot of money on games that didn't do what they said on the tin, I've been insulted by a number of game designers... but I've never got anything for free and nor have most people.

  So forgive me if I'm not all morally outraged about people doing things that might stop you from getting free stuff.

I swear, I must live in a basically alternate universe.

I put stuff in to the online community; stuff comes back out.  I never know where it might come from, or what it'll be.  It's just people being good to each other by turns.

No, you've just managed to gravitate into some circle above that of your common gamer that means that you get loads of complimentary copies of things.

I know some people do get free stuff but I really think you guys are in the vast, VAST minority.  This is a hobby that has only just gotten over the idea of charging people for fucking character sheets.

So if you live in a world where you express an interest in a game and some designer gives you a complimentary copy then yes... you DO live in an alternate universe to the one I inhabit.

I get free DVDs, free books, free CDs, invitations to press screenings of films and I once had a minor character in a sitcom named after me but I've never gotten a thing I didn't pay for from any game designer.

Admittedly I might be the one who has been left out in the cold on this one because I become a complete prick whenever I post on gaming forums but I really don't think that most gamers get loads of free stuff.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalNo, you've just managed to gravitate into some circle above that of your common gamer that means that you get loads of complimentary copies of things.

See, if that's the case (and I suppose that it's possible), then I don't know how I did it.

But from where I sit, it looks like simply putting in effort to make things gamers might like, and giving them out, means gamers give stuff back.  

It really does.

Oh yes... you write games too don't you?

When you make stuff and give it out then it's natural that you get stuff back.  Gamers are by and large quite happy to share stuff (in fact, that's why people engage in piracy I'd argue).

You're in that special universe because you make stuff.

If you're giving free stuff to people and they stop giving it back then they're pricks.  You're not a pirate and they should know not to treat you as such.

But most people don't have those kinds of relationships with game writers.  

Most people give them money and get product in return and there endeth the relationship.

Just give peace a chance, man.

(http://evilqueen.demesnes.net/images/john_yoko.png)

Spike - you know I love you man - but I think you and I will disagree on this one.  To be honest, I'm not quite sure. Let's see.

It's theft, plain and simple.  I don't care if Joe would have bought the book or not.  It doesn't matter if Joe takes the pdf and never looks at it. None of that matters.

If I took a bottle of coke from a store without paying, I've stolen it.  Even if I intend to pay for it once I taste it to make sure I'll like it.  Even if I never intend to open it, but bury it in my back yard.  I'm a shoplifter.

Now you can try to hide behind all of the little intricacies of intellectual property versus actual property - oh look, I didn't actually steal a physical CD, so nobody is really out anything. But those stances are..well..let's just say I don't think they hold much water.

The fact is we have a concept, copyright.  The laws that implement it may be crappy (I think fair use is really the big sticking point, for me anyway) and may seem unfair, but they are the law.

And somebody talked about giving copies away and so forth.  The fact is, that decision is in the hands of the copyright owner, or his/her legal delegates.  It's the individual creator's choice (or to whomever that legal right has been assigned) – nobody else's.

I'm sorry if I seem harsh on this.  I've argued about it for years with my older brother and so it hits a raw nerve.

Lots of things to address in this thread.

First, I have lots of free stuff on my site. So, if you do not get a special invitation to that free stuff then you need to look harder. Plenty of other companies do likewise.

As for piracy (yes, I will use that term), it is wrong. Plain and simple. If you are a starving man and steal bread to feed your family, you are still stealing. It is still wrong. If you are a gamer and download an illegal copy you are stealing. I will not get into a semantics debate, call it what you like, it is wrong. The copy does not belong to you, you did not purchase it. For me, as a writer, it is a violation of a personal and deep nature. IT is saying you do not respect me and my property enough to pay for a copy.

Piracy is wrong and if you want to rationalize it, that is fine, but it is still wrong.

Bill

Its not exactly that we disagree James.  I tend to play the devils advocate. Whenever I see an overwhelming consensus on an issue, any issue, I tend to start asking occasionally painful questions, both of my own beliefs and the beliefs of others.

Taking someone's stuff is theft, certainly. Taking someone's ideas... that's human nature. It's how we grow collectively.

Intellectual property is ideas. Books written are stuff.  See where the rift occurs? I certainly do.

There is a reason law recognises a significant difference between IP violations and theft. Conversations aren't so strict. We can call it theft and make our point, our stance even, perfectly clear.  

The victim of piracy doesn't lose anything. He loses potential. He loses exclusivity, but he still has what he did, he can still sell his product, he can still make money from it.   It is possible, and even accepted, that he might actually GAIN something from it.  

But you see, Levi isn't talking about lost dollars. He is talking about trust, which is where most of us lose track of his line of thought.  More, he's talking about an Ideology of sorts. If I make a joke to Johnny on the street about selling my soul to the devil, I might get a laugh.  If I make the same joke in Peter's Basilica I'll get a reaction very similar to Levi's in the thread that started all this.   Someone just stepped on his Fundamentals.

And all things being equal, that disturbs me.  Far more than the debate about the rightness or wrongness of IP, of piracy, or even the appropriateness of a joke about piracy in a forum populated by small press publishers.  It is the closing of the mind on a topic, and the acceptance of the same.




Or I could just be a doomsayer braying on the streets. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalNDA's are about geeks playing at being business men... it's nothing to do with piracy.

Ah yes, the Great Imaginary Hordes of Corporate Ninjas.

RPGPundit

Quote from: James J SkachSpike - you know I love you man - but I think you and I will disagree on this one.  To be honest, I'm not quite sure. Let's see.

It's theft, plain and simple.  I don't care if Joe would have bought the book or not.  It doesn't matter if Joe takes the pdf and never looks at it. None of that matters.

If I took a bottle of coke from a store without paying, I've stolen it.  Even if I intend to pay for it once I taste it to make sure I'll like it.  Even if I never intend to open it, but bury it in my back yard.  I'm a shoplifter.

And if you left the Coke in the store but used a magical Replicator machine to create a copy, and drank that copy?

Because that's more what we're talking about here...

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd if you left the Coke in the store but used a magical Replicator machine to create a copy, and drank that copy?

Because that's more what we're talking about here...

RPGPundit

Ah, yes, the impact of Star Trek technology on civilization...

Don't make me bring out the 'no money' stick and start flailing it about like a spastic fat kid with a toy lightsaber!

Quote from: James J SkachThe fact is we have a concept, copyright.  The laws that implement it may be crappy (I think fair use is really the big sticking point, for me anyway) and may seem unfair, but they are the law.

And somebody talked about giving copies away and so forth.  The fact is, that decision is in the hands of the copyright owner, or his/her legal delegates.  It's the individual creator's choice (or to whomever that legal right has been assigned) – nobody else's.

Maybe that's enough for you Lawful Neutral types, but the way I'm wired my thought process goes like this:

1. Do I feel guilty about this?
2. What are the likely consequences?

For me, the answers are "no" and "nothing at all."

My take:

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks or feels. File sharing is a permanent fact of life.

Vent your bile, feel nice and self-righteous for a sec, and then get over it.

If you're in the biz, vent your bile, feel nice and self-righteous for a sec, get over it, and then figure out how to get the free advertising factor working for you.

Anything else is academic. Angels on pinheads. Shameless dudes stroking their morality boners in public to no avail.

The real world need not respect your mores. Concentrate on living with what is.

Quote from: YamoMy take:

It doesn't matter what anybody thinks or feels. File sharing is a permanent fact of life.

Vent your bile, feel nice and self-righteous for a sec, and then get over it.

If you're in the biz, vent your bile, feel nice and self-righteous for a sec, get over it, and then figure out how to get the free advertising factor working for you.

Anything else is academic. Angels on pinheads. Shameless dudes stroking their morality boners in public to no avail.

The real world need not respect your mores. Concentrate on living with what is.

Let me stress that I accept piracy is here. Let me also point out that child molestation is in the world, will be forever and has been since the dawn of time. Does a thing existing in a permanent way mean I must accept it? Never. I am sorry if this equate to moral navel gazing for some but I find it offensive much the way robbing a man of his dignity is offensive. Will it mean the end of the world? No, but one should have morals and espouse them whenever possible. Piracy is a personal violation and should be treated as such.

That said, the business man in me is not overly concerned about it. Yes, that may seem hypocritical of me but create something of your own, then have it stolen from you. It will give you perspective.

Bill

I'm a little disappointed in myself for not addressing this earlier, and quite a bit dissappointed in allayouse for not beating me to the point.


In the original post that started all of this, and in most of our discussions we've talked about someone giving away files.

Giving away. A very important distinction.

Of course, the haters don't want to bring the guys selling the game into the equation because by contrast the give away guys look pretty fucking clean. Everyone can agree selling copies of someone's book is bad piracy.

Giving someone a copy of a file? Not so clear. I mean, what if I give my buddy my physical book for a few days, knowing he's just gonna scan it in and keep a copy?

See, some people think it's sharing. Sharing is good, its personal. Some people think its theft. Mostly people hoping to make a sale out of it. But what if I knew my buddy there never bought books? Maybe he doesn't have the money for them (ignore the value of the computer for the moment here...) or maybe he doesn't have shelfspace in his house. He borrows books indefinitly to play games... having him scan it relieves the burden on me to fight with him to get my shit back.

Oh, but files are different.

How?  If anything, Files cost the producer LESS, essentially nothing.  

When you lump in ordinary sharing behavior with money grubbing piracy you get 14 year old girls sued by RCA records for listening to a bootleg Eminem song she got from her best girl friend.

Claims that the industry, that is gaming, is a much smaller marketplace with less room for that shit is not really addressing it at all. Unless you think gamers are inherently special people with special rules, that is.

Yamo has it right when he says it's a fact of life, deal with it.   How you deal with it may vary, but simply crying foul over every mention of it is rather pointless.

Semantic debates, however, are fun... those guys can carry on at will. ;)

Quote from: HinterWeltLet me also point out that child molestation is in the world...

I stopped reading right here.

You could not have stumbled worse if you'd brought Nazis into it.

Bad. Taste.

Quote from: SpikeYamo has it right when he says it's a fact of life, deal with it.   How you deal with it may vary, but simply crying foul over every mention of it is rather pointless.

I disagree. Pointing out the immorality of the action raises awareness and fosters discussion. I believe this is good. I may not convince anyone but I will not be silent and just take it. This I do based on my own moral standards.

As a business man, it just is not practical for me to sue every person who steals my work. In this sense, I live with it. Does it keep me up at night? No. When people start mouthing off about "victimless crime" and how it is pointless to say anything, hell yes I will say something. Even if I just get you to laugh about what I have said next time you download an illegal game then I have started the process of you thinking about what you are doing. It may never take root but it is my hope that if I can get the ball rolling you will at least consider what you do.

Now, I am not an absolutist by a long shot. If your buddy wants to look over a n e-book, fine. Let him have it for a couple of days and just like one of you print books ask for it back. He can just delete it, easy and all. You want to sell it to him, delete it off your drive. I know this is a lot of trust (oh, I used THAT word) but it is a risk I am willing to take.

In the end, I think most publishers (beyond making a profit and making fun games), just want gamers to respect the money, effort and time that has gone into these games (some more than others).

Bill

Quote from: YamoI stopped reading right here.

You could not have stumbled worse if you'd brought Nazis into it.

Bad. Taste.

But it got your attention. Now maybe you have an idea of how I feel when you say "Deal with it".

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltBut it got your attention.

No, it ended my attention and precluded my respect.

Bill;

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

Quote from: HinterWeltBut it got your attention. Now maybe you have an idea of how I feel when you say "Deal with it".

Bill

If you genuinely feel that was a good and well-reasoned comparison, on par with the scale of the discussion, you should stop talking before your thoughts harm the rest of us. More later as I consider the actual intelligent thoughts going on here.

Piracy is,

• Lame to do
• Lame to worry about.

Piracy has little or no effect on sales, because people pirate for four reasons,

• They are poor; stop piracy, and poor people will still have no money to buy the things legitimately
• They are stingy; stop piracy, and stingy people will still be stingy, and not buy the things legitimately
• They are collectors. They don't really want to use the thing, just to have it. Stop piracy, and these people will simply find something else to collect.
  
• They are curious about the product, but too lazy or stingy to buy it to try it out. Stop piracy, and like the stingy and collectors above, these people simply won't buy the product.

So pirates are poor, stingy, collectors or simply curious. They're lame-arsed. Most pirates of rpg material fall into the stingy and collector categories. While downloading d20 101 Magical Doorknobs, they're also downloading Anal Nuns #8. Which are they going to look at first? They'll look at the pr0n, have a wank, then forget they ever downloaded d20 101 Magical Doorknobs.

When people get rpgs for free, whether legitimately or not, they don't read or use them.

• 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.
  
• Or consider the free rpg Fate - much discussed, rarely played. Any time you discuss it online, someone will say, "oh yeah, I have a copy of that, I should look at it."
• I had an article on the Milleniums End website, it had over 2,000 downloads and not one email or comment. I took it down, tidied it up, expanded it, and put it on RPGNow.com for five bucks. It had over 100 downloads, a few comments, and over a dozen emails, as well as several passing mentions in forums.
  
• I had an acquaintance who had a copy in pdf of every D&D3.5 book published. He claimed he pirated only because he couldn't afford the books. He told me this after putting $50 on his mobile, spending $30 on lunch, $30 in the bar, and $20 on an arcade machine. He also didn't GM or pay D&D3.5, and had no plans to do so. Nor had he read most of the books he'd downloaded.

People value what they pay for, and don't value, and forget about, stuff they didn't pay for.

Since piracy is harmless, worrying about it is lame. Most certainly, comparing it to child molestation is lame.

Violating 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.

Undoubtedly copying and distributing works without permission is both illegal and immoral. But it's essentially harmless, and while pirates are lame-arsed dweebs, worrying about them is even more lame.

It is, also, unpreventable, and it is futile and a waste of energy to spend time worrying about things we cannot control. Rather than fiercely failing to protect the stuff we've produced, we're better off trying to produce new good stuff. If we want to make money from our creative endeavours, an hour sent creating something new will make us more cash than an hour spent trying to prevent piracy.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen people get rpgs for free, whether legitimately or not, they don't read or use them.

I read stuff people give me.  Slowly, but I do.

I agree that I do use very little of it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI read stuff people give me.  Slowly, but I do.

And your promised review of one particular thing you got was only, on prompting, a single sentence. A witty and amusing one, but a single sentence nonetheless.

Which is why guys like Dan Davenport get shitloads of review copies, and other would-be reviewers get none.

Had you paid even eight bucks for that, I strongly suspect it'd have got more reaction. :p

But anyway, it demonstrates my point - people don't value what they pay nothing for. Which is why I'm thinking of charging for GMing, but that's another story.

Quote from: JimBobOzAnd your promised review of one particular thing you got was only, on prompting, a single sentence. A witty and amusing one, but a single sentence nonetheless.

Yeah.  That's the one and only review I ever promised - And I failed to deliver.  I still feel kinda crappy about that.

Quote from: JimBobOzHad you paid even eight bucks for that, I strongly suspect it'd have got more reaction. :p

I'm not denying it.

There's also the fact that people like the late Jim Baen thought that making novels available for free as PDFs actually helped him sell dead-tree versions.  In fact, he's considered to be the first profitable eBook salesman and has never used any DRM either.  Cory Doctorow and Charles Stross have also toyed with this publishing model without their sales completely going south.

I think if you're using a game you downloaded and don't send some money the publisher's way then you're a bit of a twat but I think that's as far as I'd go in condemning piracy.

Purely out of interest JimBob, what article did you sell for $5 a time?

Quote from: SpikeTrust between the creator and the populace at large?

Don't buy it.  Certainly a bit between artists and fans, but only tangentally to our actual conversation.

There's an essay that Will Eisner wrote, I think it's in "Comics and Sequential Art" about the trust that an artist has to have with the society in which he or she lives and vice versa, but I don't think that's what's been talked about here.

Other than that, I agree with JimBobOz

I still don't know what Levi's point was... at the moment it's looking like "stop pirating games or all my free stuff will dry up" but surely that can't be what he was trying to say.

I think Levi feels too strongly on this issue to be able to post as clearly as he normally does, but basically I think he sees piracy as a violation of a social contract between members of the gaming community.

I may be misunderstanding though.

For me, it's fairly simple, if you use something you pirated and don't give the author some money you're a bit of a twat.

Of course, if the author has long since stopped getting any money from actual purchases it all gets a bit abstract.

Quote from: BalbinusI think Levi feels too strongly on this issue to be able to post as clearly as he normally does, but basically I think he sees piracy as a violation of a social contract between members of the gaming community.

As summaries go, that's pretty good.

What social contract though?  the only relationship he's pointed to has been the one between himself and the games industry, and that makes it look like he's engaged in special pleading.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWhat social contract though?  the only relationship he's pointed to has been the one between himself and the games industry, and that makes it look like he's engaged in special pleading.

Encouraged by my interpretative success so far, I'll have a further go.

I think he sees us all as belonging to a community, a community of gamers.  That community is formed up of people who play, people who design, people who design and play, people who design and read, people who just read, a vast church of various interests but overall a community.

I think he also sees us as members of that community as having responsibilities toward each other, if nothing more than the responsibility not to be fucktards.

And, I think he sees piracy as a form of fucktardery, and as such a violation of the compact binding our community.

Now, to be clear, I don't particularly agree.  I don't think this community really exists and I feel no particular loyalty to it if it does, but I think that's where he's coming from.

I don't think it's a special pleading thing, though I think he may be unaware of his position not being a commonplace one but being rather rarified by virtue of his particular online presence.  I think it's rather he sees it as shitting on the community one is part of, and as such innately fuckwadtastic.

The FSF on "Piracy" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Piracy)

I don't particularly agree with the last sentence, but generally they're right. Copying data should not be equaled with murdering and kidnapping.

I know that hyperbole is the common form of expression on this forum, but not everyone doing something wrong is a "pirate" or "fascist".

That's what I thought he was saying but it's so completely alien to my perception of the world of roleplaying that I find it hard to believe that he was really saying this.

I've actually started to doubt myself... does everyone else get stuff for free that they would otherwise have to pay for?  am I the only person who actually paid for the games he owns?

It reminds me of that sketch Lucas and Walliams did about Elton John where he thinks that milk costs £4-500 a pint.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThat's what I thought he was saying but it's so completely alien to my perception of the world of roleplaying that I find it hard to believe that he was really saying this.

I've actually started to doubt myself... does everyone else get stuff for free that they would otherwise have to pay for?  am I the only person who actually paid for the games he owns?

Online several of the more prominent posters get freebie stuff, because they are opinion formers and as such it is worthwhile for companies to give them free goodies in the hope they will post about it.

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

I don't think getting stuff free is central to Levi's point though, I think he would say the same if he paid for every game he has.  The social contract is by virtue of participating in the hobby, well, that's my guess.  I'm summarising views I don't particularly agree with in the absence of the guy I am summarising them for and that's a slightly treacherous road, for all I know I'm utterly misrepresenting him.

Anyway, to me piracy is an issue because generally we're talking small companies and you're taking money directly from the guy making the game you're having fun with.  Where that's not an issue (and quite often it isn't) I care a hell of a lot less.

Playing a bootleg copy of My Life with Master means you've ripped off Paul Czege, who is one guy who will notice the sales.  Playing a bootleg copy of second edition Boot Hill, well really who gives a fuck?

Quote from: LeviYeah. That's the one and only review I ever promised - And I failed to deliver. I still feel kinda crappy about that.

Don't feel crappy. Write it, or forget it. To paraphrase Yoda, "do, or no do - there is no whine."

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalPurely out of interest JimBob, what article did you sell for $5 a time?

"Conflict, and a Person's Place In It," which you can find in the Better Mousetrap Games link in my sig.

Quote from: BalbinusOf course, if the author has long since stopped getting any money from actual purchases it all gets a bit abstract.

Not really. It's still the authour's. I don't get any money from my underwear drawer, doesn't mean I want anyone just rummaging through it. It's mine.

Though, you know, 75 years after my death is probably longer than I care about my underwear staying private ;)

Quote from: BalbinusPlaying a bootleg copy of My Life with Master means you've ripped off Paul Czege, who is one guy who will notice the sales. Playing a bootleg copy of second edition Boot Hill, well really who gives a fuck?

I don't give a fuck about either of them. I won't download the things myself, but if a member of my game group shows up with their copy all eager to GM, I'm not about to throw the guy out of my home. I view piracy the same way I view smoking wacky tabbacky - it's stupid, and lame, and I won't do it, but I don't really give a fuck if someone else does it. At least pirated stuff doesn't smell bad.

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.

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 :)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenDiscussions sell more than reviews, I hear.  Often.

  Depends on the discussion, depends on who does the review.

JimBob, I'm convinced you don't like me.  We always seem to be working so hard not to agree with each other.

But I take your point, to a point.  I apologize if I use shorthand.  It's strange because off the Internet, I'm a stickler for accuracy.  I don't know why I'm so much sloppier here.

But I do have a couple of nits to pick.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou'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.

True.  The ideas in my head, right now, are not protected.  Once expressed, it is protected.  It's not just the particular expression.  For example, if I write a song, it doesn't matter if someone comes along later and rearranges it. It's still my song.  The arrangement is theirs, even the performance if it's recorded.  But the song is still mine. (Though I am honestly clueless as to how parodies work with respect to copyright). I think we agree; we're just crossing signals on the "particular expression" definition.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt'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 a neat assertion, I beg to differ with you. Stay with me, this takes a little work (which is why I use the shorthand):

Quote from: American Heritage Dictionary

theft – the act or instance of stealing.

• steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
• intellectual property - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

So I get: Intellectual Property Theft = The act or instance of taking a product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes, of another without right or permission.

Now I understand that in a policeman is not necessarily going to show up at my door if I'm file sharing – other than to serve a notice. Copyright Violation is primarily a civil matter – though even that is changing. But I don't think you can assert that copyright violation is not theft with respect to morals, ethics, or logic – perhaps law at his point in time. And certainly using it for shorthand hold up with respect to the definitions involved.

EDIT: Correction, at least here in the US - Defendant Sentenced for First Criminal Copyright Conviction Under the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act for Unlawful Distribution of Software on the Internet (http://www.cybercrime.gov/levy2rls.htm). Or try US Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 113 Section 2139 – Criminal Infringement of Copyright (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002319----000-.html). Chapter 113 is Stolen Property.  So the penalty for criminal infringement of copyright is handled under stolen property. Is it so wrong to conclude that copyright violation is theft?

Quote from: JimBobOzIf 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.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhereas 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.[/LIST]

Agreed.  So I'll cop to being wrong on 1, we agree on 2, and you cop to being wrong on 3.  Deal?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe reviews here get 500 views?  I'm surprised, the format of the reviews section is horrible.

Some do. 500 is a lot for a non-d20 books, infact that is the most views of any non-20 book here. Second would be hardnova with 364 views. I'd say the averge number of views for a non-d20 books is 100-150. Some of the d20 books are close 800 views, with the average being book getting about 200-250 views.

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.

I have to go with Hinter. Why is it so hard to leave it up to the copyright holder?  I mean, if he refuses, then you can drag his name through the mud and call him a slimy moneygrubber.  But nobody will care much as everyone thought the property so worthless that the copyright holder let in languish.  IMHO if someone is willing to pay for it, the property would not be abandoned.

I understand the allure of ignoring copyright.  But if no copyright rules existed, then someone who did want to protect ownership would be screwed.  This way, people who want to ignore copyright can do so.  No one forces anyone to copyright anything. At any time an author can just publish his works without copyright and everyone can partake at will.  However, with copyright laws, those who want to enforce ownership over a work can do so as well.  This way at least gives the author the chance to decide.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to go with Hinter. Why is it so hard to leave it up to the copyright holder?

  Because once you create something and put it out there there's a sense in which it no longer belongs to you.  The fact that we can now reproduce art infinitely at no added cost just makes that idea much more substantial and real.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBecause once you create something and put it out there there's a sense in which it no longer belongs to you.  The fact that we can now reproduce art infinitely at no added cost just makes that idea much more substantial and real.

And this the pervasive perception I think needs to be altered. If I leave my garage door open, does my car not belong to me any more?  I mean, it's parked here in the lot at work right now, should I be worried?

Quote from: James J SkachAnd this the pervasive perception I think needs to be altered. If I leave my garage door open, does my car not belong to me any more?  I mean, it's parked here in the lot at work right now, should I be worried?

  Again, you're missing the point.  If someone walked into your garage, copied your car and then drove off, would you really be all that bothered?  The whole point of the argument over digital piracy is the idea that the technology makes traditional property law intellectually unsound.

  Sitting there endlessly repeating the contention that digital piracy is the same as having your car stolen suggests that not only are you unwilling to engage with the argument, but also that you fail to understand it.

The cabinet, and now the car.

If someone came into your garage and took the cabinet and left fifety bucks... that is one thing

If he came into the garage, copied the Cabnet with some sort of cabnet copier and left both the original cabinet AND the 50 bucks? You'd fucking cheer. You just made 50 bucks above and beyond whatever you get for selling the cabinet.

If some guy copied your damn car and drove off in the copy... you would neither know nor care.


But god damn, if it's a product of the intellect you suddenly get huffy and self righteous.

Me? I don't do piracy, I don't do fileshares. Every once in a great while I bum a CD from a buddy and rip the songs off it. If I like 'em enough I'll buy a copy for myself.  Until a few years ago this wasn't even an issue. Borrowing an album to make a tape of it was viewed as fair use if you weren't doing it for profit, not to dissimilar from inviting half the neighborhood to your house to watch Starwars on your VHS... as long as you didn't charge.

At the rate you guys are arguing about it, eventually using speakers to listen to music will be viewed as IP violations, cause all those rat bastards listening to YOUR copy are in violation of the copyright.

I exaggerate, naturally.  But I'm glad the debate is up and running.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSitting there endlessly repeating the contention that digital piracy is the same as having your car stolen suggests that not only are you unwilling to engage with the argument, but also that you fail to understand it.

You bet i'd be pissed! Someone just WALKED INTO MY FREAKING GARAGE! I'd whack 'em over the head with my walker.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceYou bet i'd be pissed! Someone just WALKED INTO MY FREAKING GARAGE! I'd whack 'em over the head with my walker.

-clash

Ah... but now we're talking about piracy as tresspassing, not piracy as theft...


:D

If we're gonna play the dumb example game, let's play it all the way to the bone.

There was once a monastery which had a unique choral piece of music for which they were famed.  The music had been commisioned, and had cost a lot of money.  The score for this piece was kept under lock and key, and it was performed only once a year.  A significant portion of the income of the monastery came from the performance of the piece - their performers were nothing special, just the music was.  A composer (I think it was Bach) went.  Listened to the performance once, and wrote out the score from memory.  The monastery was closed six years later.

But, y'know, no harm was done.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf we're gonna play the dumb example game, let's play it all the way to the bone.

There was once a monastery which had a unique choral piece of music for which they were famed.  The music had been commisioned, and had cost a lot of money.  The score for this piece was kept under lock and key, and it was performed only once a year.  A significant portion of the income of the monastery came from the performance of the piece - their performers were nothing special, just the music was.  A composer (I think it was Bach) went.  Listened to the performance once, and wrote out the score from memory.  The monastery was closed six years later.

But, y'know, no harm was done.

Of course, what if the monastary had burned before Bach had visited? We talk of the great tragedy when a peice of art is lost to the world.  Was the monastery affected? Certainly.

Who does art belong to? The creator? The person it's sold to?  These are meritorious arguments, Levi, but taken as absolute truths, as you appear to do, would lead to a cold and dismal world that I for one would not enjoy living in.

Should the world be deprived of appreciation of the Mona Lisa because some rich guy claims exclusive rights to it, based on the money he paid to get it?

Quote from: SpikeWho does art belong to? The creator? The person it's sold to?  These are meritorious arguments, Levi, but taken as absolute truths, as you appear to do, would lead to a cold and dismal world that I for one would not enjoy living in.

Should the world be deprived of appreciation of the Mona Lisa because some rich guy claims exclusive rights to it, based on the money he paid to get it?

The creator of the Mona Lisa is dead.  Mr. Rich Guy can go fuck himself.

I care about the people and their creative efforts.  Just that.  I've said that quite a few times here.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe creator of the Mona Lisa is dead.  Mr. Rich Guy can go fuck himself.

I care about the people and their creative efforts.  Just that.  I've said that quite a few times here.

But in your example, Levi, the monastery could have theoretically lasted up to the modern day, long after the creator had died, and their livelihood would STILL be bound up in that one piece of art they had sole dominion over. If Freddy Mercury had gone there and done as Bach had done, and the monastery subsequently closed down, then you'd be hating him for the same act.

Trying to claim exclusive domain over an expression is futile. It only has value when shared with others. Once you've shared it with them, it gets harder and harder to enforce control.   I wonder how much of it is a 'right' to begin with.

Quote from: SpikeBut in your example, Levi, the monastery could have theoretically lasted up to the modern day, long after the creator had died, and their livelihood would STILL be bound up in that one piece of art they had sole dominion over. If Freddy Mercury had gone there and done as Bach had done, and the monastery subsequently closed down, then you'd be hating him for the same act.

Nah.  Freddy could have at it.

And I'm not calling it a 'right', note.  In my opinion, human beings have no natural rights of any kind.  We do have basic understandings that underly the way we deal with each other, and those change (one hopes) to accomodate the good of us all.

In cases of data copying outside RPGs, I have no idea what hurt it causes.  In terms of money, even inside RPGs, I don't pretend to understand it.  But in the case of RPGs whose creators still produce work, it fucks up that basic understanding - it screws up how they feel they should deal with us.

That's the part I see and understand.  And it is bad.

This is like that "Congratulations, you've just killed Beethoven" BS that anti-abortion campaigners come out with.

What monastery was this?  Since when do monasteries rely on music for their income?  Besides which, if a monastery closes, the monks go to other monasteries, they don't like wind up in the street drinking meths and doing choral for crack.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhich is why guys like Dan Davenport get shitloads of review copies, and other would-be reviewers get none.

My reviews of games are often anything glowing, brutally honest, and tend to include criticism of even games I express undying love for (and, on the other hand, I always TRY my hardest to find some redeeming qualities of games that I totally disliked).

In spite of this, or perhaps in part because of it, I get tons of free stuff, both PDF and print, to review.
I think that besides the readership I have, this is no doubt due to the fact that I've religiously followed through with my promise to review every single game I get, and the review is always full-sized.

At the moment, I have enough reviews pending that I can post one every week for the next several weeks. And there's more on the way.

The lesson? Publishers will give you a shitload of free stuff if you demonstrate that you will follow through on what you promise to do with said free stuff.

RPGPundit

Quite likely at that monastery, they did, since all they could do to make money was sing, and not because they were especially good singers, either.

The closest thing I can find in a quick search was that Mozart, as a young man, memorized a piece he'd heard in the Sistine Chapel, and which was effectively under the protection of an ad hoc copyright issued by the Pope. But I can't find anything about the choir of the Sistine Chapel breaking up or anything like that as a consequence. In fact the Pope of the time gave Mozart a medal for being such a rockin' genius.

Quote from: SpikeAh... but now we're talking about piracy as tresspassing, not piracy as theft...


:D

Bingo! I don't think of it as theft, I think of it as akin to tresspassing, or invading my privacy. It's wrong, it's personal, and it pisses me off! You kids get off the lawn! Go play somewhere else!

:D

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceBingo! I don't think of it as theft, I think of it as akin to tresspassing, or invading my privacy. It's wrong, it's personal, and it pisses me off! You kids get off the lawn! Go play somewhere else!

:D

-clash

Much my views and stated with less words. Together we would be deadly. ;)

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltMuch my views and stated with less words. Together we would be deadly. ;)

Bill

~I'm not sure if a 80's music listening over cafinated hippie can be to scary.;)

Quote from: Mcrow~I'm not sure if a 80's music listening over cafinated hippie can be to scary.;)

...Damn.

No, wait.  I'm only a hippie gamer, not an actual hippie.

Sweet.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...Damn.

No, wait.  I'm only a hippie gamer, not an actual hippie.

Sweet.

just so people don't think I'm being an ass:

I used to game with Bill before he moved to Chicago, so there is a little of an inside joke there. :D

Quote from: James J SkachHow 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.

Your snark washes straight off my back. Yep, they should be grateful. I could have  gone and downloaded their stuff, after all, and given them nothing.

Quote from: James J SkachLet'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?

Lets say there are copies of your cabinet lying around everywhere for the taking. Instead, I buy a copy you made and give you the money. That's my choice.

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.

Ideology always follows material reality.

Quote from: Mcrow~I'm not sure if a 80's music listening over cafinated hippie can be to scary.;)

I resent that...I am not over caffeinated...yet. ;)

Bill

I'm the one being accused of not understanding the argument and yet I've quoted US criminal code to illustrate how copyright infringement is seen as stolen property. I'm told I'm not using logic, when the definitions of the words theft, steal, and intellectual property, amazingly enough, equate copyright infringement with theft - imagine that. Somehow these lead me to be the one labeled ideological.

The fact that current law and my ethics about the situation happen to align is not coincidence.  There's a reason for copyright.  Believe it or not it's not just to let the monastery make money.  It was to promote the spread of ideas by codifying a way for the creator to be compensated. It was to promote the monastery performing the song more than once a year and not having to keep the song under lock and key and not having to worry about a genius reverse engineering their song. By protecting the copyright holder, it would allow the information to be distributed more effectively and more efficiently.

This is where I depart from Levi.  It's better to rely on the natural tendency of the creator to want to be compensated, then the charity and good feelings of the consumer. That's the point of copyright.

Because otherwise you end with the attitude that droog has - that it is his right to determine, alone, the value of the creation.  The creator has no right to be a part of that negotiation. Take that to its logical conclusion - and tell me who is being ideological.

It's funny.  I once asked, in another thread here, if designers here would be upset if I downloaded a "pirate" copy and then sent them the money.  You should have seen the intensity of those responses. Mostly, if I understood them, they were telling me that if they gave an inch in enforcing their copy rights, they'd be releasing their products into public domain.

I'll apologize now for being so upset.  But I hate being told I don't understand simply because I choose not to draw a distinction between stealing real property and intellectual property. If that's the point of contention, let's agree to disagree and you tell the game developers here that their products are not their property.

Yes, but US law is stupid, Skach. Your legislators call creationism "science", and claim to have brought "freedom" to Iraq, so that they call copyright infringement "theft" is not surprising. They're morons. They think of things in terms of unsuitable words.

In any case, I am indifferent to the law. When I spoke of whether copyright violation was theft or not, I didn't mention the law. I'm talking about logic and morality, which have nothing to do with the law. Many things are legal which are immoral (eg, screwing around on your missus, lying to your friends) and many other things are illegal which are moral or harmless (eg putting money in someone else's parking meter, running a soup kitchen in a public place in Las Vegas, smoking wacky tabacky). In any case, the daily number of copyright violations will be in the tens of millions, the daily number of charges brought, very few. So as a law, it's rarely enforced, and thus can safely be ignored for all practical and discussion purposes.

In morality and logic, copyright infringement is not theft, nor is it like theft; it is more like a violation of privacy, or of trespass.

It's lame to do, and lamer to worry about. Certainly it's an immoral thing to do, but we have far more immoral things to worry about. Like, for example, the more serious crimes with which people have compared copyright infringement - theft, child molesting, etc.

Quote from: James J SkachBecause otherwise you end with the attitude that droog has - that it is his right to determine, alone, the value of the creation.  The creator has no right to be a part of that negotiation. Take that to its logical conclusion - and tell me who is being ideological.

I said nothing about right. That's not my language.

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, but US law is stupid, Skach. Your legislators call creationism "science", and claim to have brought "freedom" to Iraq, so that they call copyright infringement "theft" is not surprising. They're morons. They think of things in terms of unsuitable words.

Sad, but true. :)

Britain is currently expected to start allowing the earliest Beatles and Rolling Stones tunes into the public domain in the next decade, despite the furious complaints and lobbying of the record industry.

Do you think the U.S. would ever allow a certain cartoon mouse to enter public domain, no matter how long its creator has been rotting in the soil under Orange County?

And Britain isn't even close to the most laissez faire nation on earth when it comes to copyrights. They're just remotely sane about them, unlike the U.S.

Quote from: YamoDo you think the U.S. would ever allow a certain cartoon mouse to enter public domain, no matter how long its creator has been rotting in the soil under Orange County?

I think they could do a lot of the protection which would be required for the financial aspects, simply by use of the trademark laws. They'd lose the original movies as the coyright expires, but the character himself would be trademarked, and protected - just as for example Coca-Cola's red and white can design is trademarked.

If, after 75 years, you haven't come up with enough new ideas to keep making money, then you're a pretty sad company. If, with billions of dollars at your disposal, you are unable to come up with new ideas to make more money, then you're even more sad.

That's one of the reasons patents expire after 15 years or whatever (varies a lot) - "you've had your chance, time for something new." Progress does not come about by sticking to the old stuff forever.

Which is not to say that copyright, trademark and patent protections ought not to exist. Just that their time limits ought to be somewhat shorter. Lifetime of authour + 75 years is somewhat excessive. 21 years from original publication should be more than sufficient. In most cases nowadays, the original authour no longer profits from them after that time, as either it's flopped off into obscurity, or was successful and bought by some company.

Of course, in the US, as long as you keep renewing the copyright the current law is something like 50 years after death and they are trying to push it to 75.

Greedy capitalist pigdogs.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhich is not to say that copyright, trademark and patent protections ought not to exist. Just that their time limits ought to be somewhat shorter. Lifetime of authour + 75 years is somewhat excessive. 21 years from original publication should be more than sufficient. In most cases nowadays, the original authour no longer profits from them after that time, as either it's flopped off into obscurity, or was successful and bought by some company.

I agree with this.  A lot.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhen people get rpgs for free, whether legitimately or not, they don't read or use them.

• 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.
  
• Or consider the free rpg Fate - much discussed, rarely played. Any time you discuss it online, someone will say, "oh yeah, I have a copy of that, I should look at it."

I'm not a reviewer but Clash was gracious enough to give me a copy of In Harms Way. I do play the game - torrid one night affairs :D  so far, because the group is having difficulty meeting on our regular game night. Even our Cyberpunk campaign has not progressed as normal...- and mention it some times in discussions.

Since getting the game which has proved a huge hit with my crew, we have bought Cold Space and Blood Games on pdf. We are getting the hardcover versions - we have friends/relatives in the States who will buy them for us (never really liked pdfs :( ) - and all this because I got a free game online.

Now, I'm just one customer so no big deal. But I thought I would just add my experience to the mix. And I do think that piracy suxxors (is that the right way to say it ?:D )

Regards,
David R

Quote from: JimBobOzYes, but US law is stupid, Skach. Your legislators call creationism "science", and claim to have brought "freedom" to Iraq, so that they call copyright infringement "theft" is not surprising. They're morons. They think of things in terms of unsuitable words.

I'm calling you on this one, JimBob:  Bullshit. Nice try to move the argument from "copyright infringement is not theft in morality, law, or logic." to "your laws are stupid." You claimed that it's not theft, it's copyright infringement.  I showed you how it's not out of the realm of possiblity that it is, in fact, theft.  I did so by quoting law. Your response is, what "nyah nyah you're amercian and your laws suxorzz.."? Nice. And you're the one who is supposed to be all high-minded in your discussions?

So keep your stupid fucking Australian prejudices to yourself and cop to the fact that you were wrong; that it's perfectly within the realm of logical thought to state that copyright infringement is, indeed, theft. The fact that there's a whole generational shift away from believing that is interesting, but it does not automatically negate the perspective that came before it.  It's not like I'm saying the earth is the center of the universe.

The fact that some people believe creationism is science is irrelavant, as is the War in Iraq. Doesn't Australia have troops in Iraq? Does that make all Australian Legislators stupid and all their ideas wrong? Many people are wrong about one thing and right about others.  Are you saying the only way to judge a persons thought are as a whole? Nice Try.

That you are so knee-jerk in your reaction to anything American, however, is not surprising - given your defintion of American as a derogatory adjective.

Quote from: droogI said nothing about right. That's not my language.

I'm sorry droog.  What words would you like to use to indicate that it's OK for you to take something and the creator should be happy to get whatever price you are willing to pay for it? If that's not what you meant to say, I'm completely misreading your post.

I'm going to try this from another angle. I'm probably :banghead: but that's ok.  It's an American head and everyone knows we don't have brains.

In most transactions involving real property, the two parties reach an agreement.  It might be an implied agreement, but it exists.  I build a cabinet and put it on my front lawn with a sign that says $300.  If someone comes by and offers me $50, then we have negotiations and come to an agreement - let's say for $150.  Now if the person trying to buy the cabinet won't go any higher than $50, and the seller won't go any lower than $150, the "buyer" doesn't get to take the cabinet - no matter how much he leaves, even if he spilts the difference and makes it $100.

Essentially what's happening in the digital age is that people are saying "it's not fair for them to charge $15 for a CD."  This is a perfectly acceptable viewpoint. But the remedy is not "therefore I can take the CD (or a copy of it) for nothing."  You don't get to disagree with the sellers offer AND get the product. Your remedy is, "I won't buy CD's from companies that charge more than $9.99 per CD." Look at iTunes - there is a price where the buyer and seller can agree. And if you can't bring yourself to pay $.99 for a song, then guess what - you don't get the song.

Now I don't believe I said a word in support of the length of copyright. I happen to agree that the current structure seems absurd.  It seems, in America, to protect certain business interests more than it should.  Imagine that. And if you want to change it, in America, there's a process to do so.  go for it.  I'll support you. But the logical conclusion is not to throw away copyright or its protection - which is defacto what happens if you culturally make it OK to ignore the copyright infringement.

James, your jumping the gun here.  While laughing at Americans is rather popular among the internation audience, that's not really the focus. But because you've lasered in on it, you missed the very real point Jimbob and others have made.

The guy whose IP is violated HASN"T lost any product.  We can jump up and down and say he's lost income, but he never had that. It's lost potential, not lost actual.

And you entirely missed the fact that most 'pirates' aren't actually thinking about money. They aren't going to spend it anyway, so the potential loss isn't even real in most cases. How is ripping a buddy's cd into your IPod any different than file sharing?

How are those different than the never before the advent of mp3 called piracy acts of making a tape, mixed or otherwise, from someone elses records?

Until recently, sharing something you bought with freinds and family was considered fair use.  

You know, a third or more of my albums/CD's were bought after borrowing them from someone else, electronically or otherwise.  Free exposure to it, in other words.  

I think there is a huge difference between things shared for free and without malice, and bootlegging for profit or to deliberately hurt another's business.

Quote from: SpikeJames, your jumping the gun here.  While laughing at Americans is rather popular among the internation audience, that's not really the focus. But because you've lasered in on it, you missed the very real point Jimbob and others have made.

The guy whose IP is violated HASN"T lost any product.  We can jump up and down and say he's lost income, but he never had that. It's lost potential, not lost actual.

I didn't miss it.  In the first post to JimBob I'm just calling bullshit because he made a very specific argument the I refuted - and his response was, well, less than I expected from JimBob.

The position you are advocating is one perspective.  I happen to think it's wrong.  That the copying of intellectual property without legal right to do so is, in fact, theft of property. Regardless of how the dance is made to somehow say that because nothing physical was taken, it's not theft - it's an opinion which is currently refuted by US law. (I'm going to check, later today, on International Law.)

Not to mention current business practice.  Companies all over the world view those copyrights as property.  They view what you write off as potential as their property.  After all, according to copyright law, that copy should not exist without their say so, and their say so would get them money.  So the physical product is meaningless - it's the content that is an actual asset of the company. In fact, I think they even assign values to it on the balance sheets and so forth.

So you many not think that the copy, which literally stole no physical property, has no value.  Businesses and Law will tend to disagree. Dirty Capitalist Pigdogs.

Can we simply leave it at agreeing that copyright infringement is wrong? We can leave the semantic debates over "theft" to the courts - yes?

Quote from: James J SkachThe fact that some people believe creationism is science is irrelavant, as is the War in Iraq. Doesn't Australia have troops in Iraq? Does that make all Australian Legislators stupid and all their ideas wrong?

Yes.

Well, actually the opposite: its because the Australian Legislators are stupid and their ideas are wrong that they're in Iraq.

RPGPundit

Quote from: SpikeUntil recently, sharing something you bought with freinds and family was considered fair use.  

You know, a third or more of my albums/CD's were bought after borrowing them from someone else, electronically or otherwise.  Free exposure to it, in other words.  

I think there is a huge difference between things shared for free and without malice, and bootlegging for profit or to deliberately hurt another's business.

Just to make my stance clear, I am not upset if you share with your game group or make copies for yourself. I grew up in the eighties and still believe in fair use. However, just as a conversation with you friends in the family room is not the same as posting on a forum, fair use and posting on P2P file sharing networks are very different.

In the end, you can debate damages all you like, it comes down to personal violation. Some people prefer to look at IP as everyones property since the creator chose to make it available to the public, while others think the creator made it and should have control over its fate.

If you have not guessed, I am of the latter crowd. ;)

Bill

Quote from: James J SkachNot to mention current business practice.  Companies all over the world view those copyrights as property.  They view what you write off as potential as their property.  After all, according to copyright law, that copy should not exist without their say so, and their say so would get them money.  So the physical product is meaningless - it's the content that is an actual asset of the company. In fact, I think they even assign values to it on the balance sheets and so forth.

So you many not think that the copy, which literally stole no physical property, has no value.  Businesses and Law will tend to disagree. Dirty Capitalist Pigdogs.
?

I haven't suggested it had no value at all, far from it.  I do know that prior to the advent of MP3 players there was no real debate about electronic copies made for personal use and sharing among freinds. None.   So the current perception that ANY sharing of information electronically without the specific permission of the creator as wrong is a relatively new phenomenon.

Lets leave aside the 'magic copy machine' debates, the EASE of sharing now and go back to our cabinet.  You make the cabinet and hope to sell it for 300 dollars, remember. Some guy comes along and sees your cabinet, but rather than buy it he memorizes what it looks like and goes out and builds for himself an identical cabinet.  Did he steal it? Obviously you can't sell him the cabinet you just made now. Heck, he may even go into business selling cabinets just like yours!

If he does, you may be able to make a case that he violated you IP, stealing your cabinet design and using it to directly compete with you.  But, since we are dealing with a physical object now, it is a lot harder to argue it is a de facto theft.   He may have stolen the design, or the idea... but the idea itself is not protected and to a certain extent I don't think it should be.  

Art, music or RPG games may be trickier in the details. After all, the RPG industry is full of games that owe their designs and existance to the old school D&D without a lick of shame about 'copyrights'. But the product, the written pages if you will, or the recordings of performances... these are the cabinets. Our mythical cabinet 'theif' isn't building his own, he isn't reading your ideas and rewriting them (which is, after all, strictly legal...), he's literally copying your words verbatim (which is not, after all, legal).  

Therein lies the debate.  It is not theft of a book, because you didn't loose any books. Is it theft at all? It depends on your definition of the term, perhaps. Conversationally? No doubt about it, it is theft.  Legally? You claim, and back up with examples, that it is.  Others claim those laws are wacky and written to benefit wealthy corporate intrests... with some merit.  

I agree, for once, with certain posters on this, however: Our legal and ethical standpoint has not caught up with the very real facts of life brought about by modern technology.   If we extrapolate out our current situation into Star Trek replicator technology what, exactly do we get? Not the utopian ideals of Roddenberry and crew, but a world of bootleggers and criminals 'fighting the man' in the form of concentrated wealth in the hands of faceless corporate organisms.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: HinterWeltJust to make my stance clear, I am not upset if you share with your game group or make copies for yourself. I grew up in the eighties and still believe in fair use. However, just as a conversation with you friends in the family room is not the same as posting on a forum, fair use and posting on P2P file sharing networks are very different.

In the end, you can debate damages all you like, it comes down to personal violation. Some people prefer to look at IP as everyones property since the creator chose to make it available to the public, while others think the creator made it and should have control over its fate.

If you have not guessed, I am of the latter crowd. ;)

Bill

Honestly Bill, how dare you!? ;)

As I stated in my first post here, I'm not trying to advocate piracy at all, I'm here to stir up the debate and actually THINK about the wider implications.  Your stance is reasonable and fair.  If the thread where this all started had been equally reasonable, I might never have blinked.  I blinked when the tone took on that of a ideological lynch mob.

As a creator, I don't care so much, but I recognize it is my choice. I don't have a business writing, true, though I hope to change that, I write for my own enjoyment, and if others like what I write I am happy to share it with them. Maybe my perspective will change if someone rips me off... but I doubt it. Maybe it will change if I do make it a business... but I doubt it.  The writing costs me nothing but time I would spend anyway.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf we're gonna play the dumb example game, let's play it all the way to the bone.

There was once a monastery which had a unique choral piece of music for which they were famed.  The music had been commisioned, and had cost a lot of money.  The score for this piece was kept under lock and key, and it was performed only once a year.  A significant portion of the income of the monastery came from the performance of the piece - their performers were nothing special, just the music was.  A composer (I think it was Bach) went.  Listened to the performance once, and wrote out the score from memory.  The monastery was closed six years later.

But, y'know, no harm was done.

I see this scenario an example of why copying is a good thing.  A beautiful piece of music is now available to the entire world, and the only cost was that some non-contributors to society lost their monopoly.  Boo hoo.

Quote from: James J SkachI'm sorry droog.  What words would you like to use to indicate that it's OK for you to take something and the creator should be happy to get whatever price you are willing to pay for it? If that's not what you meant to say, I'm completely misreading your post.

What I said was that Pandora's Box is open. The creator is now in the uncomfortable position of straddling a moment in history. Notions of property are bound up with real, material production. When ideology meets the economy, it's ideology that adjusts.

The other day I bought the PDF of Primetime Adventures. I paid the price the author set on it because that's what he valued it at and I wanted to support his effort. He seems like a decent bloke, and his dog looks nice.

But I know at least four people with this PDF, one of whom would surely have shared it with me at some stage. I'm also 100% sure that if I could be bothered, I could find it free online. The power has shifted decisively to me as a consumer. The old property relations no longer hold.

Everybody around me in the real world seems to be file-sharing. Everybody justifies it one way or another. That isn't going away.

Quote from: SpikeHonestly Bill, how dare you!? ;)

As I stated in my first post here, I'm not trying to advocate piracy at all, I'm here to stir up the debate and actually THINK about the wider implications.  Your stance is reasonable and fair.  If the thread where this all started had been equally reasonable, I might never have blinked.  I blinked when the tone took on that of a ideological lynch mob.

As a creator, I don't care so much, but I recognize it is my choice. I don't have a business writing, true, though I hope to change that, I write for my own enjoyment, and if others like what I write I am happy to share it with them. Maybe my perspective will change if someone rips me off... but I doubt it. Maybe it will change if I do make it a business... but I doubt it.  The writing costs me nothing but time I would spend anyway.

And you know what, that is your right. I am not saying there should be some iron clad law preventing this type of thing. It should be up to the creator to decide. If you decide to make your work available for free, then I believe you should and would defend your right to do so as strongly as I defend my right to control my work.

As for debate, I am all for it. It sounded like your position was defending piracy and I am sorry I misunderstood. I am not rabid as it may appear about fighting piracy, I do not apply loads of resources, hire teams of lawyers or the like. I can afford some time on a message board and discussing it with friends.  As a business man, I fight it how I can with C&D when my titles are concerned and raising awareness. Unfortunately, most people do have the idea it is victimless and isn't really unethical or wrong. All I can do is try to persuade them.

Bill

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 (http://www.baen.com/library/)

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?

Quote from: TonyLBSorry, 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?

Not only that, but somehow I only managed to emphasis the BUT, when I wanted everything after it... Damn you Forum-fu, you are still weak and noodley...

I suspect that people aren't being hurt, business wise, Tony.  It is the perception of hurt, rather than actual pain. I'm recalled of a lesson taught to a child about how matches are still hot after they've blown out (as a means of convincing them not to play with matches)... light a match, blow it out, apply to child. Child will struggle and fight, allow this, as by the time the match head touches the child it is quite cool, harmless. The psychological message, however, is firmly ingrained: Matches hurt.

People get so caught up in fighting piracy that they neglect to see that it doesn't in fact hurt them.  And if, in fact it DOES hurt them, then they have failed as business men to adapt to the realities of the marketplace and discover a way to profit from it... as Baen Books does.

I really suggest people read the entire article, rather than stick with my quoted post. It does go into more depth... and argues almost verbatim what I have in here... and better in some places.

Libraries indeed. :pundit:

Quote from: SpikeI suspect that people aren't being hurt, business wise, Tony.  It is the perception of hurt, rather than actual pain.

I suspect so as well, actually.  But I'm gonna wait on longer experience before I go any further than suspecting.

Quote from: SpikeI'm recalled of a lesson taught to a child about how matches are still hot after they've blown out (as a means of convincing them not to play with matches)... light a match, blow it out, apply to child. Child will struggle and fight, allow this, as by the time the match head touches the child it is quite cool, harmless.

This, however, ran so counter to my suspicions that I just went down to the kitchen to test it out.  Guess what?  That last bit?  The bit about the match head cooling down?  LIES.  Very, very hot.  Like, "Ah, DAMN!" hot.  Not at all like "Oh, that's just a psychological reaction to the heat I expected to feel hot.

No, I'm not going to hold it to my skin long enough to develop an actual burn, just to prove a point on the internet.  Don't tempt me :D

It is entirely possible that there is some more specific trick that would, indeed, end up with a cooled down match head.  But as written?  Not so much.  So hey, let's not suggest that parents do this to their kids, okay?  Particularly let's not suggest that they hold the match in place while the kid complains that he's being burnt, because they know better.

Quote from: TonyLBI suspect so as well, actually.  But I'm gonna wait on longer experience before I go any further than suspecting.

This, however, ran so counter to my suspicions that I just went down to the kitchen to test it out.  Guess what?  That last bit?  The bit about the match head cooling down?  LIES.  Very, very hot.  Like, "Ah, DAMN!" hot.  Not at all like "Oh, that's just a psychological reaction to the heat I expected to feel hot.

No, I'm not going to hold it to my skin long enough to develop an actual burn, just to prove a point on the internet.  Don't tempt me :D

It is entirely possible that there is some more specific trick that would, indeed, end up with a cooled down match head.  But as written?  Not so much.  So hey, let's not suggest that parents do this to their kids, okay?  Particularly let's not suggest that they hold the match in place while the kid complains that he's being burnt, because they know better.

Obviously, you missed an important point, Tony. You have to struggle long enough that the match head DOES cool. Not so very long, really, but if you DON"T wait, yes it hurts for real.

Still, I shall now spend the rest of my day reveling in my power to make people go out and hurt themselves. ;)




For the record, I learned this one on the receiving end. It's quite effective, if a bit brutal.

Quote from: SpikeObviously, you missed an important point, Tony. You have to struggle long enough that the match head DOES cool. Not so very long, really, but if you DON"T wait, yes it hurts for real.

Oh, now see, you really gotta be specific about that.  When you say "Light match, blow it out, apply to child" followed by description of how the child will struggle, it sounds (at least to me) like you're now talking about how they will struggle as you burn them.  Maybe "Light match, blow it out, attempt to apply to child," followed by "The child will struggle ... let them evade the match long enough for it to cool."

Quote from: SpikeStill, I shall now spend the rest of my day reveling in my power to make people go out and hurt themselves. ;)

Yeah, I was laughing about this one, as I did it, too.  I thought "Man, Spike's gonna get a kick out of the idea that he convinced me over the internet to torture myself."

Who said learning wasn't painful obviously never had a Pika for a teacher ;)