Quote from: RPGPunditThere is also evidence that some of those who download end up buying said product anyways (a kind of "try before you buy", meaning that the argument against this is an argument in favour of customers getting screwed by being stuck with products they didn't really want).  The point is we don't really know; we don't know with the music industry, so we sure as hell don't know with the gaming industry.

I take issue with the whole "wasn't going to buy it anyway" line of reasoning.

If I steal a bottle of cold medicine from the store does that mean that I wasn't going to buy it in the first place? Not if I can get away with walking out the front door with it. If I steal a laptop just to try one out before I buy one I'm sure as fuck not going to give it back even if it's a pile of crap. I mean, if I would have actually bought that laptop and it ended up never using it I would have been screwed right?

I won't condem nor condone file sharing. It seems a lot like jerking off to me. Everyone does it at least once, but they never talk about it.

Quote from: flyingmiceIt doesn't matter what I think, or if I am affected, as the Pundit doesn't believe anything I make qualifies as a real RPG.

Whatever

-clash

Then what have I been playing? :confused:

Quote from: RPGPunditBut you don't really say why, which is what I'd really like to know?
Why is it "immoral" and "entirely wrong"?
RPGPundit

Pundit,

First, I'll admit that I'm a strict moralist, so my statements often come out pretty strong to people in today's world of moral relativism.

Why do I feel it's immoral? I believe that creators have the right to decide how their creation is shared with others. (This is different from thinking creators have the right to decide what you do with their work, which is just stupid.) I'm a big proponent of the open-source software and Creative Commons movements. What I believe that a lot of the cretins in those movements don't get, however, is that mutual respect is the key to opening people's minds. By respecting the copyright of others' work, even if I think they make a poor decision by closing off the work to others, I help establish a mutuality where they respect my decision to share my work under certain terms.

Breaking copyright eliminates that mutuality and breaks down the primary motivator for creatives: respect.

It's pointless to debate the matter, really.  There's been a generational shift in the way intellectual property is thought of (IMO) that's resulted in the "if it's on the internet, it's free" meme.

The anime industry, for instance, is fighting tooth and nail against the fansub groups that take wildly popular shows, translate them (poorly) and upload them for free download.  This leads to "fans" who have HDs full of pirated anime and no desire to purchase any of their favorite shows.

There seems to be a fundamental disconnect in their brains that prevents them from seeing the connection between purchasing legitimate product and the continued ability of companies to produce.  For some reason, they perceive entertainment as a free resource produced for the good of all by companies with unlimited resources.

Now, RPGs are a tiny industry.  Most companies consist of a bare handful of people, most of whom are contract labor.  Both the scale and the impact of digital piracy on their bottom lines are smaller than in the above example, granted.

However, anything that breaks the economic chain for good product is a bad thing in my eyes.  Mike Mearls makes good product (for example), therefore I want Mike Mearls to earn as much money for his efforts as the market will give him, giving him reason to make more good product.

Geek points and internet celebrity aren't going to pay the bills.

Now, file sharing can be a vital advertising resource.  How to use that resource, however, will take experimentation in the RPG field.  You can't really iTunes out a rulebook or setting guide.

I just know too many RPG publishers/writers to feel right about doing it, I think.

It is simply immoral to take the work of another and decide to distribute it however you please. Both as a consumer of P2P networks and as a host of one. It amounts to stealing and nothing less. If you are doing your won mix tape that is made from music you legally purchased and for your personal use, this perfectly acceptable. If you want to make a thousand copies of an album for personal use, again no problem. I agree with much of what Clinton said on the matter.

However, I am nothing if not a harsh realist. I appreciate that P2P networks are here to stay and pirating existed long before them. I would protect my IP vigorously from a financial or branding infraction but pirating falls into "is it worth it" category. If appropriate (meaning it costs me little or nothing) then I will persue it. Most of the time, it (persuing pirates) does nto sum up.

Bill

Quote from: JamesVI don't really see file-sharing in the same league as a lending library, which is temporary and inconvenient to copy even today, or a mix-tape, which nowadays are often intentionally created by musicians to advertise their product. While some of the stuff on file servers were purchased by the server's owner, there are many places where the files are all copies obtained freely some place else. The super easy replication of files is stumbling block for me.

I've thought some on what a good standard of fair use for legally protected computer files would be, and I don't think there are easy answers.

So wait, you're saying that you think that the reason why file sharing is wrong is because its too efficient?

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceIt doesn't matter what I think, or if I am affected, as the Pundit doesn't believe anything I make qualifies as a real RPG.

Whatever

-clash

Actually, I've never heard of a single game you've ever written. Its not that I have looked at your work and chosen to reject you, its that you don't even figure in my reality.

Of course, if you really wanted to you could take steps to change that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jrientsActually, I was thinking more along personal rather than policy lines.  Speaking for myself only I find pirating both pointless and counterproductive, in addition to being illegal and of dubious morality.

Again, I think you need to elaborate a bit more on the "pointless", "counterproductive" and "dubious morality" statements to explain what you mean by them.
The "illegal" part is relatively clear.

QuoteAnd I like it when I can support good designers so they produce more material.  I'm one of those crazy cats who sent Vincent Baker a check during the time when he was sending out copies of kpfs for free with a little note "if you like it, maybe send me a fiver".  Did Baker need the $6.66 I sent him?  Probably not, but if I get to choose I want game designers encouraged by sales revenue rather than discouraged by seeing people swiping their stuff.

Yes, that's a valid point. But the real question is whether the people who download from fileshare programs are any of them people who would otherwise have sent the $5 cheque in the first place?  Or are they mostly people who either would not have or could not have (for financial reasons) done so, anyways?
In which case it seems to become a case of building an extra-tall fence so that lousy kids can't see the drive-in theatre movie without paying.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mystery ManI take issue with the whole "wasn't going to buy it anyway" line of reasoning.

If I steal a bottle of cold medicine from the store does that mean that I wasn't going to buy it in the first place? Not if I can get away with walking out the front door with it.

Except file sharing doesn't do that. The fact that Jim has downloaded a copy of the D&D PHB onto his computer doesn't mean that there's suddenly magically one copy LESS of the PHB in someone's local gaming store, or even that the Wizards Online store now must sell one less copy of its PDF legally.
Contrary to what the parasites of the RIAA try to tell you, it is NOT theft. Its (illegal) reproduction. Which is different from theft.

QuoteI won't condem nor condone file sharing. It seems a lot like jerking off to me. Everyone does it at least once, but they never talk about it.

Here in the third world, where its virtually impossible for most of the gamers I play with to get games, because (unlike me) they don't have an international credit card, and don't have the money to spend on shipping books from the states even if they did, file sharing is endemic. There's even a REAL piracy industry, not in the sense of just downloading, but dudes downloading the games and offering printed versions of the books for sale.

I don't consider that "wankery", I consider that a MASSIVE failure of the gaming industry to capitalize on a potentially huge market that is starved for gaming books.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSo wait, you're saying that you think that the reason why file sharing is wrong is because its too efficient?

RPGPundit

It doesn't make it wrong, but it makes it much easier for the wrong to happen. Piracy has probably always been around, but I don't think it's ever been this easy to do. A few clicks, torrents, and hours later and I could have a hard drive full of copyrighted material and spread it around to anyone. This is an incentive for even the laziest amongst us to do it. There isn't really anyone to blame for it, this efficiency is what makes makes computers useful tools, but you can't ignore it as an issue, either. This adds that whole dimension where companies try to integrate DRM into their digital product, and meet the whinging of the masses, because it makes the product  less convenient (See DriveThru RPG). In the end though, DRM development has to continue, because people who wish to create works for sale online need some kind of protection from the yahoos looking to snatch free shit.

I've downloaded copies of books that I already own so I can print out specific charts and whatnot as a reference to be used in-game, but I don't download copies of RPG books I do not already own not because of any personal moral code, but rather because I'm not particularly fond of PDFs.  I like doing my game prep on the couch, surrounded by books with post-its marking all of the pages.  I can't stand having to use references that only exist in a digital format.  Incidentally, I don't buy gaming pdfs either.  It's either paper or nothing for me.

The difference between stealing a bottle of aspirin and pirating a song or a book is that with the aspirin, you've deprived the store owner of the ability to sell that bottle to another customer. Not so with piracy.

From a pragmatic standpoint I don't have a problem with sharing works that have essentially been abandoned by their "owners". It's not much different, IMO, from creating derivative works without permission. If the owner sends you a C&D I'm not going to blame him, and I think in that case you should cease and desist regardless of the owner's ability to carry through with a lawsuit. On the other hand I don't mind telling people that various bits of abandonware are available over the net, even if the owner has never openly released them into the public domain. The chance of a new edition is zero, nothing is being printed or made available by electronic distribution, etc., so the only people harmed by this are collectors, and I don't feel any moral obligation to enforce their right to profit from the copyright regime.

From an academic standpoint, by virtue of living in a country where the Berne Convention is the law, I'm morally obligated not to copy stuff whose creators don't want me to. If I lived in a country that didn't subscribe to international copyright law, though, I'm not sure I would trouble myself over it. Copyright is a contract between creators and society, for the mutual benefit of both, but societies that don't buy into copyright haven't made themselves subject to that contract. I think that contracts should be respected but I'm not sure I see a moral imperative to give a street musician a dollar simply because I walked past while he was playing.

Quote from: RPGPunditActually, I've never heard of a single game you've ever written. Its not that I have looked at your work and chosen to reject you, its that you don't even figure in my reality.

Understood - I assumed that. Small press is small press, after all - I'd have been utterly shocked if you had. So far your references to small press games - at least the ones I have read - have been made with such venom and contempt, without regard to singling out particular publishers or authors in that diverse group, that I considered my games beneath your notice by definition. Thus my comment.

Quote from: RPGPunditOf course, if you really wanted to you could take steps to change that.

RPGPundit

I'd be happy to. Tell me how, and it will be done. I answer PMs if you'd prefer.

-clash

Quote from: Clinton R. NixonPundit,

First, I'll admit that I'm a strict moralist, so my statements often come out pretty strong to people in today's world of moral relativism.

Why do I feel it's immoral? I believe that creators have the right to decide how their creation is shared with others. (This is different from thinking creators have the right to decide what you do with their work, which is just stupid.) I'm a big proponent of the open-source software and Creative Commons movements. What I believe that a lot of the cretins in those movements don't get, however, is that mutual respect is the key to opening people's minds. By respecting the copyright of others' work, even if I think they make a poor decision by closing off the work to others, I help establish a mutuality where they respect my decision to share my work under certain terms.

Breaking copyright eliminates that mutuality and breaks down the primary motivator for creatives: respect.

So let us look at a certain scenario:

Jim owns the Sgt.Pepper album, which he bought at a store for $18 (even though the cd costs less than a dollar to make, and the original artists are getting only pennies from that sale, the store is getting about $4, and a gang of fat fucking parasites in suits are getting the remaining $12.95 as pure profit for a product they had FUCK ALL to do with in any constructive sense).
His buddy Bob can't afford to buy the Sgt. Pepper album, meaning he doesn't have the chance to enjoy it, which is tantamount to a crime against the human spirit.
So Jim makes a tape of the Sgt.Pepper album, so that bob will have one too.

Is that immoral? Is it a lack of respect for the original creator's intentions? Somehow I really don't see John Lennon jumping to the defence of A Republican-voting RIAA fatcat being denied his "right" to earn $12.95 for doing no work. Somehow I don't think George Harrison would have sweated the fact that Bob can get a little beauty in his life, even though George's family won't get those extra three pennies.

I mean shit, we've had this debate before. Most of you might be too young to remember this, but the RIAA once tried desperately to make cassette tapes illegal in the 1970s, because they said making mix tapes was a violation of their copyright laws. They used the exact same fucking argument.  And the TV moguls tried to do the same thing with the VCR in the 1980s.
Why is it different when we do it on Napster? Other than the fact that between back then and now the corporate middlemen have become more powerful; and that between then and now people have apparently become more used to letting big business violate their human freedom and fuck them in the ass at will?

Do copyright owners have a fair right to have their copyright respected? ABSO-fucking-LUTELY.  They have a right to insure that if a gang of crooks try to make illegal copies FOR SALE of their works, those pirated copies should not be sold, and those Pirates prosecuted.
But free copying for personal use is not "piracy". Its just reproduction for personal use.

As long as Jim isn't SELLING that taped copy of Sgt.Pepper's to Jim, I don't think there's any room for the artist to claim the moral high ground; and there sure as fuck isn't room for the middleman corporate parasite to do so.

RPGPundit