TheRPGSite

https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTrove/comments/o7dpt9/what_happened_to_the_trove/

There's some real whoppers there. Now, they hate Daniel D. Fox, which is good, but for different reasons. The amount of entitled whining in there is something else. Apparently only rich kids could afford RPG's--who knew?

Here's one particular mouth breather justifying bad behavior:

QuoteI have a tremendous respect for the gaming community tolerating The Trove. The business model of book publishing is completely outdated in the digital era and needs complete overhaul. The gaming community should be inclusive to all regardless of economic means and globally regardless of country poverty.

The Trove has just forced game publishers authors etc to flex to a model of the future where you expect your work to be freely available and you make your money from people who want to pay you directly, people who can afford it, and people who want the premium printed versions and physical versions.

That does mean eliminsting tthe bloated middleman system of pre-digital publishing with all the parasites feeding off the actual creators.

The same dynamic is happening in music production. The music industry is in upheaval but smart musicians are setting up ways to adapt to a totally new model where their work gets widely available for free - and what artist or musician doesnt want their work to get heard seen or read - and they get paid more directly for premium value like concerts patreon vinyl versions merchandise etc.

Don't believe the capitalist dinosaurs trashing The Trove. All books are free is a completely viable reality that supports both creators and also people who can't afford premium print etc. Be proud of The Trove and look forward to it coming back. And also if you have some favorite designers and creators look them up find their paypal and vimeo and send them some money directly. And be glad your beloved game system can be played by anyone not just rich kids.

Right because the music industry hasn't been in upheaval for nearly 30 years now. How do bands make their money now? Touring. What's the RPG writer equivalent of touring? An obscure band can make a decent living by selling premium physical products and touring small venues. What about a writer? How many kickstarters have there been where you can get a Goodman Games quality leatherbound book?

Apologies if this thread needs to be deleted.

Yeah, this was annoying as I was using it to avoid giving money to people who say they hate me. Also to look up and research older, out of print games like Boot Hill, or Recon.

The irony of it getting KO'd by Daniel 'Ripped off Warhammer Fantasy' Fox, though, is enough to make me chuckle.

EDIT: I want to add something here, horse. Bands have ALWAYS made their best money touring. There's a reason why the RIAA's enforcements against music piracy didn't exactly stir people, and that's because their contracts were fucking highway robbery. It's also why they desperately fought against digital distribution, because it completely undercut the contract dynamic they'd use to fuck bands over. As it got easier to produce CDs (and later it wasn't even necessary), the distribution model became more and more outdated.

I don't know what the fix is for RPG writers. I've made it clear that I promote pirating material when people straight up state, 'I hate you and don't want your money'. Who am I to argue with them? But I won't pirate Pundit's stuff, or Venger's, or Zak's, or anyone else on the green list (or hell, yellow). Because I want to reward them for not being dickheads (and turning out quality material) with, y'know, cash.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:07:05 AM
Yeah, this was annoying as I was using it to avoid giving money to people who say they hate me. Also to look up and research older, out of print games like Boot Hill, or Recon.

The irony of it getting KO'd by Daniel 'Ripped off Warhammer Fantasy' Fox, though, is enough to make me chuckle.

EDIT: I want to add something here, horse. Bands have ALWAYS made their best money touring. There's a reason why the RIAA's enforcements against music piracy didn't exactly stir people, and that's because their contracts were fucking highway robbery. It's also why they desperately fought against digital distribution, because it completely undercut the contract dynamic they'd use to fuck bands over. As it got easier to produce CDs (and later it wasn't even necessary), the distribution model became more and more outdated.

I don't know what the fix is for RPG writers. I've made it clear that I promote pirating material when people straight up state, 'I hate you and don't want your money'. Who am I to argue with them? But I won't pirate Pundit's stuff, or Venger's, or Zak's, or anyone else on the green list (or hell, yellow). Because I want to reward them for not being dickheads (and turning out quality material) with, y'know, cash.

And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:07:05 AM
I won't pirate ....Zak's... ...Because I want to reward them for not being dickheads

I have some bad news for you there...  ;D

I do think it's hilarious it was Daniel 'Warhammer-Ripoff' 'Penises on Everything (remember that?)' Fox who got the Trove shut down.

"Who Pirates the Pirates?"

Quote from: S'mon on October 05, 2021, 11:15:21 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:07:05 AM
I won't pirate ....Zak's... ...Because I want to reward them for not being dickheads

I have some bad news for you there...  ;D

I do think it's hilarious it was Daniel 'Warhammer-Ripoff' 'Penises on Everything (remember that?)' Fox who got the Trove shut down.

"Who Pirates the Pirates?"

There's a bit of nuance between Zak and I slapfighting a bit here, and some wokeist motherfucker declaring I'm a deplorable and that he doesn't want my money because I'm an evil bigot. :)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

The worst part is that the IP lapses into public domain but you can still have a trademark on parts of it.

So if you want to make a John Carter anything you have to pay up to the author's state or be very careful not to infringe their trademarks.

Assume DC left Superman get into the public domain... You still wouldn't be able to use the costume in any shape or form. Unless you pay them thru the nose.

Which is why you have so many RPGs with the serial numbers filed off. Easier than paying what you don't have or to risk a lawsuit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

We can thank celebrity culture to some extent as well, for giving us Sonny "the congressman from Disney" Bono.

Quote from: therealjcm on October 05, 2021, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

We can thank celebrity culture to some extent as well, for giving us Sonny "the congressman from Disney" Bono.

Yeah, we have several politicians here that can hardly speak but were elected because they were in movies, football (soccer), etc.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:32:28 AM

Quote from: therealjcm on October 05, 2021, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

We can thank celebrity culture to some extent as well, for giving us Sonny "the congressman from Disney" Bono.

Yeah, we have several politicians here that can hardly speak but were elected because they were in movies, football (soccer), etc.

Although considering the quality of 'professional' politicians, I'm not sure electing amateurs is that bad of an idea.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:32:28 AM

Quote from: therealjcm on October 05, 2021, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

We can thank celebrity culture to some extent as well, for giving us Sonny "the congressman from Disney" Bono.

Yeah, we have several politicians here that can hardly speak but were elected because they were in movies, football (soccer), etc.

Although considering the quality of 'professional' politicians, I'm not sure electing amateurs is that bad of an idea.

When the "amateurs" are just as corrupt and inept as the professionals at doing anything good but very competent at the bad stuff...

Imagine you and your group overthrow the king of the blackmarshes, at first people might cheer you, but then you and your buddies turn out to be just as bad...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:38:11 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:33:24 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:32:28 AM

Quote from: therealjcm on October 05, 2021, 11:30:46 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:23:49 AM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 11:15:14 AM
And that last part is why I don't have much sympathy for The Trove, because they would pirate from everybody, even the small developer selfpublishing.

The not being able to find old, out of print games tho...

Edited to add:

But Daniel didn't really kill the piracy nor The Trove, they will find a way to keep on going, torrents, The Bay, private groups somewhere. Like life, piracy finds a way.

It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

And IP law in the U.S. is a complete pile of shit, too. That doesn't help.

But yeah. Piracy goes on.

Bold mine for emphasis.

You have Disney to thank for making it even worse.

We can thank celebrity culture to some extent as well, for giving us Sonny "the congressman from Disney" Bono.

Yeah, we have several politicians here that can hardly speak but were elected because they were in movies, football (soccer), etc.

Although considering the quality of 'professional' politicians, I'm not sure electing amateurs is that bad of an idea.

When the "amateurs" are just as corrupt and inept as the professionals at doing anything good but very competent at the bad stuff...

Imagine you and your group overthrow the king of the blackmarshes, at first people might cheer you, but then you and your buddies turn out to be just as bad...

True, but you wanna tell me having a professional who's spent thirty years on the government dole as a congresscritter is an improvement?

Anyways, we're getting off topic here :)

As someone who's got his own system nearly complete (last section of last chapter) I will not mourn the death of The Trove.

That said, I do see the concept of a site to maintain defunct systems no longer supported by any operating authority (company or individual) that would otherwise be unavailable as something useful for the gaming community as a whole.

It feels like there should be some ethical way to maintain only defunct titles (linked with some sprt of "claim this property" process that would remove the claimed material and replace it with a link to the IP holder), but the trick would be funding such a site.

Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

I've used the trove before to look at books before buying. There is plenty of booty in the sea to speak, and i'll continue to sail until the end of time. That said, sites like the trove for me served two purposes. The first is allowing me to actually view the content in it's full glory to help me decide whether I want it or not. There are alot of creators who can thank that website for me actually buying their books in hard copy because of that. The second is it has helped me get books that are out of print and don't have a legitimate pdf scan or copy. Books are expensive and fuck me if i spend money on something i cant even see what i'm getting.

And more minorly it has helped with keeping pdf backups...if I already bought your shit im not buying it twice. Saves me the trouble of doing physical scans.

Anyway i'm sad to see it go down but these networks are great at keeping out of print pdfs circulating.

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

I think it would definitely help. Most pdfs aren't worth more than 5 to 10 bucks imo.

I wonder how much of the cost of books is because of physical production, and how much is because of the work put into making the content, as well as branding/IP  "premiums".   You could argue that with cheap printing done in China, that it only costs.. say..  well heck I dunno,  $4 to print a book the size of the 5E PHB? Maybe less?  I'm not entirely sure.    You could argue that books that print as many copies as the 5E PHB have printed, the "real" cost of even the printed book could be 1/3 as much and still be "profitable" based solely on the printing cost.

Of course I also wonder how many books are set at certain prices because that is what the "expected normal" price of the book is for that industry/genre/tier,  and how many books are actually priced based on the cost going into them for production as well as the printing costs, and then some margin of profit factored in.   I don't know.  It's something to think about.

I know a pdf version of a hardcover/softcover book still has all the writing/editing work going into it, the same IP costs or whatnot, and the only difference then being the printing cost.

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on October 05, 2021, 01:23:53 PM
I wonder how much of the cost of books is because of physical production, and how much is because of the work put into making the content, as well as branding/IP  "premiums".   You could argue that with cheap printing done in China, that it only costs.. say..  well heck I dunno,  $4 to print a book the size of the 5E PHB? Maybe less?  I'm not entirely sure.    You could argue that books that print as many copies as the 5E PHB have printed, the "real" cost of even the printed book could be 1/3 as much and still be "profitable" based solely on the printing cost.

Of course I also wonder how many books are set at certain prices because that is what the "expected normal" price of the book is for that industry/genre/tier,  and how many books are actually priced based on the cost going into them for production as well as the printing costs, and then some margin of profit factored in.   I don't know.  It's something to think about.

I know a pdf version of a hardcover/softcover book still has all the writing/editing work going into it, the same IP costs or whatnot, and the only difference then being the printing cost.

Well yes, those costs are the developing of the game, but then again, you're selling your printed copies at $60 US, how many copies of the PHB 5e have been sold? I'd argue that their cost has been more than covered and then some. Especially because we know how much they pay their wage slaves.

And those games that were funded by crowdfunding? The cost was already covered by the campaign, leaving only printing+shipping costs to be covered, you still can't sell the printed copy at less than the buy in into the crowdfunding, but the PDF?

Quote from: Ocule on October 05, 2021, 01:21:57 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

I think it would definitely help. Most pdfs aren't worth more than 5 to 10 bucks imo.

Agreed. Most PDFs aren't worth even 5 bucks imho. The good stuff it's worth between 5-10 bucks tops, and that's with art & a high page count that's not mostly fluff.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:37:02 PM

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on October 05, 2021, 01:23:53 PM
I wonder how much of the cost of books is because of physical production, and how much is because of the work put into making the content, as well as branding/IP  "premiums".   You could argue that with cheap printing done in China, that it only costs.. say..  well heck I dunno,  $4 to print a book the size of the 5E PHB? Maybe less?  I'm not entirely sure.    You could argue that books that print as many copies as the 5E PHB have printed, the "real" cost of even the printed book could be 1/3 as much and still be "profitable" based solely on the printing cost.

Of course I also wonder how many books are set at certain prices because that is what the "expected normal" price of the book is for that industry/genre/tier,  and how many books are actually priced based on the cost going into them for production as well as the printing costs, and then some margin of profit factored in.   I don't know.  It's something to think about.

I know a pdf version of a hardcover/softcover book still has all the writing/editing work going into it, the same IP costs or whatnot, and the only difference then being the printing cost.

Well yes, those costs are the developing of the game, but then again, you're selling your printed copies at $60 US, how many copies of the PHB 5e have been sold? I'd argue that their cost has been more than covered and then some. Especially because we know how much they pay their wage slaves.

And those games that were funded by crowdfunding? The cost was already covered by the campaign, leaving only printing+shipping costs to be covered, you still can't sell the printed copy at less than the buy in into the crowdfunding, but the PDF?

I just wonder, maybe the $60 for the printed book is way over-priced and we should, as a group, be more upset about that price rather than the pdf price?  Like maybe there should only be a.. $6 difference in price between the pdf and the book?  Or whatever the print cost difference is, and both versions of the book should be less expensive over all?

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on October 05, 2021, 01:43:00 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:37:02 PM

Quote from: Banjo Destructo on October 05, 2021, 01:23:53 PM
I wonder how much of the cost of books is because of physical production, and how much is because of the work put into making the content, as well as branding/IP  "premiums".   You could argue that with cheap printing done in China, that it only costs.. say..  well heck I dunno,  $4 to print a book the size of the 5E PHB? Maybe less?  I'm not entirely sure.    You could argue that books that print as many copies as the 5E PHB have printed, the "real" cost of even the printed book could be 1/3 as much and still be "profitable" based solely on the printing cost.

Of course I also wonder how many books are set at certain prices because that is what the "expected normal" price of the book is for that industry/genre/tier,  and how many books are actually priced based on the cost going into them for production as well as the printing costs, and then some margin of profit factored in.   I don't know.  It's something to think about.

I know a pdf version of a hardcover/softcover book still has all the writing/editing work going into it, the same IP costs or whatnot, and the only difference then being the printing cost.

Well yes, those costs are the developing of the game, but then again, you're selling your printed copies at $60 US, how many copies of the PHB 5e have been sold? I'd argue that their cost has been more than covered and then some. Especially because we know how much they pay their wage slaves.

And those games that were funded by crowdfunding? The cost was already covered by the campaign, leaving only printing+shipping costs to be covered, you still can't sell the printed copy at less than the buy in into the crowdfunding, but the PDF?

I just wonder, maybe the $60 for the printed book is way over-priced and we should, as a group, be more upset about that price rather than the pdf price?  Like maybe there should only be a.. $6 difference in price between the pdf and the book?  Or whatever the print cost difference is, and both versions of the book should be less expensive over all?

What you're proposing means that for just $6 more I get the printed version... I'm sure this would only lead to the PDfs price increase until such a difference is achieved.

Thruth is the price is decided by the market, things will cost as much as the market segment is willing to pay.

So if the printed game costs $60 it's because collectors and players/GMs are willing to pay up that much in enough numbers as to pay the initial costs + printing and shipping with enough margin as to make it worth it for the publisher.

But once again, a digital product has ZERO costs after the initial costs of developing, if you're selling both then your costs have more sales to be diluted into.

Triple that for crowdfunded games whose initial costs have already been covered by the campaign.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

As someone who's looked at publishing costs recently, the physical printing costs are, at most 25% of the final product. All the rest of the price tag is the fixed costs that are indifferent to whether the copy is physical or digital (writing, art, editing, layouts, website hosting costs that need to be covered whether a single copy sells or not and which need to be factored into the final price per unit based on expected sales) and non-physical variable costs (ex. distribution... DrivethruRPG doesn't do it's thing for free... they take a significant percentage).

Honestly, a $15 pdf for a $20 physical book sounds about right for a product where the team behind it is hoping to break even (i.e. they make no money). Maybe if people didn't pirate so many pdfs there would be more copies we could expect to spread those fixed costs across... instead we get to spread $0 of fixed costs to those and need to charge more for the pdfs and physical books just to break even.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:07:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

As someone who's looked at publishing costs recently, the physical printing costs are, at most 25% of the final product. All the rest of the price tag is the fixed costs that are indifferent to whether the copy is physical or digital (writing, art, editing, layouts, website hosting costs that need to be covered whether a single copy sells or not and which need to be factored into the final price per unit based on expected sales) and non-physical variable costs (ex. distribution... DrivethruRPG doesn't do it's thing for free... they take a significant percentage).

Honestly, a $15 pdf for a $20 physical book sounds about right for a product where the team behind it is hoping to break even (i.e. they make more money). Maybe if people didn't pirate so many pdfs there would be more copies we could expect to spread those fixed costs across... instead we get to spread $0 of fixed costs to those and need to charge more for the pdfs and physical books just to break even.

Or maybe if the PDF price was lower less ppl would pirate?

The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

Quote from: Ocule on October 05, 2021, 01:21:57 PM
I think it would definitely help. Most pdfs aren't worth more than 5 to 10 bucks imo.

I know when I wanted a pdf of an old 3e Necromancer Games adventure, I was very happy to pay £3 to get it direct from Frog God. At that price it's not even worth searching for pdfs. Whereas when I own a £40 hardback and I want to share a handout with my players, no way am I spending another £30 on the pdf. Decent publishers include a pdf with the hardback; smart ones give a free link to somewhere like drivethru where I can easily get a replacement when I lose the original pdf...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:07:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

As someone who's looked at publishing costs recently, the physical printing costs are, at most 25% of the final product. All the rest of the price tag is the fixed costs that are indifferent to whether the copy is physical or digital (writing, art, editing, layouts, website hosting costs that need to be covered whether a single copy sells or not and which need to be factored into the final price per unit based on expected sales) and non-physical variable costs (ex. distribution... DrivethruRPG doesn't do it's thing for free... they take a significant percentage).

Honestly, a $15 pdf for a $20 physical book sounds about right for a product where the team behind it is hoping to break even (i.e. they make more money). Maybe if people didn't pirate so many pdfs there would be more copies we could expect to spread those fixed costs across... instead we get to spread $0 of fixed costs to those and need to charge more for the pdfs and physical books just to break even.

Or maybe if the PDF price was lower less ppl would pirate?

The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

At some point you make enough money at your job in a week to cover your expenses... and yet the amount you demand to be paid for your work remains the same.

How about as soon as soon as you make enough money in a week you tell your boss the rest of your work for the week is being done at no charge?

You sound exactly like every fucking self-entitled socialist on the planet... "You don't deserve to make money because I want something you've produced but don't want to actually have to pay for it."

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:20:59 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:07:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

As someone who's looked at publishing costs recently, the physical printing costs are, at most 25% of the final product. All the rest of the price tag is the fixed costs that are indifferent to whether the copy is physical or digital (writing, art, editing, layouts, website hosting costs that need to be covered whether a single copy sells or not and which need to be factored into the final price per unit based on expected sales) and non-physical variable costs (ex. distribution... DrivethruRPG doesn't do it's thing for free... they take a significant percentage).

Honestly, a $15 pdf for a $20 physical book sounds about right for a product where the team behind it is hoping to break even (i.e. they make more money). Maybe if people didn't pirate so many pdfs there would be more copies we could expect to spread those fixed costs across... instead we get to spread $0 of fixed costs to those and need to charge more for the pdfs and physical books just to break even.

Or maybe if the PDF price was lower less ppl would pirate?

The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

At some point you make enough money at your job in a week to cover your expenses... and yet the amount you demand to be paid for your work remains the same.

How about as soon as soon as you make enough money in a week you tell your boss the rest of your work for the week is being done at no charge?

You sound exactly like every fucking self-entitled socialist on the planet... "You don't deserve to make money because I want something you've produced but don't want to actually have to pay for it."

Except it's not the same thing is it?

Once I've finished developing the game I'm not working on it anymore.

First time someone calls me a socialist... Grim would beg to disagree.

Edited to add:

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:12:46 PM

Or maybe if the PDF price was lower less ppl would pirate?

The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

Yeah that's exactly what a socialist would say.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:20:59 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:07:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

As someone who's looked at publishing costs recently, the physical printing costs are, at most 25% of the final product. All the rest of the price tag is the fixed costs that are indifferent to whether the copy is physical or digital (writing, art, editing, layouts, website hosting costs that need to be covered whether a single copy sells or not and which need to be factored into the final price per unit based on expected sales) and non-physical variable costs (ex. distribution... DrivethruRPG doesn't do it's thing for free... they take a significant percentage).

Honestly, a $15 pdf for a $20 physical book sounds about right for a product where the team behind it is hoping to break even (i.e. they make more money). Maybe if people didn't pirate so many pdfs there would be more copies we could expect to spread those fixed costs across... instead we get to spread $0 of fixed costs to those and need to charge more for the pdfs and physical books just to break even.

Or maybe if the PDF price was lower less ppl would pirate?

The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

At some point you make enough money at your job in a week to cover your expenses... and yet the amount you demand to be paid for your work remains the same.

How about as soon as soon as you make enough money in a week you tell your boss the rest of your work for the week is being done at no charge?

You sound exactly like every fucking self-entitled socialist on the planet... "You don't deserve to make money because I want something you've produced but don't want to actually have to pay for it."

Except it's not the same thing is it?

Once I've finished developing the game I'm not working on it anymore.

First time someone calls me a socialist... Grim would beg to disagree.

It is EXACTLY the same thing. You have declared that at a certain point I've made enough money on my product and you deserve to have it for free.

That is textbook socialism; which is another word for theft. You just don't like to think of yourself as a thief when you're taking someone's work without paying them for it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:26:04 PM
The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

Yeah that's exactly what a socialist would say.

When you're saying it is WRONG for a publisher to charge what the market will bear... YES that is EXACTLY what a socialist would say. You my friend; are a socialist in denial.

Geeky's playing at blaming the victim. "That pdf wouldn't have been pirated if she wasn't wearing such a high price tag." So classy.

Let me disagree with everybody for a sec...

I was glad my books were pirated on the trove (although I was mildly annoyed that they were added to the wrong folder).

First, it means more people get to know them. I believe at least a few would purchase my products if they care to read it.

If they don't even read, why should I care I was pirated?

Also, if they don't have one or two dollars (or ten dollars at most) to buy my stuff... Hey, I hope they enjoy it, and I hope one day they can get enough disposable income to support me or other "indie" publishers.

If they don't, I'm glad I ws able to provide some fun.

BTW, if you have a blog etc. with some followers and want a free copy of any of my books for reviews let me know. As an amateur writer, my greatest enemy is not piracy but obscurity.

(nowadays, I don't pirate RPG stuff because I can buy almost everything I want on DTRPG. If something is too expensive I don't buy it. I have more PDFs than I'll ever read, let alone play. My friends, however, will occasionally pirate stuff, but unlike me they prefer physical copies and end up buying physical books if they really like the PDF).

I think it is only fitting that it was taken down by someone whose job is "largely inspired" by Warhammer (BTW GW will allegedly sue you for using the term "space marine"). My copy is homage, your copy is a crime!

EDIT: I don't discuss politics here but saying someone is "socialist" for attacking intelectual "property" is silly, since many libertarians and ancaps are against this on principle. You do not have the be  socialist to see there is something wrong with Disney lobbying to protect a mouse for 120 years after the creator has passed away, after using cinderella, sleeping beauty and everything else in the public domain. In fact IIRC trump was the one who avoided the TIPP that would create even more draconian IP laws with the help of China (while Hillary as in favor). Not to mention: free speech, HPL, REH, the coautl and the displacer beast, sending you to prison for downloading a song, etc etc etc.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:45:10 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:20:59 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:12:46 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 05, 2021, 02:07:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM

Quote from: sureshot on October 05, 2021, 12:42:56 PM
Talk about a bunch of entitled group of people.

No sympathy for the Trove as GB said they would pirate from everyone and anyone even the little guy in terms of RPGs. Still sad seeing grown adults crying that they can't illegally pirate RPGs anymore is a sad statement for society. One of the reasons I went to PDF format beyond space restrictions is the cost in that format is usually cheaper. They can't get free stuff anymore my heart truly bleeds for them.

Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.

If the PDF prices went down to I don't know 1/5 of the softcover? Maybe even less, would that make some stop pirating?

I know for a fact that many pirate not for lack of money but out of "principle" so not all would stop, but maybe it would help some?

As someone who's looked at publishing costs recently, the physical printing costs are, at most 25% of the final product. All the rest of the price tag is the fixed costs that are indifferent to whether the copy is physical or digital (writing, art, editing, layouts, website hosting costs that need to be covered whether a single copy sells or not and which need to be factored into the final price per unit based on expected sales) and non-physical variable costs (ex. distribution... DrivethruRPG doesn't do it's thing for free... they take a significant percentage).

Honestly, a $15 pdf for a $20 physical book sounds about right for a product where the team behind it is hoping to break even (i.e. they make more money). Maybe if people didn't pirate so many pdfs there would be more copies we could expect to spread those fixed costs across... instead we get to spread $0 of fixed costs to those and need to charge more for the pdfs and physical books just to break even.

Or maybe if the PDF price was lower less ppl would pirate?

The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

At some point you make enough money at your job in a week to cover your expenses... and yet the amount you demand to be paid for your work remains the same.

How about as soon as soon as you make enough money in a week you tell your boss the rest of your work for the week is being done at no charge?

You sound exactly like every fucking self-entitled socialist on the planet... "You don't deserve to make money because I want something you've produced but don't want to actually have to pay for it."

Except it's not the same thing is it?

Once I've finished developing the game I'm not working on it anymore.

First time someone calls me a socialist... Grim would beg to disagree.

It is EXACTLY the same thing. You have declared that at a certain point I've made enough money on my product and you deserve to have it for free.

That is textbook socialism; which is another word for theft. You just don't like to think of yourself as a thief when you're taking someone's work without paying them for it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:26:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 02:26:04 PM
The fixed costs get paid at some point in your run, so after that those aren't an issue anymore. And yet the PDFs price remains the same.

Because it's the maximum price the market will support.

Your argument would make sense if your game as a living document and you would send me for free (or nearly) any and all future additions/modifications. As far as I know nobody does this.

Yeah that's exactly what a socialist would say.

When you're saying it is WRONG for a publisher to charge what the market will bear... YES that is EXACTLY what a socialist would say. You my friend; are a socialist in denial.

Except I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm saying lowering it might help lower piracy dumbass.

I miss The Trove. I could find and download PDFs of games that are not only out of print, but prohibitively expensive to buy now (like the Ringworld RPG). There are also those companies that I refuse to give my money to because their representatives have publicly said that they hate me based upon my sexual orientation or skin color, so I can check out their products.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

Yes.

The "abandonware" argument is a moral one, not a legal one.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Not true, you don't have to defend copyright. Since 1989, you don't even have to claim it; it's automatic.

Disney is evil, tho.

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 03:20:15 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

Yes.

The "abandonware" argument is a moral one, not a legal one.

If it's a legal argument, then the property owner won't have any problem showing up to defend his copyright, correct?

Also, the law is shit, as I noted before.

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Not true, you don't have to defend copyright. Since 1989, you don't even have to claim it; it's automatic.

Disney is evil, tho.

Yes and no. https://www.rothmanlawyer.com/defending-a-copyright-infringement-case/ (look, actual lawyers!)

A copyright must be registered before you file any claims or legal action against someone infringing. Think of it as staking and registering a land claim (actually, that comparison seems pretty apt).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 03:36:13 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 03:20:15 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

Yes.

The "abandonware" argument is a moral one, not a legal one.

If it's a legal argument, then the property owner won't have any problem showing up to defend his copyright, correct?

Also, the law is shit, as I noted before.

If they do, you'll lose.

Agree that the law is shit. The Berne convention was reasonable. Everything since has been the result of regulatory capture. The mice are steering the steamboat.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 03:36:13 PM

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Not true, you don't have to defend copyright. Since 1989, you don't even have to claim it; it's automatic.

Disney is evil, tho.

Yes and no. https://www.rothmanlawyer.com/defending-a-copyright-infringement-case/ (look, actual lawyers!)

A copyright must be registered before you file any claims or legal action against someone infringing. Think of it as staking and registering a land claim (actually, that comparison seems pretty apt).

So? You claimed it would fall into the public domain, which doesn't happen. The registration of a copyright is purely a legal formality needed to file suit, because it doesn't matter if the violations happened before or the copyright was registered.

I have used The Trove to check out books before I bought them, and to electronically  back up my physical books.  But I always knew that one day the party would end. 

Looking at books before I bought them helped me make some great purchases. 

It was also useful to chase down some obscure supplements that most people don't even have. Mayfair Games's Role Aids, for example.

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 03:49:39 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 03:36:13 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 03:20:15 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:21:56 AM
It reminds me of the question of 'abandonware'. Is it piracy if it's not even being published and nobody's sure who owns the IP?

Yes.

The "abandonware" argument is a moral one, not a legal one.

If it's a legal argument, then the property owner won't have any problem showing up to defend his copyright, correct?

Also, the law is shit, as I noted before.

If they do, you'll lose.

Agree that the law is shit. The Berne convention was reasonable. Everything since has been the result of regulatory capture. The mice are steering the steamboat.

I believe I already stated that, but if it makes you feel better...

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 03:36:13 PM

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Not true, you don't have to defend copyright. Since 1989, you don't even have to claim it; it's automatic.

Disney is evil, tho.

Yes and no. https://www.rothmanlawyer.com/defending-a-copyright-infringement-case/ (look, actual lawyers!)

A copyright must be registered before you file any claims or legal action against someone infringing. Think of it as staking and registering a land claim (actually, that comparison seems pretty apt).

So? You claimed it would fall into the public domain, which doesn't happen. The registration of a copyright is purely a legal formality needed to file suit, because it doesn't matter if the violations happened before or the copyright was registered.

Except that, yes, it can happen. Usually it's the result of generic use of a trademark ('Xerox' for example). But there are other instances, some as simple as forgetting to add the circle-c.

(Reference: https://www.knowmad.law/single-post/publicdomain )

Quote from: horsesoldier on October 05, 2021, 11:04:32 AM
Re: Reddit gamers were mad they lost an easy means of pirating TTRPGs

(https://i.imgur.com/hLcEkSh.jpg)

Oh no!  They can't get some one else's work for free!  How awful.  What a bunch of entitled gits.

The solution for the gits is obvious, though.  If they think content should be available for free, then they should put months and years of their life into making quality RPG products and then give it away.  Problem solved.

Quote from: horsesoldier on October 05, 2021, 11:04:32 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTrove/comments/o7dpt9/what_happened_to_the_trove/

There's some real whoppers there. Now, they hate Daniel D. Fox, which is good, but for different reasons. The amount of entitled whining in there is something else. Apparently only rich kids could afford RPG's--who knew?

Here's one particular mouth breather justifying bad behavior:

QuoteI have a tremendous respect for the gaming community tolerating The Trove. The business model of book publishing is completely outdated in the digital era and needs complete overhaul. The gaming community should be inclusive to all regardless of economic means and globally regardless of country poverty.

The Trove has just forced game publishers authors etc to flex to a model of the future where you expect your work to be freely available and you make your money from people who want to pay you directly, people who can afford it, and people who want the premium printed versions and physical versions.

That does mean eliminsting tthe bloated middleman system of pre-digital publishing with all the parasites feeding off the actual creators.

The same dynamic is happening in music production. The music industry is in upheaval but smart musicians are setting up ways to adapt to a totally new model where their work gets widely available for free - and what artist or musician doesnt want their work to get heard seen or read - and they get paid more directly for premium value like concerts patreon vinyl versions merchandise etc.

Don't believe the capitalist dinosaurs trashing The Trove. All books are free is a completely viable reality that supports both creators and also people who can't afford premium print etc. Be proud of The Trove and look forward to it coming back. And also if you have some favorite designers and creators look them up find their paypal and vimeo and send them some money directly. And be glad your beloved game system can be played by anyone not just rich kids.

Right because the music industry hasn't been in upheaval for nearly 30 years now. How do bands make their money now? Touring. What's the RPG writer equivalent of touring? An obscure band can make a decent living by selling premium physical products and touring small venues. What about a writer? How many kickstarters have there been where you can get a Goodman Games quality leatherbound book?

Apologies if this thread needs to be deleted.

Yes, the parasitic middlemen: the printers, the truckers, the paper mills, the people who manufacture the equipment needed, the...don't you all just love the compassion and consideration these people have for other people?

Maybe I'm getting too old, but is this for real? Are these people really like that?

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 04:21:57 PM

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 03:36:13 PM

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Not true, you don't have to defend copyright. Since 1989, you don't even have to claim it; it's automatic.

Disney is evil, tho.

Yes and no. https://www.rothmanlawyer.com/defending-a-copyright-infringement-case/ (look, actual lawyers!)

A copyright must be registered before you file any claims or legal action against someone infringing. Think of it as staking and registering a land claim (actually, that comparison seems pretty apt).

So? You claimed it would fall into the public domain, which doesn't happen. The registration of a copyright is purely a legal formality needed to file suit, because it doesn't matter if the violations happened before or the copyright was registered.

Except that, yes, it can happen. Usually it's the result of generic use of a trademark ('Xerox' for example). But there are other instances, some as simple as forgetting to add the circle-c.

(Reference: https://www.knowmad.law/single-post/publicdomain )

You made a general statement that IPs need to be defended, or they fall into the public domain. That's false, because copyright doesn't work that way. Trademarks do have to be defended, but that's irrelevant, because when you make a general statement about a group of different things (all fruit is red!) and it's only true for a subset of those things, you're still wrong.

I also mentioned 1989 for a reason, because that's when the law was changed so you no longer need to formally claim copyright by appending a notice to your work.

You made the same mistake a lot of people do, on the internet. You referred to IP law as if it were this monolithic thing, and that's simply not the case. The rules for copyright, patents, and trademarks are all very different, and it's almost impossible to make a general statement that applies to them all. What's true for trademarks is not true for copyrights, and patents are another beast entirely. And that's ignoring all the fringes, like trade dress or iconic architecture. That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Not so IMHO, the author should have the right to profit from his work and not be at the whim of any big corporation/rich fuck that decides to profit from it and runs him from the market.

The problem is with the period granted thanks to the Rat. Because they didn't want the mouse and other IP's to fall into public domain.

And we might even discuss trademark law regarding intellectual works (movies, novels, comics, RPGs). Maybe it should also be restricted to the life of the Author?

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

I can see arguments for and against the concept in general, but the implementation has definitely become an entitlement money machine for big companies.

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 05:24:35 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

I can see arguments for and against the concept in general, but the implementation has definitely become an entitlement money machine for big companies.

On this we agree 1000%

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Not so IMHO, the author should have the right to profit from his work and not be at the whim of any big corporation/rich fuck that decides to profit from it and runs him from the market.

The problem is with the period granted thanks to the Rat. Because they didn't want the mouse and other IP's to fall into public domain.

And we might even discuss trademark law regarding intellectual works (movies, novels, comics, RPGs). Maybe it should also be restricted to the life of the Author?

Then the evil corporations would only have to murder the creator and would all be theirs!

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 05, 2021, 05:27:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Not so IMHO, the author should have the right to profit from his work and not be at the whim of any big corporation/rich fuck that decides to profit from it and runs him from the market.

The problem is with the period granted thanks to the Rat. Because they didn't want the mouse and other IP's to fall into public domain.

And we might even discuss trademark law regarding intellectual works (movies, novels, comics, RPGs). Maybe it should also be restricted to the life of the Author?

Then the evil corporations would only have to murder the creator and would all be theirs!

Public Domain you dumbass. You're trully nothing but a troll, welcome to the ignore list.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:29:31 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 05, 2021, 05:27:36 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM
That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

This is correct, though one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Not so IMHO, the author should have the right to profit from his work and not be at the whim of any big corporation/rich fuck that decides to profit from it and runs him from the market.

The problem is with the period granted thanks to the Rat. Because they didn't want the mouse and other IP's to fall into public domain.

And we might even discuss trademark law regarding intellectual works (movies, novels, comics, RPGs). Maybe it should also be restricted to the life of the Author?

Then the evil corporations would only have to murder the creator and would all be theirs!

Public Domain you dumbass. You're trully nothing but a troll, welcome to the ignore list.

Oh no! I'm being ignored by a socialist. It must be because I have a dark taint.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM
Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.
...

The same amount of work went into creating the book whether it is a PDF, or a hardcopy.

Selling the hardcopy means you have to pay the printer, shipping, etc... It is a significant overhead cost incurred, not to mention the additional labor costs involved.

Plus a good pdf is not just a scan - there are additional labor costs involved when you get into fancy indexing, bookmarking, and making printer friendly versions, etc.

IMHO a PDF at 1/2 to 40% the hardcopy print price, the author/publisher is just cutting out the margin they would lose anyway to printing and shipping.


And that is assuming that they are selling direct, and not having to pay any royalties.

Are you like Venger and self publish everything? Someone like him can maximize his margin.

Or do you have to cut the author a royalty like Pundit probably gets? Then the publishers margin goes down.

Did you pay for freelance or staff writers? Their payment is a fixed upfront cost that has to be recouped over time. Which is why you see PDFs over 50% of book price - they are recouping their upfront costs.

If they sell a hardcopy to a FLGS, big Box, or Amazon, they are buying the book at a 40% discount off of MSRP at least. But you still get to pay the same printing and shipping costs. Huzzah! So the margins go down even more!

Bundling a PDF download with a print copy - you are actually getting a Discounted PDF, as they are absorbing the costs associated with PDF features that people like, outlined above. (Or if they are only charging slightly more then they are recouping the additional costs of making a good PDF as outlined above)

Discounting the PDF to less than 40% of print, and now they are making even less than the margin they get from a Print copy. When they have put in the same amount of work to get to that point.

PDFs 1/5 the cost of the hardcopy are screaming deals when one considers the actual amount of effort it takes to create the product. And are usually only done if the author/publisher is willing to take less margin (usually calculating that they will make it up in volume) or sales of the product have slowed to a point that heavily discounting the PDF makes sense to keep some interest and cashflow coming in from the product.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge of book selling/printing can correct me if my numbers are off, but I believe the underlying economic realities are sound.

Do some companies calculate things so that they can charge the maximum of what the market is willing to bear? Yes, they do.

But even for a small guy like Venger, he has to deal with the economic realities of not going broke.

People should be compensated for their work. And usually a lot more work goes into making the things that we like than is obvious at first glance.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 05, 2021, 05:35:20 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 01:02:01 PM
Something else to keep in mind:

Is piracy wholly or partly to blame for the ridiculous PDF prices? Or is it the other way around? Or is it a vicious circle?

I mean softcover $20 US and PDF $14 US? I've seen this stuff more than once, come on, once you made the PDF your cost for copy is zero.
...

The same amount of work went into creating the book whether it is a PDF, or a hardcopy.

Selling the hardcopy means you have to pay the printer, shipping, etc... It is a significant overhead cost incurred, not to mention the additional labor costs involved.

Plus a good pdf is not just a scan - there are additional labor costs involved when you get into fancy indexing, bookmarking, and making printer friendly versions, etc.

IMHO a PDF at 1/2 to 40% the hardcopy print price, the author/publisher is just cutting out the margin they would lose anyway to printing and shipping.


And that is assuming that they are selling direct, and not having to pay any royalties.

Are you like Venger and self publish everything? Someone like him can maximize his margin.

Or do you have to cut the author a royalty like Pundit probably gets? Then the publishers margin goes down.

Did you pay for freelance or staff writers? Their payment is a fixed upfront cost that has to be recouped over time. Which is why you see PDFs over 50% of book price - they are recouping their upfront costs.

If they sell a hardcopy to a FLGS, big Box, or Amazon, they are buying the book at a 40% discount off of MSRP at least. So the margins go down even more!

Bundling a PDF download with a print copy - you are actually getting a Discounted PDF, as they are absorbing the costs associated with PDF features that people like, outlined above.

Discounting the PDF to less than 40% of print, and now they are making even less than the margin they get from a Print copy. When they have put in the same amount of work to get to that point.

PDFs 1/5 the cost of the hardcopy are screaming deals when one considers the actual amount of effort it takes to create the product. And are usually only done if the author/publisher is willing to take less margin (usually calculating that they will make it up in volume) or sales of the product have slowed to a point that heavily discounting the PDF makes sense to keep some interest and cashflow coming in from the product.

I'm sure someone with more knowledge of book selling/printing can correct me if my numbers are off, but I believe the underlying economic realities are sound.

Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

A first time developer selfpublishing might expect nobody want's to buy his shit so it might be smart to lower the price to make it less of a risk for the buyer.

An established brand like D&D with Hasbro megabucks behind could stretch the recuperating period, only reasons they don't it's because the market pays their price and they have investors to please.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 05, 2021, 05:35:20 PM
I'm sure someone with more knowledge of book selling/printing can correct me if my numbers are off, but I believe the underlying economic realities are sound.

One thing that's different is the unit cost to manufacture. A print publisher who sends out review copies is having to pay the print costs for each one, while a PDF publisher who sends out review copies is basically just pressing a button. (The cost isn't zero, but it's relatively small and the incremental cost for each new unit is tiny.)

This doesn't just impact comped copies, but also promotions and the long tail. The calculation is very different if you have an opportunity to sell your books some place with massive exposure, but the venue requires serious discounts. A print publisher will have a threshold below which each copy costs them money, while to an electronic publisher it's all gravy. Compare Walmart to Humble Bundle; Walmart insistence on low prices is known to break companies, but it can be great exposure to a wider audience with little long-term downside for a PDF publisher, even if everyone pays only $1.

Print also requires physical inventories, which means storage costs, transportation, and taxes that encourage publishers to pulp books. This makes it very hard to keep all but the bestselling old titles in print, whereas a timeless PDF can keep selling for decades. Even if it's a tiny trickle of sales, if you have a large enough catalog, it can add up to serious money. Electronic publishers also don't have to worry about the second hand market cannibalizing sales.

There are some downsides to electronic, like piracy, but they're generally a lot less.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs. ...

But you do have to recoup those costs, and turn a decent profit if you want to have the ready capital to repeat the process again with less financial risk.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
...
An established brand like D&D with Hasbro megabucks behind could stretch the recuperating period, only reasons they don't it's because the market pays their price and they have investors to please.

Even a self-publisher has an investor to please: Himself.

They need an adequate income stream to not only cover his personal overhead, a.k.a., eat. But to also to allow him to create future product with less financial risk.

Those are not small considerations, for a self-publisher like Venger, or even someone like Pundit working for royalties.

The more an author or publisher is made financially secure by recouping a decent profit in a timely manner: The more risk they are able to take on creative projects.

Plus everything Pat just said.

Only someone not concerned (for various reasons) with the costs involved, would not want to be adequately compensated for their efforts in a timely fashion.

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

Perhaps pdf releases could be set to have their price lowered over time. Full cost for 1st year of release, 25% off for the next two years, 50% off for two more, and then free after 5 years...

Just random percents and time blocks, but it's just a rough idea.

One of the realities of the 2010+ TTRPG game market is that players aren't going to pay to look at your rules. Regardless of what you think about that, RPG book publishers should be open to freely sharing the lion's share of their rules content from a book.

That being said, I'm surprised more don't make more of an effort at providing specific tiers of content. Give me the RPGBOOK_SampleEdition.pdf, make it black and white, minimal artwork, no hyperlinking, etc. If that's what gets out there on a torrent site or Trove-clone? So be it.

Meanwhile, the TTRPG hobby is full of people with disposable income who like value added stuff, so while you're giving away the basic bitch version, you sell your full-color, full-artwork pdf, with hyperlinking and all the other bells and whistles. Put the ads for this product right inside your sample. Make people see the difference. There are a lot of people who want to support work they like, but first you've got to get them playing.

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

So selling it at $10 bucks gives you what? Lets say 100,000 total units ever (I doubt your assertions since you don't provide anything to back them but lets run with them), this would mean $1,000,000 bucks for the PDF alone minus 40% for DT?. Lets say you sold the same ammount of print copies at $60 bucks, that's $6,000,000 minus what?

That's not much money if you've got only one game, if you've got several it starts to add.

From OneBookShelf:
Here are the thresholds needed to earn each badge:

    Copper: 51 units sold
    Silver: 101
    Electrum: 251
    Gold: 501
    Platinum: 1,001
    Mithral: 2,501
    Adamantine: 5,001

DriveThru best sellers:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php)

https://onebookshelfpublisherservice.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360022135314-Bestseller-metals-and-how-to-earn-badges (https://onebookshelfpublisherservice.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360022135314-Bestseller-metals-and-how-to-earn-badges)

Mind you those aren't great numbers but that doesn't mean that a PDF at $40 is justified. Especially since many fund the game by crowdfunding.

Quote from: Zelen on October 05, 2021, 06:47:30 PM
One of the realities of the 2010 TTRPG game market is that players aren't going to pay to look at your rules. Regardless of what you think about that, RPG book publishers should be open to freely sharing the lion's share of their rules content from a book.
...

It is not without reason that some of the most popular games/systems put their core rules out with an OGL, or real easy 3pp license of some kind.

This serves two purposes IMHO:

1: Satisfying fucking cheap-ass lazy players. But gains their goodwill.

2: Offset by the increased network effect gained amongst players and rules hacking GMs. And if the game is good enough you will see offshoot games pop-up increasing the network effect of your game and promoting sales of the overall "powered by Xrules" family of games that seems to work well for everyone.

Being a first mover is huge in RPG land. And if you are not a first mover, you need to do something to promote a networking effect to maintain interest in the game.

It also helps if the game is actually good...

Quote from: Zelen on October 05, 2021, 06:47:30 PM
One of the realities of the 2010+ TTRPG game market is that players aren't going to pay to look at your rules. Regardless of what you think about that, RPG book publishers should be open to freely sharing the lion's share of their rules content from a book.

That being said, I'm surprised more don't make more of an effort at providing specific tiers of content. Give me the RPGBOOK_SampleEdition.pdf, make it black and white, minimal artwork, no hyperlinking, etc. If that's what gets out there on a torrent site or Trove-clone? So be it.

Meanwhile, the TTRPG hobby is full of people with disposable income who like value added stuff, so while you're giving away the basic bitch version, you sell your full-color, full-artwork pdf, with hyperlinking and all the other bells and whistles. Put the ads for this product right inside your sample. Make people see the difference. There are a lot of people who want to support work they like, but first you've got to get them playing.

Yeah, make your RPGBOOK_SampleEdition.pdf with ZERO art beyond the cover I would think, at least in my first crowdfunding campaign it's how I'm going to make it. every backer from 5$ and above gets this right away, to show the game is complete and only needs the art.

Think this would go a long way into making people less nervous about not getting the game.

Another thing I'm doing is formatting it myself. It's sorta hard to learn to but nothing impossible if you know your way around a word processor.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 07:03:12 PM
Another thing I'm doing is formatting it myself. It's sorta hard to learn to but nothing impossible if you know your way around a word processor.

What are you using for formatting? I've seen a number of tools for book layout and so on but most of them seem kind of rubbish. I'm going to try using LaTeX, but I am curious how it will handle images and whatnot.

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 05, 2021, 06:43:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

Perhaps pdf releases could be set to have their price lowered over time. Full cost for 1st year of release, 25% off for the next two years, 50% off for two more, and then free after 5 years...

Just random percents and time blocks, but it's just a rough idea.

I suspect that this would result in a lot of the core audience waiting until the price drops to get their copy. So the total number of copies sold is the same, but the sales happen later and at a lower price. Also, since there are fewer initial sales, it's probably harder to get an early buzz about the game.

As for cost of print vs PDF -- it seems to me that in non-RPG books, e-books are similar in price to paperback - usually only 10% less or so. And overall, I don't feel like RPG designers are overpaid for their time.

I think one problem might be international pricing. In physical books, I suspect that copies sell for less in some locations based on the local economy. Do RPG books in Mexico sell for less than in the U.S.?  It's at least possible. With PDFs, though, the price is always the same.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 06:56:10 PM
So selling it at $10 bucks gives you what? Lets say 100,000 total units ever (I doubt your assertions since you don't provide anything to back them but lets run with them),

What!?  Getting the overwhelming majority of your sales in the first few years of release of a product is business 101.

It just a part of the business cycle that anyone who has done run rates on product inventory over time for a business has seen for themselves.

Runaway hits like what has happened with 5e are the exception. Not the rule.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 06:56:10 PM

DriveThru best sellers:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php)

Mind you those aren't great numbers but that doesn't mean that a PDF at $40 is justified. Especially since many fund the game by crowdfunding.

ROTFL - R.Talsorian is absolutely trying to milk it with Cyberpunk Red... WTF that's crazy for a PDF! LOL!!! Their PDF should be no more than $20.00 or a touch less...

You can shoot yourself in the foot by pricing yourself out of the buying threshold of the majority of your customers. Or by Pricing yourself so low that volume does not give you sufficient return in a timely manner to meet continued overhead costs.

This is why most businesses try and Calculate/SWAG the price threshold that will give them the best ROI: Not so high that the lack of sales is not made up by the high cost. And not so low that the volume of sales does not make up for the discounted price. But that sweet spot that gives you the best sales ROI in a timely manner.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 07:03:12 PM

Yeah, make your RPGBOOK_SampleEdition.pdf with ZERO art beyond the cover I would think, at least in my first crowdfunding campaign it's how I'm going to make it. every backer from 5$ and above gets this right away, to show the game is complete and only needs the art.
...

That should be a requirement for all Crowdfunding/Kickstarter RPG efforts. Even if it is in some word file and still needs formatting. Just showing that the game/supplement/scenario is not vaporware buys a ton of goodwill.

Plus it give you the possibility of additional playtesting amongst your backers for a time.

Quote from: Zelen on October 05, 2021, 07:25:19 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 07:03:12 PM
Another thing I'm doing is formatting it myself. It's sorta hard to learn to but nothing impossible if you know your way around a word processor.

What are you using for formatting? I've seen a number of tools for book layout and so on but most of them seem kind of rubbish. I'm going to try using LaTeX, but I am curious how it will handle images and whatnot.

I'm using mainly OpenOffice Writer, but I'm learning to use Scribus, the open source answer to InDesign.

https://www.scribus.net/ (https://www.scribus.net/)

I'll probably end up with a workflow like this: Writer -> Scribus

Writer is superior for PDF design IMHO, and it gives you automatic hyperlinked index. Need to learn to make my own hyperlinks to be able to reference/link to a certain part of the document from other places than the index.

Edited to add:

Was it Exemplars and Eidolons the one that gave you the InDesign files to use as templates?

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 07:30:40 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 05, 2021, 06:43:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

Perhaps pdf releases could be set to have their price lowered over time. Full cost for 1st year of release, 25% off for the next two years, 50% off for two more, and then free after 5 years...

Just random percents and time blocks, but it's just a rough idea.

I suspect that this would result in a lot of the core audience waiting until the price drops to get their copy. So the total number of copies sold is the same, but the sales happen later and at a lower price. Also, since there are fewer initial sales, it's probably harder to get an early buzz about the game.

As for cost of print vs PDF -- it seems to me that in non-RPG books, e-books are similar in price to paperback - usually only 10% less or so. And overall, I don't feel like RPG designers are overpaid for their time.

I think one problem might be international pricing. In physical books, I suspect that copies sell for less in some locations based on the local economy. Do RPG books in Mexico sell for less than in the U.S.?  It's at least possible. With PDFs, though, the price is always the same.

Never thought of making the comparison, what's in it to gain? (For me as a customer I mean)

In Amazon The Wild Beyond the Witchlight: A Feywild Adventure hard cover goes for $715.69 pesos or $34.79 US funny money.

You tell me if it's the same price or not.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 05, 2021, 07:30:44 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 06:56:10 PM
So selling it at $10 bucks gives you what? Lets say 100,000 total units ever (I doubt your assertions since you don't provide anything to back them but lets run with them),

What!?  Getting the overwhelming majority of your sales in the first few years of release of a product is business 101.

It just a part of the business cycle that anyone who has done run rates on product inventory over time for a business has seen for themselves.

Runaway hits like what has happened with 5e are the exception. Not the rule.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 06:56:10 PM

DriveThru best sellers:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/metal.php)

Mind you those aren't great numbers but that doesn't mean that a PDF at $40 is justified. Especially since many fund the game by crowdfunding.

ROTFL - R.Talsorian is absolutely trying to milk it with Cyberpunk Red... WTF that's crazy for a PDF! LOL!!! Their PDF should be no more than $20.00 or a touch less...

You can shoot yourself in the foot by pricing yourself out of the buying threshold of the majority of your customers. Or by Pricing yourself so low that volume does not give you sufficient return in a timely manner to meet continued overhead costs.

This is why most businesses try and Calculate/SWAG the price threshold that will give them the best ROI: Not so high that the lack of sales is not made up by the high cost. And not so low that the volume of sales does not make up for the discounted price. But that sweet spot that gives you the best sales ROI in a timely manner.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 07:03:12 PM

Yeah, make your RPGBOOK_SampleEdition.pdf with ZERO art beyond the cover I would think, at least in my first crowdfunding campaign it's how I'm going to make it. every backer from 5$ and above gets this right away, to show the game is complete and only needs the art.
...

That should be a requirement for all Crowdfunding/Kickstarter RPG efforts. Even if it is in some word file and still needs formatting. Just showing that the game/supplement/scenario is not vaporware buys a ton of goodwill.

Plus it give you the possibility of additional playtesting amongst your backers for a time.

Wait, I'm getting mixed signals here, are some PDFs overpriced or not?

I said that IMHO most are, but most aren't R.Talsorian either, but small/unknown publishers. If I don't know you I'm not going to fork over $20 US to see if your game is any good.

On the Crowdfunding stuff, YES, it should be a requirement, I fork $5 or more I get the basic bitch PDF with no art and no hyperlinks. Then when the campaign ends and the product is done every backer gets whatever they should by their tier.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 07:49:42 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 07:30:40 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on October 05, 2021, 06:43:35 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM
This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

Perhaps pdf releases could be set to have their price lowered over time. Full cost for 1st year of release, 25% off for the next two years, 50% off for two more, and then free after 5 years...

Just random percents and time blocks, but it's just a rough idea.

I suspect that this would result in a lot of the core audience waiting until the price drops to get their copy. So the total number of copies sold is the same, but the sales happen later and at a lower price. Also, since there are fewer initial sales, it's probably harder to get an early buzz about the game.

As for cost of print vs PDF -- it seems to me that in non-RPG books, e-books are similar in price to paperback - usually only 10% less or so. And overall, I don't feel like RPG designers are overpaid for their time.

I think one problem might be international pricing. In physical books, I suspect that copies sell for less in some locations based on the local economy. Do RPG books in Mexico sell for less than in the U.S.?  It's at least possible. With PDFs, though, the price is always the same.

Never thought of making the comparison, what's in it to gain? (For me as a customer I mean)

In Amazon The Wild Beyond the Witchlight: A Feywild Adventure hard cover goes for $715.69 pesos or $34.79 US funny money.

You tell me if it's the same price or not.

It's only $30.76 on Amazon here in the USA.

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

That's true if you sell one PDF and nothing more, but not if you develop a catalog. If you publish just 1 PDF a month, you'll have a dozen new products generating long tail sales every year, which can quickly add up as your catalog expands. And each of those new products is another gateway that can induce people to look at everything else you've published, further increasing the value of your catalog.

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 07:30:40 PM
I suspect that this would result in a lot of the core audience waiting until the price drops to get their copy. So the total number of copies sold is the same, but the sales happen later and at a lower price. Also, since there are fewer initial sales, it's probably harder to get an early buzz about the game.

That explains the lack of crowds when a new version of an iPhone comes out. People just stay at home and wait for the price to drop in a year or two. Right?

No. That's not how people work.

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 08:22:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

That's true if you sell one PDF and nothing more, but not if you develop a catalog. If you publish just 1 PDF a month, you'll have a dozen new products generating long tail sales every year, which can quickly add up as your catalog expands. And each of those new products is another gateway that can induce people to look at everything else you've published, further increasing the value of your catalog.

If only we knew of someone with an extense catalog who could tell us if his first stuff keeps selling and if his old stuff gets a boost in sales when he publishes something new.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 08:37:58 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 08:22:45 PM

Quote from: jhkim on October 05, 2021, 06:38:04 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
Yes work goes into everythin, never said otherwise, but once you have the product you're not paying those costs anymore, hence why those are fixed costs.

So you can make some math and decide how many PDFs you want to sell to pay those costs. You can divide between 1 and a million, your costs remain the same, your marging too, you just take longer recuperating your initial investment.

This assumes that every PDF will keep selling steadily forever, which I'm sure is not true. For most PDF products, there is only a small number of copies (far less than a million) that you will sell ever. The sales in the first two years might be 80% of the sales ever. Thus, leaving it on the catalogs for another ten years might not change the total sales by more than a tiny fraction. Once the core market of users is reached, additional sales get less and less likely.

That's true if you sell one PDF and nothing more, but not if you develop a catalog. If you publish just 1 PDF a month, you'll have a dozen new products generating long tail sales every year, which can quickly add up as your catalog expands. And each of those new products is another gateway that can induce people to look at everything else you've published, further increasing the value of your catalog.

If only we knew of someone with an extense catalog who could tell us if his first stuff keeps selling and if his old stuff gets a boost in sales when he publishes something new.

Shame nobody on this forum has published a series with, to pick a purely random number, 105 PDFs, isn't it?

I'm not part of the RPG industry, but another example of the concept in action is YouTube. You can find all kinds of videos by people with successful channels where they talk about the importance of building a catalog, how the videos cross-fertilize, and how much the long tail drives their overall views. Electronic publishing has a very different model than print.

Drivethru Adamantine Best Sellers list was interesting. Mainly battlemats and nostalgia D&D product, to a first approximation. Then Hero Kids, then a select handful of other core books (Cyberpunk Red, Savage Worlds, couple of Shadowrun editions). I would have thought Call of Cthulhu and Traveller would get more of a look-in.

And in at the end: Mythic GM Emulator. Kind of depressing. Immediate mental picture of a lot of middle aged guys with harassed lives sitting alone in the spare room after the kids have finally gone to sleep trying to recapture a whiff of the thrill they felt playing D&D 30 years ago.

When you have an older product that's not selling well anymore, you can give it a facelift and sell it again.

I really feel like Rob Conley (@estar) should weigh in here. I'm sure his insight would be very informative.

Creators do not owe the world free access to their creations.  If they want to give it away, that's fine; but they don't owe it to the world.

I used to use the trove as a backup for pdfs of books that I own... And only recently realized this when I went to look up a specific word in my 3.5 Forgotten realms collection.

I'm iffy - I've bought stuff that I've pirated and I've pirated stuff I've bought physically.

What is most upsetting is the old stuff that's out of print and hundreds of $$ to buy, but apparently "really good setting material for X type of game..." Blargh.

No easy solutions - I do believe artists should get paid for their work and efforts too. But also don't have enough money to buy everything I consume. :(

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 05, 2021, 11:27:52 PM
Creators do not owe the world free access to their creations.  If they want to give it away, that's fine; but they don't owe it to the world.

That's true. If they don't want it out in the world, they can choose to simply not publish anything.

Quote from: Pat on October 05, 2021, 04:55:53 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 04:21:57 PM

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 03:36:13 PM

Quote

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Pretty much. If you don't defend IPs ferociously, they slide right into the public domain. The ridiculous extensions Disney has gotten on their properties (via bribing congresscritters) just make it worse.

Not true, you don't have to defend copyright. Since 1989, you don't even have to claim it; it's automatic.

Disney is evil, tho.

Yes and no. https://www.rothmanlawyer.com/defending-a-copyright-infringement-case/ (look, actual lawyers!)

A copyright must be registered before you file any claims or legal action against someone infringing. Think of it as staking and registering a land claim (actually, that comparison seems pretty apt).

So? You claimed it would fall into the public domain, which doesn't happen. The registration of a copyright is purely a legal formality needed to file suit, because it doesn't matter if the violations happened before or the copyright was registered.

Except that, yes, it can happen. Usually it's the result of generic use of a trademark ('Xerox' for example). But there are other instances, some as simple as forgetting to add the circle-c.

(Reference: https://www.knowmad.law/single-post/publicdomain )

You made a general statement that IPs need to be defended, or they fall into the public domain. That's false, because copyright doesn't work that way. Trademarks do have to be defended, but that's irrelevant, because when you make a general statement about a group of different things (all fruit is red!) and it's only true for a subset of those things, you're still wrong.

I also mentioned 1989 for a reason, because that's when the law was changed so you no longer need to formally claim copyright by appending a notice to your work.

You made the same mistake a lot of people do, on the internet. You referred to IP law as if it were this monolithic thing, and that's simply not the case. The rules for copyright, patents, and trademarks are all very different, and it's almost impossible to make a general statement that applies to them all. What's true for trademarks is not true for copyrights, and patents are another beast entirely. And that's ignoring all the fringes, like trade dress or iconic architecture. That's why it's usually a good idea to refer to the specific branch of IP law, rather than talk about it in general.

I am an IP Law Lecturer and I approve this message.

OTOH... I do see actual US IP Lawyers acting as if copyrights needed to be defended. The Statutes (in US it's in the Federal Code) don't say that at all, but maybe ignorant judges think that? Which can create precedents... and US Law is infamous for ignoring legislation in favour of case precedents.

Quote from: Jaeger on October 05, 2021, 05:35:20 PM
Discounting the PDF to less than 40% of print, and now they are making even less than the margin they get from a Print copy.

If PDFs cost 40% of print I don't think anyone reasonable would complain. There is a tendency to put pdf price at 80% or so of print, which doesn't feel right to me.

Publishing is weird. How can a fantastic 400 page full colour beautiful art hardback like Odyssey of the Dragonlords be RRP £40, and a crappy Paizo AP issue (96 pages) be RRP £20?

Quote from: S'mon on October 06, 2021, 02:11:32 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on October 05, 2021, 05:35:20 PM
Discounting the PDF to less than 40% of print, and now they are making even less than the margin they get from a Print copy.

If PDFs cost 40% of print I don't think anyone reasonable would complain. There is a tendency to put pdf price at 80% or so of print, which doesn't feel right to me.

Publishing is weird. How can a fantastic 400 page full colour beautiful art hardback like Odyssey of the Dragonlords be RRP £40, and a crappy Paizo AP issue (96 pages) be RRP £20?

The main difference could just come down to cost associated with overseas trade. Modiphius (OotDL) is London-based and so is local for you, while Paizo is Seattle-based (and almost certainly has its physical APs printed somewhere in Asia).

This is probably the case because when I did a search for the same things OotDL is $56 direct from Modiphius (this is right around the Pound to Dollar exchange rate) and a physical Paizo Adventure Path is $13.99 (about £10) or a quarter of the price of OotDL in the US vs. double the price in the UK.

International trade is yet another beast that plays a role in how things end up being priced in different countries.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 06, 2021, 05:32:07 AM

Quote from: S'mon on October 06, 2021, 02:11:32 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on October 05, 2021, 05:35:20 PM
Discounting the PDF to less than 40% of print, and now they are making even less than the margin they get from a Print copy.

If PDFs cost 40% of print I don't think anyone reasonable would complain. There is a tendency to put pdf price at 80% or so of print, which doesn't feel right to me.

Publishing is weird. How can a fantastic 400 page full colour beautiful art hardback like Odyssey of the Dragonlords be RRP £40, and a crappy Paizo AP issue (96 pages) be RRP £20?

The main difference could just come down to cost associated with overseas trade. Modiphius (OotDL) is London-based and so is local for you, while Paizo is Seattle-based (and almost certainly has its physical APs printed somewhere in Asia).

This is probably the case because when I did a search for the same things OotDL is $56 direct from Modiphius (this is right around the Pound to Dollar exchange rate) and a physical Paizo Adventure Path is $13.99 (about £10) or a quarter of the price of OotDL in the US vs. double the price in the UK.

International trade is yet another beast that plays a role in how things end up being priced in different countries.

Makes sense - thanks!  8)

I guess the weird thing there for me is that the price seems entirely determined by print & distribution costs, not the actual creative inputs that went into it, which people here are saying is the important thing. Paizo run a generally low quality sausage factory with moderately palatable fare stuffed full of filler - rusk if you're lucky, sawdust if you're not. OOTDL is notably low priced at £40 even just for the production quality, £50 is more typical these days (eg the Kobold Press hardbacks), but again that's ignoring art & writing quality; OOTDL is vastly superior in both to either Paizo or the WoTC hardbacks. Kobold Press are more comparable but most of the OOTDL art & writing quality is still notably higher even than KP.

Paizo and WoTC produce a lot of crap, high priced crap, and presumably justify this as 'what the market will bear'. Some 3rd party producers are making much better stuff, much higher production values AND writing quality, at much lower prices - yet are presumably still making a profit. How so?  :o

(Edit: I would say, Modiphius product always looks gorgeous, but often the actual content is very unsatisfying, so this isn't a blanket endorsement of Modiphius. I think OOTDL is a bit of a lightning-in-a-bottle phenomenon. Kobold Press is a better example of a 3PP doing pretty consistently good steak-and-potatoes work. Apart from Prepared! I've always been at least reasonably happy with every KP purchase. The KP monster books are great.)

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 05, 2021, 11:27:52 PM
Creators do not owe the world free access to their creations.  If they want to give it away, that's fine; but they don't owe it to the world.

On the other hand, their customers don't owe them a debt of eternal servitude in regards to their creation. The "problem" with ideas is that once they're communicated, they have been given away, irrevocably. There is (thank God) no contract or state edict that can change the nature of information.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:09:11 AM
If they don't want it out in the world, they can choose to simply not publish anything.

Precisely.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM
[...] one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Not so IMHO, the author should have the right to profit from his work and not be at the whim of any big corporation/rich fuck that decides to profit from it and runs him from the market.

Now that I'm off the clock, I can expand on my shitpost.

From one anti-communist to another: "the right to profit" is Labor Theory of Value commie BS. But even if we re-frame it as "the right to the opportunity to profit" (timed monopoly privilege), this is still obviously not a right. If a man sets up a hardware store in town, how long should everyone other than him be prevented from setting up a similar store? And how far does the criminalization extend geographically? And what are the boundaries of the word "similar"? Such obviously-ridiculous protectionism is only barely different from the way real-world established restaurants band together to impoverish food trucks and other small-business competitors: https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/vending/

"Intellectual Property" law is the same thing, but for industries that deal in information. This includes health care, where it ensures that people suffer or die rather than let some poor Little Guy pharmaceutical megacorp "lose" some hypothetical profit: https://mises.org/wire/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug

Any normal person wants to see their favorite artists make a living from their work. The biggest obstacle to this, ironically, is IP law: most artists (the ones you've never heard of, who make no money; the actual Little Guys) are terrified to sell the very thing that is the most likely to make them money (fan art of things that other people already like), for fear of legalized harassment and extortion from the "property owners" (a misnomer since no property is involved). Instead, they're expected to cook up "new" ideas that are OK for them to sell (you know, the kind nobody is interested in buying).

Of course, almost nobody on the planet has a "new idea" that will compete with existing pop art "properties" within their lifetime. Most artists will do best by producing recognizable derivative works (drawings, adaptations, sequels, remakes, whatever), and they should be permitted to do so, since it harms no one (in fact, fans of popular franchises would probably even be treated to a good reboot or adaptation once in a while).

The few people that do have such "new" ideas, and are actually talented enough to monetize them (the ones who stand a chance to make a buck in the first place; the ones we're suppose to "protect" from "lost profits") have no need of nanny-state protectionism from the people making fan-art.

Of course, IP law does not (and isn't intended to) protect such people in the first place. Imagine a typical IP nightmare scenario: a Little Guy publishes a distinct, high-quality webcomic that gets ten views per month, but also gets ripped off by Disney, and they make millions with a movie adaptation. What's he going to do about it with his fast food wagie bank account and nil reputation? That's right: nothing. IP law only "protects" (as if harm were involved) those who can afford to pursue expensive legalized harassment of would-be competitors.

You know what he probably could do, though? Write a tell-all on his blog, get interviewed by some big YouTubers, broadcast the fact that he's the uncredited author behind a multi-million dollar Disney movie, start a Patreon (or crowdfund a new project, or whatever), and profit from the fact that Disney "stole" "his idea". Doesn't sound so bad, really. Or should we pretend that he would have been better off with the "uninfringed" state of no audience and no money?

I can think of a much worse case, from real life. In recent years, Steve Ditko has probably been the most popular example of Little Guy Victimized By Evil Businessman, and you know what would have really helped him out? If people didn't believe that ideas can be owned like cars and houses, he could have found someone else to publish Spider-Man with "Still Drawn by Series Creator Steve Ditko" plastered on the cover. What could Marvel have done? Were they gonna pay some punk kid to impersonate Steve Ditko, with the real deal sitting next to their knockoff on the news stands? Who knows if it would have sold well enough, but at least he could have had the option. Instead, since we protect Little Guys with IP law, he would have been sued for every penny and then some.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM
The problem is with the period granted thanks to the Rat. Because they didn't want the mouse and other IP's to fall into public domain.

The thing is, rights don't expire. If IP protectionism is a right, why should it expire? If IP protectionism should expire, then how can it be a right? What other rights expire?

If too much IP protectionism is obviously bad, what amount is axiomatically, self-evidently just right? Why shouldn't it be reduced all the way to zero?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM
And we might even discuss trademark law regarding intellectual works (movies, novels, comics, RPGs). Maybe it should also be restricted to the life of the Author?

All of it should be abolished.

My comments above are oriented around the usual market competition scenarios, but there's an irrefutable basis on which all people should oppose all IP law, right down to legalizing the piracy of RPG books from Little Guys ("piracy" is of course a misnomer since theft isn't involved).

Why doesn't "intellectual property" exist? Because information can't be property. It's a contradiction in terms: https://mises.org/library/fallacy-intellectual-property

Property is something that can be taken from you. For example: the hard drive an RPG trove is stored on? That's property. The PDFs on the drive? Those are information. They're infinitely duplicable; they're not scarce.

Even water is scarce. Water can be property. At any given time, there is a limited physical amount of it to go around (especially if we consider only potable water).

However, no matter how many times a book is downloaded from Megaupload (RIP), nobody on the planet is deprived of their existing copy. Stealing involves taking something from somebody. Copying is not taking. If we could will copies of expensive cars into existence just by knowing information about them, it would not be considered theft to do so. Contrary to the famous ad, yes, we all would "download a car", and we would laugh at anybody who prudishly refused to do so.

The reason we feel differently about art is because we all believe in the oppressed Artist whose only available occupation in life is to profit from his noble passion (he'll starve, otherwise; he can't get a job, apparently), and we all worry about what if some evil Businessman overheard the synopsis to his yet-to-be-published Great American Novel while they both were down at the speakeasy, and... Cuban cigar in mouth... profited.

Luckliy, that's all myth and propaganda.

In reality, the "If it was legal to copy information, how would artists make money?" dilemma is a practical one, not a moral one. (See the Q&A for this talk by Stephan Kinsella for a good discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfU34KkNV1s&t=1557s ; the whole talk is great, but the Q&A starts off with a steaming mad Artiste riding in on a high horse to deboonk Kinsella on this very topic.)

Artists and other creators of information should be asking the question, "Given that copying information is already not a crime (it's just illegal), how can I monetize my creative output while also releasing it into the public domain (i.e. publishing it)?"

There is no single answer to this question. There are unlimited answers.

• Many free-and-open-source software projects are funded by providing enterprise customer support.


• Open source web apps are often funded by offering a professionally managed instance of the software as a paid service (think Wordpress).


• David Revoy licenses his Pepper & Carrot webcomic (and its production source files) as CC-BY, and makes over $3000 per episode (on Patreon alone). You've probably seen his work recently on DTRPG thanks to this silver best-seller (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/291872/Witchcraft-Magic-of-Hereva-5e?manufacturers_id=13026) made by one of his fans. That fan has made several books, and probably a decent amount of money, using Revoy's artwork.


• Gabor Lux withholds the digital release of his RPG books until the print versions have been on sale for several months (incidentally, while his books are not dedicated to the public domain, he also has said he doesn't mind his books being shared online).


• Omer Golan-Joel's Cepheus Engine derivatives are almost entirely "Open Content". For example, his Cepheus Deluxe (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/370075/Cepheus-Deluxe), which has been a top seller for the past few weeks, is entirely open content except for the introduction to the book.

The thing is, everything already is in the public domain. Everyone intuitively realizes this when it comes to "old" stuff; the problem is that generations of conditioning has taught people that Superman and Harry Potter or Disney's Cinderella exist in a separate plane of reality from things like Charles Dickens or H.G. Wells or "regular Cinderella". Once the culture comes around to see this distinction as the farcical legislative invention that it is, both creative people and their audiences will be better off.

The culture is moving in that direction pretty rapidly, though. The OSR and the increasing number of "fine I'll do it myself" unofficial Nintendo game sequels on Steam are a testament to that.

I'm surprised it wasn't shut down years ago tbh. But The Trove will never die. I'm sure they will eventually get it put up on some Russian server or something. Then we can all laugh at Daniel Fox's tears again.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 06, 2021, 06:05:21 AM
I'm surprised it wasn't shut down years ago tbh. But The Trove will never die. I'm sure they will eventually get it put up on some Russian server or something. Then we can all laugh at Daniel Fox's tears again.

I think we can all agree on that last. :)

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 06, 2021, 06:05:21 AM
I'm surprised it wasn't shut down years ago tbh. But The Trove will never die. I'm sure they will eventually get it put up on some Russian server or something. Then we can all laugh at Daniel Fox's tears again.

I'm just surprised more people don't know about the Share Thread on /tg/. ::shrug:: The funniest part of this to me isn't how whiny and entitled the people on that Reddit post are, it's how stupid they are about their whiny entitlement. It would take them literally less than 5 minutes to not only find a replacement for The Trove, but a better replacement.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 07:59:57 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 06, 2021, 06:05:21 AM
I'm surprised it wasn't shut down years ago tbh. But The Trove will never die. I'm sure they will eventually get it put up on some Russian server or something. Then we can all laugh at Daniel Fox's tears again.

I think we can all agree on that last. :)

See, and that's where Ocule's list has been invaluable for me. I was actually looking at picking up a copy of Zweihander. But the list helped me research more, watched some youtube vids etc. I was even thinking of picking up a book called Neverland: A Fantasy Role-Playing Setting until I found out who did the rules part of the writing.

Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on October 06, 2021, 08:54:42 AM
See, and that's where Ocule's list has been invaluable for me. I was actually looking at picking up a copy of Zweihander.

Indeed!! And why go for Zweihander when you can still get your mitts on the fine original 1e, or the 2e version?  :D

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 07:59:57 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 06, 2021, 06:05:21 AM
I'm surprised it wasn't shut down years ago tbh. But The Trove will never die. I'm sure they will eventually get it put up on some Russian server or something. Then we can all laugh at Daniel Fox's tears again.

I think we can all agree on that last. :)

It will certainly bring me tears of joy.  ;D

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 05:58:22 AM

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 05, 2021, 11:27:52 PM
Creators do not owe the world free access to their creations.  If they want to give it away, that's fine; but they don't owe it to the world.

On the other hand, their customers don't owe them a debt of eternal servitude in regards to their creation. The "problem" with ideas is that once they're communicated, they have been given away, irrevocably. There is (thank God) no contract or state edict that can change the nature of information.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:09:11 AM
If they don't want it out in the world, they can choose to simply not publish anything.

Precisely.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 05, 2021, 05:12:02 PM
[...] one good general statement that can be made about "Intellectual Property" is that it's all made-up Clown World nonsense (unlike property).

Not so IMHO, the author should have the right to profit from his work and not be at the whim of any big corporation/rich fuck that decides to profit from it and runs him from the market.

Now that I'm off the clock, I can expand on my shitpost.

From one anti-communist to another: "the right to profit" is Labor Theory of Value commie BS. But even if we re-frame it as "the right to the opportunity to profit" (timed monopoly privilege), this is still obviously not a right. If a man sets up a hardware store in town, how long should everyone other than him be prevented from setting up a similar store? And how far does the criminalization extend geographically? And what are the boundaries of the word "similar"? Such obviously-ridiculous protectionism is only barely different from the way real-world established restaurants band together to impoverish food trucks and other small-business competitors: https://ij.org/issues/economic-liberty/vending/

"Intellectual Property" law is the same thing, but for industries that deal in information. This includes health care, where it ensures that people suffer or die rather than let some poor Little Guy pharmaceutical megacorp "lose" some hypothetical profit: https://mises.org/wire/patents-kill-compulsory-licenses-and-genzymes-life-saving-drug

Any normal person wants to see their favorite artists make a living from their work. The biggest obstacle to this, ironically, is IP law: most artists (the ones you've never heard of, who make no money; the actual Little Guys) are terrified to sell the very thing that is the most likely to make them money (fan art of things that other people already like), for fear of legalized harassment and extortion from the "property owners" (a misnomer since no property is involved). Instead, they're expected to cook up "new" ideas that are OK for them to sell (you know, the kind nobody is interested in buying).

Of course, almost nobody on the planet has a "new idea" that will compete with existing pop art "properties" within their lifetime. Most artists will do best by producing recognizable derivative works (drawings, adaptations, sequels, remakes, whatever), and they should be permitted to do so, since it harms no one (in fact, fans of popular franchises would probably even be treated to a good reboot or adaptation once in a while).

The few people that do have such "new" ideas, and are actually talented enough to monetize them (the ones who stand a chance to make a buck in the first place; the ones we're suppose to "protect" from "lost profits") have no need of nanny-state protectionism from the people making fan-art.

Of course, IP law does not (and isn't intended to) protect such people in the first place. Imagine a typical IP nightmare scenario: a Little Guy publishes a distinct, high-quality webcomic that gets ten views per month, but also gets ripped off by Disney, and they make millions with a movie adaptation. What's he going to do about it with his fast food wagie bank account and nil reputation? That's right: nothing. IP law only "protects" (as if harm were involved) those who can afford to pursue expensive legalized harassment of would-be competitors.

You know what he probably could do, though? Write a tell-all on his blog, get interviewed by some big YouTubers, broadcast the fact that he's the uncredited author behind a multi-million dollar Disney movie, start a Patreon (or crowdfund a new project, or whatever), and profit from the fact that Disney "stole" "his idea". Doesn't sound so bad, really. Or should we pretend that he would have been better off with the "uninfringed" state of no audience and no money?

I can think of a much worse case, from real life. In recent years, Steve Ditko has probably been the most popular example of Little Guy Victimized By Evil Businessman, and you know what would have really helped him out? If people didn't believe that ideas can be owned like cars and houses, he could have found someone else to publish Spider-Man with "Still Drawn by Series Creator Steve Ditko" plastered on the cover. What could Marvel have done? Were they gonna pay some punk kid to impersonate Steve Ditko, with the real deal sitting next to their knockoff on the news stands? Who knows if it would have sold well enough, but at least he could have had the option. Instead, since we protect Little Guys with IP law, he would have been sued for every penny and then some.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM
The problem is with the period granted thanks to the Rat. Because they didn't want the mouse and other IP's to fall into public domain.

The thing is, rights don't expire. If IP protectionism is a right, why should it expire? If IP protectionism should expire, then how can it be a right? What other rights expire?

If too much IP protectionism is obviously bad, what amount is axiomatically, self-evidently just right? Why shouldn't it be reduced all the way to zero?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 05, 2021, 05:20:33 PM
And we might even discuss trademark law regarding intellectual works (movies, novels, comics, RPGs). Maybe it should also be restricted to the life of the Author?

All of it should be abolished.

My comments above are oriented around the usual market competition scenarios, but there's an irrefutable basis on which all people should oppose all IP law, right down to legalizing the piracy of RPG books from Little Guys ("piracy" is of course a misnomer since theft isn't involved).

Why doesn't "intellectual property" exist? Because information can't be property. It's a contradiction in terms: https://mises.org/library/fallacy-intellectual-property

Property is something that can be taken from you. For example: the hard drive an RPG trove is stored on? That's property. The PDFs on the drive? Those are information. They're infinitely duplicable; they're not scarce.

Even water is scarce. Water can be property. At any given time, there is a limited physical amount of it to go around (especially if we consider only potable water).

However, no matter how many times a book is downloaded from Megaupload (RIP), nobody on the planet is deprived of their existing copy. Stealing involves taking something from somebody. Copying is not taking. If we could will copies of expensive cars into existence just by knowing information about them, it would not be considered theft to do so. Contrary to the famous ad, yes, we all would "download a car", and we would laugh at anybody who prudishly refused to do so.

The reason we feel differently about art is because we all believe in the oppressed Artist whose only available occupation in life is to profit from his noble passion (he'll starve, otherwise; he can't get a job, apparently), and we all worry about what if some evil Businessman overheard the synopsis to his yet-to-be-published Great American Novel while they both were down at the speakeasy, and... Cuban cigar in mouth... profited.

Luckliy, that's all myth and propaganda.

In reality, the "If it was legal to copy information, how would artists make money?" dilemma is a practical one, not a moral one. (See the Q&A for this talk by Stephan Kinsella for a good discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfU34KkNV1s&t=1557s ; the whole talk is great, but the Q&A starts off with a steaming mad Artiste riding in on a high horse to deboonk Kinsella on this very topic.)

Artists and other creators of information should be asking the question, "Given that copying information is already not a crime (it's just illegal), how can I monetize my creative output while also releasing it into the public domain (i.e. publishing it)?"

There is no single answer to this question. There are unlimited answers.

• Many free-and-open-source software projects are funded by providing enterprise customer support.


• Open source web apps are often funded by offering a professionally managed instance of the software as a paid service (think Wordpress).


• David Revoy licenses his Pepper & Carrot webcomic (and its production source files) as CC-BY, and makes over $3000 per episode (on Patreon alone). You've probably seen his work recently on DTRPG thanks to this silver best-seller (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/291872/Witchcraft-Magic-of-Hereva-5e?manufacturers_id=13026) made by one of his fans. That fan has made several books, and probably a decent amount of money, using Revoy's artwork.


• Gabor Lux withholds the digital release of his RPG books until the print versions have been on sale for several months (incidentally, while his books are not dedicated to the public domain, he also has said he doesn't mind his books being shared online).


• Omer Golan-Joel's Cepheus Engine derivatives are almost entirely "Open Content". For example, his Cepheus Deluxe (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/370075/Cepheus-Deluxe), which has been a top seller for the past few weeks, is entirely open content except for the introduction to the book.

The thing is, everything already is in the public domain. Everyone intuitively realizes this when it comes to "old" stuff; the problem is that generations of conditioning has taught people that Superman and Harry Potter or Disney's Cinderella exist in a separate plane of reality from things like Charles Dickens or H.G. Wells or "regular Cinderella". Once the culture comes around to see this distinction as the farcical legislative invention that it is, both creative people and their audiences will be better off.

The culture is moving in that direction pretty rapidly, though. The OSR and the increasing number of "fine I'll do it myself" unofficial Nintendo game sequels on Steam are a testament to that.

That's all fine and dandy but notice I said Author, not corporation owner.

As in limit the IP to the actual person that created something in regards to art (patents are a different beast and should be treated differently and apart).

So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

Imagine you wrote something really good and that becomes popular but there's no IP law. Here comes Disney and takes ALL of your IP to make movies without giving you a red cent and maybe not even mentioning you.

Then, because there's no IP law they print what you already published and sell it, with better art, then they hire some wageslave to write in your style new novels.

Sure, you could take theirs and print it too, but you can't produce new stuff with their levels of production (I mean the art, proofreading, etc.) or create movies, tv shows, etc to compete with them on those markets.

The net result would be no one would publish shit unless they were being paid for handsomely by some megacorp.

So, you get hired by the Rat and create something under an exclusivity contract, well their exclusivity ends when you die, period.

Don't get me started with medical drugs because it's offtopic and a worst can of worms.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

:o

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:22:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

:o

LOL no, fanfiction should have an exception as long as you're not selling it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 12:25:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:22:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

:o

LOL no, fanfiction should have an exception as long as you're not selling it.

So you're saying if if my megacorp want to produce a megamovie based on some author's work, then the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm...

:o

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:12:55 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 12:25:36 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 12:22:31 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
So ERB wrote a number of popular novels, during his life if you want to print or make a movie or anything based of his works you have to pay him. After he dies it ALL reverts to public domain.

So you're saying if I want to publish my thousand page long fanfiction, the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm....

:o

LOL no, fanfiction should have an exception as long as you're not selling it.

So you're saying if if my megacorp want to produce a megamovie based on some author's work, then the author has to have a convenient accident? Hmm...

:o

No, I'm saying they need to pay him for the right to make the movie, much like today they pay to JK Rowling.

As for convenient accidents, what's sttoping any megacorp from doing that today? How do we know they haven't done it?

If they thought the heirs would be more amenable to selling the IP to them why wouldn't they?

Are you for the status quo or for the AnCap position of abolishing the IP?

I'm neither, a moderate position of lets change this shit so it doesn't let Disney keep on pushing the expiration date into the future forever. While still giving the author's some protections.

Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

If I "manufacture" a house, you are free to copy it. Ideas are not propriety. Words and sentences are not property. You cannot take my novel any more that you can take my Shakespeare books of my shelves. You can, however, copy your own books (wether they were authored by me or Shakespeare) in your own computers, notebooks, pen drives, etc.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Sound reasoning.  If all creative works become free public domain, then all creators will be broke.  There will be much less incentive to create.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:36:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

If I "manufacture" a house, you are free to copy it. Ideas are not propriety. Words and sentences are not property. You cannot take my novel any more that you can take my Shakespeare books of my shelves. You can, however, copy your own books (wether they were authored by me or Shakespeare) in your own computers, notebooks, pen drives, etc.

And idea would be lets write a novel about X, that's the idea, the novel is made of words and sentences structured by the author to convey his idea, it took him materials, time and effort to write it.

Why is that different from making bricks?

After all the idea of a brick is millenia old, therefore shouldn't the materials and work that go into producing the actual brick be equally up for grabs?

I think the original 1710 Statute of Anne copyright term of 14 years, renewable for +14 years, was about right. A flat 20 year term as with Patents would be ok, but the clever thing with 14 + 14 was that the author could sell their rights, but still regain them on reversion at 14 years when they renewed the copyright.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
That's all fine and dandy but notice I said Author, not corporation owner.

As in limit the IP to the actual person that created something in regards to art (patents are a different beast and should be treated differently and apart).

Why isn't IP transferrable? Is it property or not? (It's not.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Imagine you wrote something really good and that becomes popular but there's no IP law. Here comes Disney and takes ALL of your IP to make movies without giving you a red cent and maybe not even mentioning you.

Then, because there's no IP law they print what you already published and sell it, with better art, then they hire some wageslave to write in your style new novels.

Sure, you could take theirs and print it too, but you can't produce new stuff with their levels of production (I mean the art, proofreading, etc.) or create movies, tv shows, etc to compete with them on those markets.

I already addressed this oft-repeated nightmare scenario above, but I'll try again. If you think I'm too dense, here's a career patent attorney answering the same nightmare scenario (less than 5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWeUGU6SrYw

So the existing fanbase of the already-popular really good thing are going to run off as soon as Disney copy-pastes some art in and generates an assembly-line generic-brand version? What happened when Marvel took their really good popular comics and turned them into assembly-line garbage designed to be hated by the original audience?

Let's assume the original fanbase stays with the original author (because they would), and Disney builds a big new fanbase that likes the new soulless garbage, and makes lots of money from people who wouldn't have liked the original anyway: So?

Let's even assume the original author loses their whole fanbase to Disney. Again: So? Do they have some kind of right to their audience's preferences?

And you know, if it weren't for IP protectionism helping the Little Guys so much, all those classic Marvel artists and writers would still be at it, making more of the stuff their audience loved, with the characters and settings they enjoyed. Thanks to IP, it's all gone. You get what Marvel says you get!

But I understand your ideal is much more nuanced: we should instead get what Marvel says we get until all the relevant creative people die.

What an improvement! So a creator gets paid to make a new comic, and he loves working on it, and his small audience loves reading it, but the company cancels it and says "No, we're done with that. We need something new." Now we can wait until he dies to get some other schmuck's take on it! (No, Marvel is not going to sell any of their artist/writer creations back to them after they quit.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
The net result would be no one would publish shit unless they were being paid for handsomely by some megacorp.

Nope. Lots of artists already publish their work directly into the public domain while making a living at the same time. The software industry has already figured this out. All new software that anyone cares about (usually written and maintained by a single person, for fun) is committed directly into the public domain via the MIT license. Artists will eventually follow suit, regardless of whether IP law catches up with them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Don't get me started with medical drugs because it's offtopic and a worst can of worms.

Why is it off-topic? There may be different legal categories of IP, but they all boil down to telling other people they're not allowed to do a thing (or even something similar to a thing) that someone else has already done.

If we're so worried about RPG PDF sellers and their right to benefit from their labor, then why wouldn't medical advancement be even more important to protect, using the same principles? The fact is: "Making something that someone else has already made" isn't a crime.

That's why we have the invented concept of "Intellectual Property"; if IP was really property, it would just be called "property", and stealing it would just be a regular existing crime called "theft". Not even the government considers the spread of information to be "theft". They call it "[commie BS] infringement".

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons.

If you're not an IP abolitionist now, you will be in six months. Check out the Stephan Kinsella talk I linked in my earlier post.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author.

Where does this right to profit from things come from?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

Patents are a joke. Did you know entertaining a cat with a laser is patented?

There is one legitimate reason to seek out a patent: to prevent a patent troll from doing it for you and criminalizing the business you started. Seeking to enforce the patent, though, just makes you a commie.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I used to think this way, but then I got over it. Whenever I publish a book, it'll be freely available digitally, right down to the source files and publishing toolchain, which will be hosted on GitHub, with instructions on how to produce the for-print PDF. I have no fears of losing any money to megacorps or Mega folders.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

You're on the right track; eventually you will find it ridiculous that a living author can legally bully you into giving them money or risking a lawsuit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

Who has said they can't? The only people telling anyone they can't benefit from things are IP protectionists.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Exactly.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud.

It's more of an infringement on your own reputation than anything else. This is what Amazon reviews are for, not courts.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Based.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 06, 2021, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Sound reasoning.  If all creative works become free public domain, then all creators will be broke.  There will be much less incentive to create.

Exactly. Reducing the time of the IP/trademark on novels and related creative works sounds reasonable to me because the Rat Shack has pushed them beyond any reasonable limits IMHO.

But going all the way to the other extreme and giving none whatsoever?

The problem is that intellectual doesn't embody physical products like a house. If I hear you sing a song and then sing it myself. I haven't taken anything from you that is the equivalent of adverse possession of house. You still know the song, and you can still sing it.

The natural state of ideas is to spread, be used, and adapted. However many ideas whether it is a patent, copyright, or trademark require at a minimum an investment of time to realizes especially as cultures and societies grew more sophiscated and diverse. So it is a good policy to give a creator exclusive rights to their creations.

However nothing in human society exists in a vacuum. Except for a handful every ideas rests on the shoulder of those who came before. So any type of intellectual exclusivity should be limited in time. Patents confer the broadest type of monopoly so they are only limited to 20 years. Copyright only cover an expression of an idea so their duration is long as the base idea often can be expressed in different and novel was. Trademark are effectively indefinite but their use is to uniquely identify a product or a group of products. So they have to be in current use and the right enforced or the monopoly they confers ceases to exist.

Earlier it was asked how can writer do what musicians can do with performance. The answer is patronage. People pay a specific authors periodic fees to continue to write. With the rise of the internet and digital technology many prize authenticity and are willing to pay for it for something they like. With the efficiency of the internet and digital technology it is possible to make a go of this with only a couple of hundred patron contributing a small amount each month. And you don't even need that many to make it worthwhile if it is supplemental income done in the time one has for a hobby.

As for the future, the chances of Disney or any other multi-national influencing copyright is low. People are far more aware of the issue and far more passionate about it than they were when the last major revision occurred in the 90s. More importantly people are taking matters in their own hands by creating various types of shared or open creative content. There been nothing so far that has been as popular as Star Wars or Marvel, but give it time. Eventually an author or authors will come along that committed to open content and make something that is wildly popular.

Already there are cracks in the system where digital technology allow individual creators to challenge the status quo. Taylor Swift doesn't have the rights to much of her original recording but does have the right to the songs themselves. So she is in the midst of re-recording all her old albums to regain control of her creative catalog. As technology advances the ability to do this will continue to filter downwards if hasn't already.

Finally the legal system isn't totally stacked against those with money. In a fit of sanity Congress inserted a provision that allows authors to take back all the rights during a window of time opening 35 years laters. Steve Jackson recently used this to regain control over the stuff he did for the Fantasy Trip.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:41:48 PM
And idea would be lets write a novel about X, that's the idea, the novel is made of words and sentences structured by the author to convey his idea, it took him materials, time and effort to write it.

Why is that different from making bricks?

After all the idea of a brick is millenia old, therefore shouldn't the materials and work that go into producing the actual brick be equally up for grabs?

In practice, I support more limited copyright and patent similar to what you're saying, GeekyBugle.

However, I disagree that it is an inherent or natural right. If intellectual property is a natural right, why should it ever expire? If I build my house, I pass it on to my children, and they can pass it on to their children. It is a thing.

I consider Intellectual Property as a special social reward for certain creators, but not a natural right. Just because someone puts time and effort into coming up with something, that doesn't mean they necessarily control it. Sometimes, people can put time and effort into stuff and it isn't rewarded. Society can't guarantee that all time and effort is fairly rewarded - it can just make it possible. So if I spend time cleaning up my local public park or fixing up my rental unit, I won't necessarily be rewarded. People can be Good Samaritans and do work with no legal reward.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
That's all fine and dandy but notice I said Author, not corporation owner.

As in limit the IP to the actual person that created something in regards to art (patents are a different beast and should be treated differently and apart).

Why isn't IP transferrable? Is it property or not? (It's not.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Imagine you wrote something really good and that becomes popular but there's no IP law. Here comes Disney and takes ALL of your IP to make movies without giving you a red cent and maybe not even mentioning you.

Then, because there's no IP law they print what you already published and sell it, with better art, then they hire some wageslave to write in your style new novels.

Sure, you could take theirs and print it too, but you can't produce new stuff with their levels of production (I mean the art, proofreading, etc.) or create movies, tv shows, etc to compete with them on those markets.

I already addressed this oft-repeated nightmare scenario above, but I'll try again. If you think I'm too dense, here's a career patent attorney answering the same nightmare scenario (less than 5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWeUGU6SrYw

So the existing fanbase of the already-popular really good thing are going to run off as soon as Disney copy-pastes some art in and generates an assembly-line generic-brand version? What happened when Marvel took their really good popular comics and turned them into assembly-line garbage designed to be hated by the original audience?

Let's assume the original fanbase stays with the original author (because they would), and Disney builds a big new fanbase that likes the new soulless garbage, and makes lots of money from people who wouldn't have liked the original anyway: So?

Let's even assume the original author loses their whole fanbase to Disney. Again: So? Do they have some kind of right to their audience's preferences?

And you know, if it weren't for IP protectionism helping the Little Guys so much, all those classic Marvel artists and writers would still be at it, making more of the stuff their audience loved, with the characters and settings they enjoyed. Thanks to IP, it's all gone. You get what Marvel says you get!

But I understand your ideal is much more nuanced: we should instead get what Marvel says we get until all the relevant creative people die.

What an improvement! So a creator gets paid to make a new comic, and he loves working on it, and his small audience loves reading it, but the company cancels it and says "No, we're done with that. We need something new." Now we can wait until he dies to get some other schmuck's take on it! (No, Marvel is not going to sell any of their artist/writer creations back to them after they quit.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
The net result would be no one would publish shit unless they were being paid for handsomely by some megacorp.

Nope. Lots of artists already publish their work directly into the public domain while making a living at the same time. The software industry has already figured this out. All new software that anyone cares about (usually written and maintained by a single person, for fun) is committed directly into the public domain via the MIT license. Artists will eventually follow suit, regardless of whether IP law catches up with them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Don't get me started with medical drugs because it's offtopic and a worst can of worms.

Why is it off-topic? There may be different legal categories of IP, but they all boil down to telling other people they're not allowed to do a thing (or even something similar to a thing) that someone else has already done.

If we're so worried about RPG PDF sellers and their right to benefit from their labor, then why wouldn't medical advancement be even more important to protect, using the same principles? The fact is: "Making something that someone else has already made" isn't a crime.

That's why we have the invented concept of "Intellectual Property"; if IP was really property, it would just be called "property", and stealing it would just be a regular existing crime called "theft". Not even the government considers the spread of information to be "theft". They call it "[commie BS] infringement".

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons.

If you're not an IP abolitionist now, you will be in six months. Check out the Stephan Kinsella talk I linked in my earlier post.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author.

Where does this right to profit from things come from?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

Patents are a joke. Did you know entertaining a cat with a laser is patented?

There is one legitimate reason to seek out a patent: to prevent a patent troll from doing it for you and criminalizing the business you started. Seeking to enforce the patent, though, just makes you a commie.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I used to think this way, but then I got over it. Whenever I publish a book, it'll be freely available digitally, right down to the source files and publishing toolchain, which will be hosted on GitHub, with instructions on how to produce the for-print PDF. I have no fears of losing any money to megacorps or Mega folders.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

You're on the right track; eventually you will find it ridiculous that a living author can legally bully you into giving them money or risking a lawsuit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

Who has said they can't? The only people telling anyone they can't benefit from things are IP protectionists.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Exactly.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud.

It's more of an infringement on your own reputation than anything else. This is what Amazon reviews are for, not courts.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Based.

Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

Quote from: jhkim on October 06, 2021, 02:57:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:41:48 PM
And idea would be lets write a novel about X, that's the idea, the novel is made of words and sentences structured by the author to convey his idea, it took him materials, time and effort to write it.

Why is that different from making bricks?

After all the idea of a brick is millenia old, therefore shouldn't the materials and work that go into producing the actual brick be equally up for grabs?

In practice, I support more limited copyright and patent similar to what you're saying, GeekyBugle.

However, I disagree that it is an inherent or natural right. If intellectual property is a natural right, why should it ever expire? If I build my house, I pass it on to my children, and they can pass it on to their children. It is a thing.

I consider Intellectual Property as a special social reward for certain creators, but not a natural right. Just because someone puts time and effort into coming up with something, that doesn't mean they necessarily control it. Sometimes, people can put time and effort into stuff and it isn't rewarded. Society can't guarantee that all time and effort is fairly rewarded - it can just make it possible. So if I spend time cleaning up my local public park or fixing up my rental unit, I won't necessarily be rewarded. People can be Good Samaritans and do work with no legal reward.

So lets say it's not a right, does that mean all IP/Trademark should be abolished?

Of course no one ows you shit for writting a novel, but also why should anyone be able to just grab it, print it and sell it without giving you any money?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

I think you've misread Eric's example. It's not the bricks that are being copied; it's the pattern that the bricks are laid in to produce the desired house (the one the neighbor designed using his own time, money, and expertise). This is exactly analogous to copying a book, which is merely an ordered sequence of symbols. And if you think that's downplaying books, we can also say that any particular house, no matter how magnificent, is merely a particular arrangement of building materials.

The difference in copying a house from copying a book is just the ease and low cost with which it can be done.

Quote from: estar on October 06, 2021, 02:53:46 PM
The problem is that intellectual doesn't embody physical products like a house. If I hear you sing a song and then sing it myself. I haven't taken anything from you that is the equivalent of adverse possession of house. You still know the song, and you can still sing it.

The natural state of ideas is to spread, be used, and adapted. However many ideas whether it is a patent, copyright, or trademark require at a minimum an investment of time to realizes especially as cultures and societies grew more sophiscated and diverse. So it is a good policy to give a creator exclusive rights to their creations.

However nothing in human society exists in a vacuum. Except for a handful every ideas rests on the shoulder of those who came before. So any type of intellectual exclusivity should be limited in time. Patents confer the broadest type of monopoly so they are only limited to 20 years. Copyright only cover an expression of an idea so their duration is long as the base idea often can be expressed in different and novel was. Trademark are effectively indefinite but their use is to uniquely identify a product or a group of products. So they have to be in current use and the right enforced or the monopoly they confers ceases to exist.

Earlier it was asked how can writer do what musicians can do with performance. The answer is patronage. People pay a specific authors periodic fees to continue to write. With the rise of the internet and digital technology many prize authenticity and are willing to pay for it for something they like. With the efficiency of the internet and digital technology it is possible to make a go of this with only a couple of hundred patron contributing a small amount each month. And you don't even need that many to make it worthwhile if it is supplemental income done in the time one has for a hobby.

As for the future, the chances of Disney or any other multi-national influencing copyright is low. People are far more aware of the issue and far more passionate about it than they were when the last major revision occurred in the 90s. More importantly people are taking matters in their own hands by creating various types of shared or open creative content. There been nothing so far that has been as popular as Star Wars or Marvel, but give it time. Eventually an author or authors will come along that committed to open content and make something that is wildly popular.

Already there are cracks in the system where digital technology allow individual creators to challenge the status quo. Taylor Swift doesn't have the rights to much of her original recording but does have the right to the songs themselves. So she is in the midst of re-recording all her old albums to regain control of her creative catalog. As technology advances the ability to do this will continue to filter downwards if hasn't already.

Finally the legal system isn't totally stacked against those with money. In a fit of sanity Congress inserted a provision that allows authors to take back all the rights during a window of time opening 35 years laters. Steve Jackson recently used this to regain control over the stuff he did for the Fantasy Trip.

So I should be able to take your song, record it and not give you a dime? We're not talking about any random down the street singing it while he goes home, were talking of profiting from your creativity without your consent and without giving you money.

Should forgeries of famous paintings also become not a crime? What's the difference? Lets say I'm Han van Meegeren and I decide to forge Johannes Vermeer paintings and sell them at 100 dollars each. Should this be allowed too? During the life of Johannes Vermeer?

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:05:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

I think you've misread Eric's example. It's not the bricks that are being copied; it's the pattern that the bricks are laid in to produce the desired house (the one the neighbor designed using his own time, money, and expertise). This is exactly analogous to copying a book, which is merely an ordered sequence of symbols. And if you think that's downplaying books, we can also say that any particular house, no matter how magnificent, is merely a particular arrangement of building materials.

The difference in copying a house from copying a book is just the ease and low cost with which it can be done.

Nope, I'm making the correct analogy while he's not:

In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:05:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

I think you've misread Eric's example. It's not the bricks that are being copied; it's the pattern that the bricks are laid in to produce the desired house (the one the neighbor designed using his own time, money, and expertise). This is exactly analogous to copying a book, which is merely an ordered sequence of symbols. And if you think that's downplaying books, we can also say that any particular house, no matter how magnificent, is merely a particular arrangement of building materials.

The difference in copying a house from copying a book is just the ease and low cost with which it can be done.

Nope, I'm making the correct analogy while he's not:

In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

You can't grab anyone's copy of their book. That is stealing, not copying.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM
In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

Also, what do you mean "one should be illegal ... and the other not"? The point of the house example was that copying a book should be legal, just like copying a house as described would obviously be legal.

I think you have misread someone. You're the one who's been arguing that IP is property, but should also be handled differently from property.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:06:54 PM
Should forgeries of famous paintings also become not a crime? What's the difference? Lets say I'm Han van Meegeren and I decide to forge Johannes Vermeer paintings and sell them at 100 dollars each. Should this be allowed too? During the life of Johannes Vermeer?

By "forgery" do you mean making a copy and lying to the customer that it's the original painting? That would be fraud, which is already a crime.

A copy, whether photographic or made from scratch, sold honestly, with no deception involved, is not fraud. Nobody is harmed.

And if the original artist finds out you're selling copies of his paintings for $100, just think of what he could charge for his own copies, let alone the originals. He should be thanking you for the entrepreneurial research.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
That's all fine and dandy but notice I said Author, not corporation owner.

As in limit the IP to the actual person that created something in regards to art (patents are a different beast and should be treated differently and apart).

Why isn't IP transferrable? Is it property or not? (It's not.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Imagine you wrote something really good and that becomes popular but there's no IP law. Here comes Disney and takes ALL of your IP to make movies without giving you a red cent and maybe not even mentioning you.

Then, because there's no IP law they print what you already published and sell it, with better art, then they hire some wageslave to write in your style new novels.

Sure, you could take theirs and print it too, but you can't produce new stuff with their levels of production (I mean the art, proofreading, etc.) or create movies, tv shows, etc to compete with them on those markets.

I already addressed this oft-repeated nightmare scenario above, but I'll try again. If you think I'm too dense, here's a career patent attorney answering the same nightmare scenario (less than 5 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWeUGU6SrYw

So the existing fanbase of the already-popular really good thing are going to run off as soon as Disney copy-pastes some art in and generates an assembly-line generic-brand version? What happened when Marvel took their really good popular comics and turned them into assembly-line garbage designed to be hated by the original audience?

Let's assume the original fanbase stays with the original author (because they would), and Disney builds a big new fanbase that likes the new soulless garbage, and makes lots of money from people who wouldn't have liked the original anyway: So?

Let's even assume the original author loses their whole fanbase to Disney. Again: So? Do they have some kind of right to their audience's preferences?

And you know, if it weren't for IP protectionism helping the Little Guys so much, all those classic Marvel artists and writers would still be at it, making more of the stuff their audience loved, with the characters and settings they enjoyed. Thanks to IP, it's all gone. You get what Marvel says you get!

But I understand your ideal is much more nuanced: we should instead get what Marvel says we get until all the relevant creative people die.

What an improvement! So a creator gets paid to make a new comic, and he loves working on it, and his small audience loves reading it, but the company cancels it and says "No, we're done with that. We need something new." Now we can wait until he dies to get some other schmuck's take on it! (No, Marvel is not going to sell any of their artist/writer creations back to them after they quit.)

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
The net result would be no one would publish shit unless they were being paid for handsomely by some megacorp.

Nope. Lots of artists already publish their work directly into the public domain while making a living at the same time. The software industry has already figured this out. All new software that anyone cares about (usually written and maintained by a single person, for fun) is committed directly into the public domain via the MIT license. Artists will eventually follow suit, regardless of whether IP law catches up with them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 10:58:59 AM
Don't get me started with medical drugs because it's offtopic and a worst can of worms.

Why is it off-topic? There may be different legal categories of IP, but they all boil down to telling other people they're not allowed to do a thing (or even something similar to a thing) that someone else has already done.

If we're so worried about RPG PDF sellers and their right to benefit from their labor, then why wouldn't medical advancement be even more important to protect, using the same principles? The fact is: "Making something that someone else has already made" isn't a crime.

That's why we have the invented concept of "Intellectual Property"; if IP was really property, it would just be called "property", and stealing it would just be a regular existing crime called "theft". Not even the government considers the spread of information to be "theft". They call it "[commie BS] infringement".

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons.

If you're not an IP abolitionist now, you will be in six months. Check out the Stephan Kinsella talk I linked in my earlier post.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author.

Where does this right to profit from things come from?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

Patents are a joke. Did you know entertaining a cat with a laser is patented?

There is one legitimate reason to seek out a patent: to prevent a patent troll from doing it for you and criminalizing the business you started. Seeking to enforce the patent, though, just makes you a commie.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I used to think this way, but then I got over it. Whenever I publish a book, it'll be freely available digitally, right down to the source files and publishing toolchain, which will be hosted on GitHub, with instructions on how to produce the for-print PDF. I have no fears of losing any money to megacorps or Mega folders.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

You're on the right track; eventually you will find it ridiculous that a living author can legally bully you into giving them money or risking a lawsuit.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

Who has said they can't? The only people telling anyone they can't benefit from things are IP protectionists.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Exactly.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud.

It's more of an infringement on your own reputation than anything else. This is what Amazon reviews are for, not courts.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Based.

Okay, my question here is what if, in this example dosney, takes your thing, word for word, and publishes it at a price you can't compete with, like if i wrote a book and needed to sell for 20$ and disney  makes a word for word copy can afford to sell it for 5$.

Quote from: Slambo on October 06, 2021, 03:32:59 PM
Okay, my question here is what if, in this example dosney, takes your thing, word for word, and publishes it at a price you can't compete with, like if i wrote a book and needed to sell for 20$ and disney  makes a word for word copy can afford to sell it for 5$.

Aside from calling out Disney, you could just tell your fans that if they want to support you and see any future work from you, they'll need to buy your version, even though it's more expensive. You might also want to figure out a way to print cheaper copies.

You already see this kind of thing with POD creators; I've heard, lots of times, things like "Hey, if you're going to buy my new book, I'd really appreciate if you get the Kindle version instead of the print version, because that gives me a much bigger cut."

If you don't have those fans, though, you probably shouldn't be needing to sell any copies of your creative works. That's just called making poor life decisions. Like IP-abolitionist patent attorney Stephan Kinsella says, "Your failed business model isn't my problem."

EDIT:

Copies are infinite; instead of selling copies, provide the creative work for free, and sell related services that can't be copied, like livestream chats, writing advice sessions, or putting a supporter's name in the sequel, etc.

You could even use the first work, freely or cheaply available, to advertise a crowdfund for your next work (which can also be free, and used the same way). This is basically what David Revoy's model is for Pepper & Carrot.

Quote from: GriswaldTerrastone on October 05, 2021, 04:51:42 PM
Yes, the parasitic middlemen: the printers, the truckers, the paper mills, the people who manufacture the equipment needed, the...don't you all just love the compassion and consideration these people have for other people?

Maybe I'm getting too old, but is this for real? Are these people really like that?

I can tell you flat out that there are designers that think this.
No. Really.

But yes, alot of gamers and alot of designers are totally clueless to the publishing process and the costs.
This is also why some kickstarters fail. Because a designer went in unprepared and then found out after the fact just what it costs and takes to be a publisher.

There will always be clueless folk like this. And a few entitled idiots for good measure.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 06, 2021, 03:32:59 PM
Okay, my question here is what if, in this example dosney, takes your thing, word for word, and publishes it at a price you can't compete with, like if i wrote a book and needed to sell for 20$ and disney  makes a word for word copy can afford to sell it for 5$.

Aside from calling out Disney, you could just tell your fans that if they want to support you and see any future work from you, they'll need to buy your version, even though it's more expensive. You might also want to figure out a way to print cheaper copies.

You already see this kind of thing with POD creators; I've heard, lots of times, things like "Hey, if you're going to buy my new book, I'd really appreciate if you get the Kindle version instead of the print version, because that gives me a much bigger cut."

If you don't have those fans, though, you probably shouldn't be needing to sell any of your creative works. That's just called making poor life decisions. Like IP-abolitionist patent attorney Stephan Kinsella says, "Your failed business model isn't my problem."

And since money talks you'd end without sells because the vast majority would go buy the $5.00 version over the $20.00 one.

To borrow the line from Bioshock, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Whether it's physical goods, or The Great American Novel?

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:10:48 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:05:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 02:52:57 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM
If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

I think you've misread Eric's example. It's not the bricks that are being copied; it's the pattern that the bricks are laid in to produce the desired house (the one the neighbor designed using his own time, money, and expertise). This is exactly analogous to copying a book, which is merely an ordered sequence of symbols. And if you think that's downplaying books, we can also say that any particular house, no matter how magnificent, is merely a particular arrangement of building materials.

The difference in copying a house from copying a book is just the ease and low cost with which it can be done.

Nope, I'm making the correct analogy while he's not:

In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

You can't grab anyone's copy of their book. That is stealing, not copying.

But you can grab what cost me money, time and effort and go sell it without giving me money. Because that's not stealing because words and sentences...

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 03:55:05 PM
To borrow the line from Bioshock, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Whether it's physical goods, or The Great American Novel?

Though I think that line's specifically about taxes and regulations, Ayn Rand, the basis for Andrew Ryan, was terrible on IP. She and her supporters practically worship "the Intellect".

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:15:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM
In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

Also, what do you mean "one should be illegal ... and the other not"? The point of the house example was that copying a book should be legal, just like copying a house as described would obviously be legal.

I think you have misread someone. You're the one who's been arguing that IP is property, but should also be handled differently from property.

Nop, the argument is if I should be able to take someone else's novel and print it and sell it without giving any money to the creator.

For the house analogy to work you need to see the house as the novel, the bricks as the words and the structure as the structure.

You didn't take my idea of lets write a novel, THAT's the idea or the idea of lets build a brick house, because thgat's the idea.

You took my finished work printed it and sold it without paying me.

Like to like would be you took my finished house and sold it without paying me.

Why one is illegal but the other shouldn't?

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:00:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 03:55:05 PM
To borrow the line from Bioshock, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Whether it's physical goods, or The Great American Novel?

Though I think that line's specifically about taxes and regulations, Ayn Rand, the basis for Andrew Ryan, was terrible on IP. She and her supporters practically worship "the Intellect".

Why is it that an engineer earns more than a janitor? Isn't because of his intellect?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:56:47 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:10:48 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM
In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

You can't grab anyone's copy of their book. That is stealing, not copying.

But you can grab what cost me money, time and effort and go sell it without giving me money. Because that's not stealing because words and sentences...

When someone presses "Download", or "Copy" and then "Paste", do you find that words and sentences disappear from your local hard drive, or your own recollection? How can downloads ever be sold for money if downloading deprives someone of their copy? When I download my purchases on DriveThru, whose copies are disappearing and how? What if the copy in their database is the one that vanishes someday?

Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:02:48 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:00:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 03:55:05 PM
To borrow the line from Bioshock, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Whether it's physical goods, or The Great American Novel?

Though I think that line's specifically about taxes and regulations, Ayn Rand, the basis for Andrew Ryan, was terrible on IP. She and her supporters practically worship "the Intellect".

Why is it that an engineer earns more than a janitor? Isn't because of his intellect?

No, they're both paid to provide a service to the employer. You can be a highly intellectual janitor (more educated than the engineer, even), but you're not going to suddenly get an engineer's salary.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:11:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:56:47 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:10:48 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM
In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

You can't grab anyone's copy of their book. That is stealing, not copying.

But you can grab what cost me money, time and effort and go sell it without giving me money. Because that's not stealing because words and sentences...

When someone presses "Download", or "Copy" and then "Paste", do you find that words and sentences disappear from your local hard drive, or your own recollection? How can downloads ever be sold for money if downloading deprives someone of their copy? When I download my purchases on DriveThru, whose copies are disappearing and how? What if the copy in their database is the one that vanishes someday?

Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

When you download from DT you either paid for it or it's free or it's PWYW, therefore it can't be theft. Just like using what's under public domain or an open license can't be theft.

BUT, when you take my not open content novel, copy and sell it that's theft and there's no arguing about it.

I worked on it, I incurred in expenses on it, I invested time on it and creativity too. But you think it's perfectly A-Okay to just take it and sell it because words and sentences.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:13:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:02:48 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:00:48 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 06, 2021, 03:55:05 PM
To borrow the line from Bioshock, is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

Whether it's physical goods, or The Great American Novel?

Though I think that line's specifically about taxes and regulations, Ayn Rand, the basis for Andrew Ryan, was terrible on IP. She and her supporters practically worship "the Intellect".

Why is it that an engineer earns more than a janitor? Isn't because of his intellect?

No, they're both paid to provide a service to the employer. You can be a highly intellectual janitor (more educated than the engineer, even), but you're not going to suddenly get an engineer's salary.

Why is it that one job pays more than the other? Because of the intellect required to do it, same intellect you seem to despise.

Why is a brick maker able to protect his work but a writer shouldn't?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:15:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM
In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

Also, what do you mean "one should be illegal ... and the other not"? The point of the house example was that copying a book should be legal, just like copying a house as described would obviously be legal.

I think you have misread someone. You're the one who's been arguing that IP is property, but should also be handled differently from property.

Nop, the argument is if I should be able to take someone else's novel and print it and sell it without giving any money to the creator.

For the house analogy to work you need to see the house as the novel, the bricks as the words and the structure as the structure.

You didn't take my idea of lets write a novel, THAT's the idea or the idea of lets build a brick house, because thgat's the idea.

You took my finished work printed it and sold it without paying me.

Like to like would be you took my finished house and sold it without paying me.

Why one is illegal but the other shouldn't?

You're not understanding the analogy. It's not about the idea to build the house; it's about the information gained from watching the house be built, and using that information to create an identical house, despite having not spent any of the time or money that the original builder spent on creating the design.

We can skip the "watching it being built" and say the next door neighbor borrowed the blueprint for your house for his reading enjoyment. He then scanned it into his computer without your permission (this is pressing "Ctrl+C" on your novel PDF). Then he built an identical house (pressed "Ctrl+V") without having done any of the work to create the blueprint (writing the novel).

Now, to put the cherry on top, he goes and puts his new identical house on the market and sells it.

Are you trying to say that should be illegal?

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:28:26 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:01:12 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:15:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:08:14 PM
In both cases it takes materials, effort and time to produce the bricks or the novels, why one should be illegal for me to just go and grab while the other not?

Also, what do you mean "one should be illegal ... and the other not"? The point of the house example was that copying a book should be legal, just like copying a house as described would obviously be legal.

I think you have misread someone. You're the one who's been arguing that IP is property, but should also be handled differently from property.

Nop, the argument is if I should be able to take someone else's novel and print it and sell it without giving any money to the creator.

For the house analogy to work you need to see the house as the novel, the bricks as the words and the structure as the structure.

You didn't take my idea of lets write a novel, THAT's the idea or the idea of lets build a brick house, because thgat's the idea.

You took my finished work printed it and sold it without paying me.

Like to like would be you took my finished house and sold it without paying me.

Why one is illegal but the other shouldn't?

You're not understanding the analogy. It's not about the idea to build the house; it's about the information gained from watching the house be built, and using that information to create an identical house, despite having not spent any of the time or money that the original builder spent on creating the design.

We can skip the "watching it being built" and say the next door neighbor borrowed the blueprint for your house for his reading enjoyment. He then scanned it into his computer without your permission (this is pressing "Ctrl+C" on your novel PDF). Then he built an identical house (pressed "Ctrl+V") without having done any of the work to create the blueprint (writing the novel).

Now, to put the cherry on top, he goes and puts his new identical house on the market and sells it.

Are you trying to say that should be illegal?

So you watched me write my novel, now go write YOUR own, with your own words and sentences. I'm not saying gramatical structure should have copyright, but you taking what I built, with my effort, my money, time and creativity and selling it is theft.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

The analogy doesn't make sense. If you "TAKE" my bricks, I lose them. If you COPY my work now we have two copies. I lost nothing. That's why I said I was okay with my books being pirated (it gave me more visibility at the very least), but not okay with someone stealing my wallet.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:32:53 PM
So you watched me write my novel, now go write YOUR own, with your own words and sentences. I'm not saying gramatical structure should have copyright, but you taking what I built, with my effort, my money, time and creativity and selling it is theft.

It is not comparable to theft and not even IP laws consider it theft.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

The analogy doesn't make sense. If you "TAKE" my bricks, I lose them. If you COPY my work now we have two copies. I lost nothing. That's why I said I was okay with my books being pirated (it gave me more visibility at the very least), but not okay with someone stealing my wallet.

If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

Why is it that you didn't put your game freely available to anyone to download for free or PWYW way?

The Pirate either wasn't going to pay for it anyway or might buy the phisical product if he likes what he saw plus you got visibility as a small developer.

Not the same thing as me printing and selling your game without giving you any money.

I liked The Trove because it was like an online museum of the rpg industry and rpg history. There are a few books I found on the Trove that I later purchased in print that I would not have originally.

My own opinion about online piracy is it has no effect on sells of physical product. There have been enough examples over the last decade of games selling well even when the pdfs are either sold really cheap, like in Humble Bundles, or given out for free, like with Eclipse Phase 1e (which the entire 1e game line was put out for free on pdf and physical sells did well enough), to show that online piracy is just an argument they complain about to stir up noise.

Paizo quite often sells Pathfinder pdfs in bundles where you can get 10 to 20 pdfs for like $20, and that's in addition to Paizo putting all of their games online for free, and the company still sells physical books well.

Then you have other games with full SRD's online, like Dungeon World and Blades in the Dark and Fate, and those books sell relatively well.

Online piracy is BS.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

The analogy doesn't make sense. If you "TAKE" my bricks, I lose them. If you COPY my work now we have two copies. I lost nothing. That's why I said I was okay with my books being pirated (it gave me more visibility at the very least), but not okay with someone stealing my wallet.

If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

Paizo did well stealing D&D 3.5 from WotC. Just made a few tweaks, gave it new art. They stile the game within the loopholes the OGL provided. Not something WotC saw coming when the company first put the OGL out.

Most of the OSR is built on the "stealing" of older game systems via the same OGL loopholes.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

The analogy doesn't make sense. If you "TAKE" my bricks, I lose them. If you COPY my work now we have two copies. I lost nothing. That's why I said I was okay with my books being pirated (it gave me more visibility at the very least), but not okay with someone stealing my wallet.

If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

Why is it that you didn't put your game freely available to anyone to download for free or PWYW way?

The Pirate either wasn't going to pay for it anyway or might buy the phisical product if he likes what he saw plus you got visibility as a small developer.

Not the same thing as me printing and selling your game without giving you any money.

I did put a few books for free or PWYW but people are still mostly used to the old way of doing things. If I were in the US I might as well use kickstarter to fund my stuff and them give it away (I think Eclipse Phase did that and I backed the KS).

Why would people buy my game from you? To save a few dollars and avoid supporting me at the same time? I doubt you could even make much money form that, since my margins are not that great... If you owned a RPG store, you'd ruin your own reputation by doing that, and only make me more visible. I wouldn't "lose" a penny since I'm not able to make my own store anyway, I only sell through DTRPG. And if you try to sell my stuff on DTRPG I'd take it to DTRPG and I'm betting they'd fix it, or risk ruining their own reputation.

People either want to support me or not. If they don't have two dollars to buy my book they are welcome to pirate until they have some disposable income. And if you want to print and sell my stuff... well, anyone buying that was probably not my customer in the first place.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:18:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:13:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:02:48 PM
Why is it that an engineer earns more than a janitor? Isn't because of his intellect?

No, they're both paid to provide a service to the employer. You can be a highly intellectual janitor (more educated than the engineer, even), but you're not going to suddenly get an engineer's salary.

Why is it that one job pays more than the other? Because of the intellect required to do it, same intellect you seem to despise.

Ayn Rand is one of my all-time favorite thinkers, but she's not my high priest. My shelf is mostly full of classic books on philosophy, economics, history, theology, math, design, programming (in addition to the RPGs). I wouldn't say I despise the human intellect. Rather, it's out of my love of learning that I've come to despise the IP myth (I used to be an IP protectionist too).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:18:00 PM
Why is a brick maker able to protect his work but a writer shouldn't?

Writers can protect any property they have, just like the brick maker. Just like nobody is allowed to steal a brick maker's finished bricks, nobody is allowed to steal an author's crates full of offset print copies of their new novel.

The information inside those print copies can't be property, though.

Seriously, just watch this talk (again, from a career patent attorney): Intellectual Property - The Root of All Evil | Stephan Kinsella (https://youtu.be/XfU34KkNV1s)

If you're serious about publishing, it'll save you a lot of anxiety down the road.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM
If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

This is just a logical fallacy; he didn't lose that money, since it was never in his possession. He may have lost a few sales opportunities, but opportunities are not property.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM
Why is it that you didn't put your game freely available to anyone to download for free or PWYW way?

A common way to monetize public-domain-dedicated works is to charge for the initial download, and just politely ask that your fans will not share the download willy-nilly (though they're certainly allowed to). This makes the paid download the easiest way for most people to grab the work, make sure they have the latest version, and get free updates. If it's a reasonable price, most people aren't going to bother scouring the internet for the free copy, since buying it will actually have a lower cost than "pirating" it, and can have lasting benefit.

This is the strategy behind Steam's massive success: "provide a better service than the pirates".

Quote from: RebelSky on October 06, 2021, 04:55:57 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 04:44:56 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work? Time, materials and efort go into both, and the creative work gets something the bricks don't, meaning ANYONE can learn to make bricks, not so to writting the next Harry Potter.

Why can't I go and without paying for your work take your bricks?

The analogy doesn't make sense. If you "TAKE" my bricks, I lose them. If you COPY my work now we have two copies. I lost nothing. That's why I said I was okay with my books being pirated (it gave me more visibility at the very least), but not okay with someone stealing my wallet.

If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

Paizo did well stealing D&D 3.5 from WotC. Just made a few tweaks, gave it new art. They stile the game within the loopholes the OGL provided. Not something WotC saw coming when the company first put the OGL out.

Most of the OSR is built on the "stealing" of older game systems via the same OGL loopholes.

By your logic all of the Linux ecosystem is full of theft.

It can't be theft if it's under an open content license, or then the copyleft license is also theft, and so is the CC0 and the OpenSoftware license and the public domain.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 05:00:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:18:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:13:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:02:48 PM
Why is it that an engineer earns more than a janitor? Isn't because of his intellect?

No, they're both paid to provide a service to the employer. You can be a highly intellectual janitor (more educated than the engineer, even), but you're not going to suddenly get an engineer's salary.

Why is it that one job pays more than the other? Because of the intellect required to do it, same intellect you seem to despise.

Ayn Rand is one of my all-time favorite thinkers, but she's not my high priest. My shelf is mostly full of classic books on philosophy, economics, history, theology, math, design, programming (in addition to the RPGs). I wouldn't say I despise the human intellect. Rather, it's out of my love of learning that I've come to despise the IP myth (I used to be an IP protectionist too).

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:18:00 PM
Why is a brick maker able to protect his work but a writer shouldn't?

Writers can protect any property they have, just like the brick maker. Just like nobody is allowed to steal a brick maker's finished bricks, nobody is allowed to steal an author's crates full of offset print copies of their new novel.

The information inside those print copies can't be property, though.

Seriously, just watch this talk (again, from a career patent attorney): Intellectual Property - The Root of All Evil | Stephan Kinsella (https://youtu.be/XfU34KkNV1s)

If you're serious about publishing, it'll save you a lot of anxiety down the road.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM
If I copy your work and then sell it you lost my money and all the money I manage to get from selling your game.

Who come that's not theft?

This is just a logical fallacy; he didn't lose that money, since it was never in his possession. He may have lost a few sales opportunities, but opportunities are not property.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:49:52 PM
Why is it that you didn't put your game freely available to anyone to download for free or PWYW way?

A common way to monetize public-domain-dedicated works is to charge for the initial download, and just politely ask that your fans will not share the download willy-nilly (though they're certainly allowed to). This makes the paid download the easiest way for most people to grab the work, make sure they have the latest version, and get free updates. If it's a reasonable price, most people aren't going to bother scouring the internet for the free copy, since buying it will actually have a lower cost than "pirating" it, and can have lasting benefit.

This is the strategy behind Steam's massive success: "provide a better service than the pirates".

Right, loosing sales thanks to my taking his game and selling it without giving him any money isn't him loosing the money of those sales...

You're being willingly obtuse because it goes against your ideology, I've never read Ayn Raind, I'm not an Ancap nor any other form of utopian ideology.

"reasonable price" please define that in such a way that virtually no one would disgree with said price.

Again the pirate most likelly wasn't going to pay for it anyway so nothing lost.

Me taking his game and selling it without giving him money is not the same.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

If I thought 20 years was excessive, why would I think 80 years was better? (A 20 year old who writes something could easily live to 100.)

I don't think profit fixing is ever going to be a good solution. It's just price fixing, under another name. I don't have a clear solution, but I'll point to the software industry where patents have been highly destructive, and completely unnecessary.

Are you making the Hans-Herman Hoppe argument, that all rights start with self-ownership? I find that a dubious chain of reasoning.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 05:18:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

If I thought 20 years was excessive, why would I think 80 years was better? (A 20 year old who writes something could easily live to 100.)

I don't think profit fixing is ever going to be a good solution. It's just price fixing, under another name. I don't have a clear solution, but I'll point to the software industry where patents have been highly destructive, and completely unnecessary.

Are you making the Hans-Herman Hoppe argument, that all rights start with self-ownership? I find that a dubious chain of reasoning.

You can find it faulty, you'd still need to demonstrate how it is faulty.

Lets agree to disagree then.

Quote from: Jam The MF on October 06, 2021, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:32:13 PM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 06, 2021, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM
You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

These are different things. Self ownership is a natural right. If I build my house in my own property with my own bricks, its mine. If you are my neighbor and decide to observe me and copy my house, brick by brick, with YOUR OWN BRICKS, I do not have a natural right to your property because you benefited from my architectural skills.

EDIT: MORAL rights are of course natural; no matter if Shakespeare has been dead for centuries, I still cannot claim I am the author of his works because this is fraud. Whether the descendentes of Shakespeare (or HPL or REH) have monopoly rights over their works is purely a legal construct, which is why we are discussing if it should last 10, 20,or 120 years. BTW, my answer would be ZERO, and I publish stuff (and would continue publishing) regardless.

Why is it manufacturing bricks different than manufacturing a novel?

I can't go take your bricks without paying you, why should I be able to take your novel without paying you? From day one no less!

Sound reasoning.  If all creative works become free public domain, then all creators will be broke.  There will be much less incentive to create.

Not necessarily. Michaelangelo didn't rely on copyright law, and today instead of rich Italian patrons we have things like Patreon and other forms of crowdsourcing. Humans attach a lot of subjective value to the creator of something.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 05:27:37 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 05:18:13 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 01:52:59 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 01:39:02 PM
Because convenient accidents won't result in the author's work being dumped into the public domain anytime in the useful future.

Incentives matter, and you're proposing a very negative one.

...
If you're demanding my position on the topic, I don't have a clear stance. I tend to believe in the old information must free mantra that led to GNU and volumes of freeware, and don't think more and more of our cultural legacy should be locked up in perpetual hereditary trusts or controlled by large corporations. But I also see the value in granting a temporary monopoly to someone who comes up with something novel, so they can profit from it, because that encourages people to create more things that will eventually add to our shared heritage.

But I also completely reject the idea that it's a natural right. That just because you wrote a song, you should have absolute control over it forever. No. If you released it, it becomes part of the commons. If we decide to grant you a temporary monopoly, it's not because you own it, but because we've decided it's a good way to incentivize people to create more. Thus it should always be temporary, and while the period should be long enough to give you time to do all the work it to bring it to a wider audience, it shouldn't be some indefinitely long period. I don't have an exact figure, but even 20 years for patents seem excessive, much less the absurd lengths of current copyrights.

Too many people have come to think of it as an entitlement, or property, which isn't why these kinds of laws were created. I think we should treat them more like a grant or a subsidy; something given by the general public at their discretion because they think it creates a better outcome, rather than something demanded as a right.

So we change it, life of the author or 20 years, whatever comes first (or make it 20 years period). So the heirs have sometime to profit from it in the case of an untimely death of the author. And remove all trademarks over the work at the same time.

Patents are a special case, I think it should be tied to the ammount invested in the development: Meaning you have enough time to cover said costs and make I dunno twice that ammount in profits?

My thing is that if I publish a game and it turns out to be a hit I want protections so no megacorp can just take it from me. Same thing with novels etc.

I find it ridiculous that the estate of a long dead author still has the trademark of part of the creation and can use it to bully you to give them money or risk a lawsuit.

I also find it ridiculous that WotC holds the trademark over stuff they didn't create so many years after it's creation. I might agree if it was the still living Author.

Edited to add:

You agree self ownership is a natural right yes? From there it comes that I have no right to the fruits of your labor without paying you, from there it follows that if my work is an intellectual one it's my right to benefit from it. If ppl can't benefit from their intellectual labor then why on God's green earth would they ever publish anything?

If I thought 20 years was excessive, why would I think 80 years was better? (A 20 year old who writes something could easily live to 100.)

I don't think profit fixing is ever going to be a good solution. It's just price fixing, under another name. I don't have a clear solution, but I'll point to the software industry where patents have been highly destructive, and completely unnecessary.

Are you making the Hans-Herman Hoppe argument, that all rights start with self-ownership? I find that a dubious chain of reasoning.

You can find it faulty, you'd still need to demonstrate how it is faulty.

Lets agree to disagree then.

Eric Diaz pointed out the basic flaw in your logic. Just because you made something doesn't mean anyone owes you anything. Labor is not a measure of value. And the reason property matters is because it's how we allocate scarce resources. If you only have enough bricks for 1 house, you can't make 2, so you have to decide who gets the house. If someone takes your bricks, they're depriving you of that potential house. But words and ideas can be replicated endlessly with no degradation of the original. A million houses can have a copy of the KJV Gutenberg Bible, and it doesn't prevent Gutenberg or King James from enjoying their own copies.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:54:27 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 03:49:21 PM

Quote from: Slambo on October 06, 2021, 03:32:59 PM
Okay, my question here is what if, in this example dosney, takes your thing, word for word, and publishes it at a price you can't compete with, like if i wrote a book and needed to sell for 20$ and disney  makes a word for word copy can afford to sell it for 5$.

Aside from calling out Disney, you could just tell your fans that if they want to support you and see any future work from you, they'll need to buy your version, even though it's more expensive. You might also want to figure out a way to print cheaper copies.

You already see this kind of thing with POD creators; I've heard, lots of times, things like "Hey, if you're going to buy my new book, I'd really appreciate if you get the Kindle version instead of the print version, because that gives me a much bigger cut."

If you don't have those fans, though, you probably shouldn't be needing to sell any of your creative works. That's just called making poor life decisions. Like IP-abolitionist patent attorney Stephan Kinsella says, "Your failed business model isn't my problem."

And since money talks you'd end without sells because the vast majority would go buy the $5.00 version over the $20.00 one.

I forgot to mention this earlier, but the idea that Disney would ever do something like this anyway is just laughable tinfoil hat tier paranoia (though I don't fault most people for being taught to worry about it). Did Disney really make their millions by producing the cheapest reprint copies of Cinderella and Sleeping Beauty that the market had ever seen? What public domain stuff do they reprint today?

Has anybody here actually tried to buy a print copy of a public domain work lately? It's not easy to find nice ones that aren't simple copy/paste jobs, with no QA or typesetting involved (they all have 1-star reviews, by the way; no need to take them to court). Even among university presses like Oxford's, the product description won't usually tell you which English translation is inside the book, and they only print the lowest quality of trade paperbacks.

I was elated to find a couple evil capitalist megacorps that still put out quality public domain reprints: Yesterday's Classics (nicely typeset POD done by two people) and Everyman's Library (really nice hardbacks from a traditional publisher).

The only examples I can think of which resemble all these hypothetical Disney-reprint nightmare scenarios are Chaosium pretending like they invented H.P. Lovecraft, or Bethesda claiming to own the word "Scrolls", and that sort of nonsense. Of course, the only reason they can do that is thanks to IP law.

@ErikDiaz @Pat & @Oddend, you're all willingly obtuse and I don't have the time, crayons or patience to keep on explaining you why you're wrong. Besides this is totally off topic.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 05:47:41 PM
@ErikDiaz @Pat & @Oddend, you're all willingly obtuse and I don't have the time, crayons or patience to keep on explaining you why you're wrong. Besides this is totally off topic.

Willfully obtuse. That's the word you're looking for.  :)

But no, we just disagree. I have noticed you seem to be equating labor and value, which no major economist has believed since Marx. So if you're interested in why I've been pointing out that working on something doesn't mean you're owed anything, you could look into the marginal theory of value.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 06:21:32 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 05:47:41 PM
@ErikDiaz @Pat & @Oddend, you're all willingly obtuse and I don't have the time, crayons or patience to keep on explaining you why you're wrong. Besides this is totally off topic.

Willfully obtuse. That's the word you're looking for.  :)

But no, we just disagree. I have noticed you seem to be equating labor and value, which no major economist has believed since Marx. So if you're interested in why I've been pointing out that working on something doesn't mean you're owed anything, you could look into the marginal theory of value.

Nope, I equate the work, money, and time + creativity that goes into creating an intellectual work to value. You don't owe me anything for creating it, but you also have no right to take it and enjoy it or to sell it without giving me money.

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

Let me explain my position, if it's something that has no inherent dificulty/value go write the next Harry Potter. Then put it into the public domain. And if you manage to get as rich as JK Rowling from voluntary donations then come and I will change my mind.

Until then your argument is the same as "if only we abolished property there wouldn't be any theft!"

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

"If only we abolished private property then there wouldn't be any theft!"

You're also not entitled to my creative work, especially not for free, much less to profit from it without me receiving proper compensation for it.

Are you already putting your money where your mouth is?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:36:48 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

"If only we abolished private property then there wouldn't be any theft!"

You're also not entitled to my creative work, especially not for free, much less to profit from it without me receiving proper compensation for it.

Are you already putting your money where your mouth is?

Did you missed the "deprived of anything"? That's explicitly a reference to private property.

If you don't want anyone to have access to your creative works, then don't publish them. Simple, done.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work?

Because a brick is an actual tangible thing where as a creative work has no inherent value.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:40:09 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:36:48 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:21:14 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 06:27:46 PM

Profiting from my work without me benefiting from it seems to be the definition of slavery.

No, forcing you to work is the definition of slavery. (Hi IRS!)

If you're not forced to do anything or deprived or anything, you're not a slave nor are you entitled to anything.

Thought you were done with this topic?

"If only we abolished private property then there wouldn't be any theft!"

You're also not entitled to my creative work, especially not for free, much less to profit from it without me receiving proper compensation for it.

Are you already putting your money where your mouth is?

Did you missed the "deprived of anything"? That's explicitly a reference to private property.

If you don't want anyone to have access to your creative works, then don't publish them. Simple, done.

Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

Quote from: Shasarak on October 06, 2021, 07:45:54 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work?

Because a brick is an actual tangible thing where as a creative work has no inherent value.

Right, which is why people gave how much money to JK Rowlings?

Go write the next Harry Potter, put it under public domain and get as rich as her, then we'll talk.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

How is it slavery, when nobody's forcing you to do anything? How is it theft when no one is taking anything from you?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

As Pat says, you're associating *effort* with *compensation*. There is a moral ideal that people should be compensated in proportion to the value of their work, but it's not guaranteed in a working economy. Someone might put a lot of effort into their job, but their boss still treats them like shit and doesn't pay them fairly. Meanwhile, someone else might do a shitty job, but they're the boss' favorite and they get a huge salary.

You're arguing from a moral view that by doing the labor, someone should inherently own the fruits of that labor. From that view, getting paid unfairly is theft and slavery.

I think this ideal isn't possible in a practical economy. There is no way to enforce fairness in compensation, and ownership of the fruits of one's labor is not a natural right. The best we can do is approximate it by having laws that create social structures that *encourage* fairness, but there will always be unfairness.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

You're the one who's arguing in favor of non-consensual contractual arrangements.

Stop embarrassing yourself and enjoy this lecture from an actual unashamed capitalist: On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IfRmkCxyk8)

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:11:52 PM


Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

Except that many folks disagree with it, so it isn't obvious, it has been refuted many, many times, and it does not appear to be going away anytime soon.  Except for those points, you're 100% right.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 08:33:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:11:52 PM
Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

Except that many folks disagree with it, so it isn't obvious, it has been refuted many, many times, and it does not appear to be going away anytime soon.  Except for those points, you're 100% right.

Not a single one of you has presented a counter-argument (hint: "How would I get rich?" isn't an argument), but go ahead and congratulate yourselves.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 05:58:22 AM
Property is something that can be taken from you. For example: the hard drive an RPG trove is stored on? That's property. The PDFs on the drive? Those are information. They're infinitely duplicable; they're not scarce.

Let's focus on this bit because it seems to be the source of your error, and see where the logic goes.   Do you believe in land ownership?  Land can't be taken from you.  It's a location, not a physical object:  if you own land and every bit of the material in it were replaced with something else, you still own the land.  By that logic you shouldn't be able to own land.  Which means I can come in and sleep on your couch without permission any time I want.  Because the only reason I can't do that now is that you own the land.  To head off the obvious rebuttal, yes land and ideas are different, but the logic is identical.  If you're not willing to let random folks sleep on your couch without permission, then there's something wrong with your premise.

Legally, one's property is just something that he has the right to exclude others from using without permission.  There's nothing in the concept that says it has to be a physical object.  It can be an object, an idea, a location, an option, a song, or any number of other things.

As for my views, property is a social construct meant to reduce conflict, incentivize production, and promote the common good.  Neither physics nor morality speak to how property should be defined.  Once it is defined, though. "Thou shalt not steal" is in effect.  IP laws should maximize the common good by balancing incentivizing value creation and reception of value by the public.  I think they currently serve their purpose pretty well but could use some tweaking.  Specifically, music and movie IP duration should be about 10 years, books should be author's lifetime plus 20 years, and patents should be 20 years from the time of the patent grant (not the time of the patent application as is currently the case.)   Those are relatively minor adjustments, thought.  The big point is that I do believe that having IP in the laws promotes the common good.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 08:30:12 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

You're the one who's arguing in favor of non-consensual contractual arrangements.

Stop embarrassing yourself and enjoy this lecture from an actual unashamed capitalist: On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IfRmkCxyk8)

And to your errors, faulty logic and ideological blindnes we now can add you lying. Please do provide proof of where exactly do I argue in favor on non-consensual contracts.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:49:18 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on October 06, 2021, 07:45:54 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
Why is it different producing bricks than producing a creative work?

Because a brick is an actual tangible thing where as a creative work has no inherent value.

Right, which is why people gave how much money to JK Rowlings?

Go write the next Harry Potter, put it under public domain and get as rich as her, then we'll talk.

No one paid her for the idea of a boy wizard.

Quote from: Pat on October 06, 2021, 07:54:24 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

How is it slavery, when nobody's forcing you to do anything? How is it theft when no one is taking anything from you?

You can not talk that way to a person of colour.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 09:01:09 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 05:58:22 AM
Property is something that can be taken from you. For example: the hard drive an RPG trove is stored on? That's property. The PDFs on the drive? Those are information. They're infinitely duplicable; they're not scarce.

Let's focus on this bit because it seems to be the source of your error, and see where the logic goes.   Do you believe in land ownership?  Land can't be taken from you.  It's a location, not a physical object:  if you own land and every bit of the material in it were replaced with something else, you still own the land.  By that logic you shouldn't be able to own land.  Which means I can come in and sleep on your couch without permission any time I want.  Because the only reason I can't do that now is that you own the land.  To head off the obvious rebuttal, yes land and ideas are different, but the logic is identical.  If you're not willing to let random folks sleep on your couch without permission, then there's something wrong with your premise.

Thank you. This is just imprecise wording on my part. In this context, "something that can be taken from you" would mean "something over which physical control can be taken from you", which (of course) would include land. And of course, when we say "land" we're usually talking about a delineated space, not the literal dirt, though that can be legitimately owned too.

It's not that land and IP are different; it's that scarce goods and information are different.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 09:01:09 PM
Legally, one's property is just something that he has the right to exclude others from using without permission.  There's nothing in the concept that says it has to be a physical object.  It can be an object, an idea, a location, an option, a song, or any number of other things.

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 09:01:09 PM
As for my views, property is a social construct meant to reduce conflict, incentivize production, and promote the common good.  Neither physics nor morality speak to how property should be defined.

You're correct that private property is a conflict-resolution tool, but this is exactly why information is out of the picture. A conflict arises when two people want to wear the same hat at the same time. There is no conflict when two people want to sing the same song at the same time, or enjoy the same book (the text, not a physical copy) at the same time.

Once we insist that information can be property, we're actually introducing the opportunity for conflict that was not there to begin with.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 09:04:07 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 08:30:12 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 07:47:41 PM
Right because if I do publish them to profit from my creative efforts then you feel entitled to take them and profit from them without my consent and without compensating me for my efforts... Slavery and theft.

Go write the next Harry Potter and put it under public domain, get as rich as JK Rowling then you might have an argument. In the meantime you're just trying to justify theft and slavery.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

You're the one who's arguing in favor of non-consensual contractual arrangements.

Stop embarrassing yourself and enjoy this lecture from an actual unashamed capitalist: On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (PFS 2015) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IfRmkCxyk8)

And to your errors, faulty logic and ideological blindnes we now can add you lying. Please do provide proof of where exactly do I argue in favor on non-consensual contracts.

Aren't you in favor of monopoly privilege for content creators? How do you think monopolies work? When an author writes a book, does everyone other than him receive a monopoly-upholding contract in the mail, ready to endorse or decline? Or is that everyone, without their consent or even notification, is coerced on behalf of the author into abstaining from otherwise legal use of their own property?

All of this is discussed in those two talks I linked earlier. Here's a relevant bit from his book:

Quote from: Against Intellectual Property, p35-36
Only tangible, scarce resources are the possible object of interpersonal conflict, so it is only for them that property rules are applicable. Thus, patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by government legislation. It is not surprising that, as Palmer notes, "[m]onopoly privilege and censorship lie at the historical root of patent and copyright." It is this monopoly privilege that creates an artificial scarcity where there was none before.

Let us recall that IP rights give to pattern-creators partial rights of control—ownership—over the tangible property of everyone else. The pattern-creator has partial ownership of others' property, by virtue of his IP right, because he can prohibit them from performing certain actions with their own property. Author X, for example, can prohibit a third party, Y, from inscribing a certain pattern of words on Y's own blank pages with Y's own ink.

That is, by merely authoring an original expression of ideas, by merely thinking of and recording some original pattern of information, or by finding a new way to use his own property (recipe), the IP creator instantly, magically becomes a partial owner of others' property. He has some say over how third parties can use their property. IP rights change the status quo by redistributing property from individuals of one class (tangible-property owners) to individuals of another (authors and inventors). Prima facie, therefore, IP law trespasses against or "takes" the property of tangible property owners, by transferring partial ownership to authors and inventors. It is this invasion and redistribution of property that must be justified in order for IP rights to be valid. We see, then, that utilitarian defenses do not do the trick.

Full book and audiobook: https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

Quote from: Oddend on October 07, 2021, 01:46:28 AM
"We see, then, that utilitarian defenses do not do the trick"

A Utilitarian defence of IP only requires that net benefit exceeds net harm, not that IP Law does not do harm. Infringing on other people's rights is a much bigger deal in rights-based theories than in Utilitarian theory.

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 08:33:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:11:52 PM
Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

Except that many folks disagree with it, so it isn't obvious, it has been refuted many, many times, and it does not appear to be going away anytime soon.  Except for those points, you're 100% right.

Not a single one of you has presented a counter-argument (hint: "How would I get rich?" isn't an argument), but go ahead and congratulate yourselves.

I dont think "they can live on charity and good will" is a very compelling argument either. I do thank you for answering my question earlier, and it gave me a lot to think about, but i dont see the benefit in getting rid of IP laws. A lot of it relys on things like reputation, but that didnt help Charles Dickens when people were selling copies of A Christmas Carol without him.

EDIT: i actually just saw your edit to your original reply to me and its given me more to think over on the matter, im not really sold, partially because whats the basis of monetizing a livestream chat or writing advice as neither things are physical property?

I flipflop on the digital "piracy" thing.

I know I'm not alone in having gigabytes of unread PDFs downloaded over the years from the tsunami of freebies available from DriveThru and others. Heck, I've got 50MB worth of PDFs I've bought that I haven't read yet.

I don't like to buy books sight unseen, so at least flipping through a PDF would give me the notion of whether I would buy the dead tree version. Thus, I'm a fan of free PDFs to check out before buying the POD.

Of course, this is fine until "digital books" are great at the table. Some may argue their Kindle or iPad is already better for actual gaming than a deadtree version. So these people would represent a financial loss if PDFs were free.

Maybe. We don't really know the relation between "pirate" and paying customer over the long term. AKA, how many pirates even use (or read) their booty?

I don't know the right answer, but I do know that "PDF piracy" isn't going away regardless of whatever Zwei-bitch might want. I fully expect the Trove to return in some form, if it isn't already out there.

Quote from: Slambo on October 07, 2021, 03:30:25 AM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 08:33:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:11:52 PM
Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

Except that many folks disagree with it, so it isn't obvious, it has been refuted many, many times, and it does not appear to be going away anytime soon.  Except for those points, you're 100% right.

Not a single one of you has presented a counter-argument (hint: "How would I get rich?" isn't an argument), but go ahead and congratulate yourselves.

I dont think "they can live on charity and good will" is a very compelling argument either. I do thank you for answering my question earlier, and it gave me a lot to think about, but i dont see the benefit in getting rid of IP laws. A lot of it relys on things like reputation, but that didnt help Charles Dickens when people were selling copies of A Christmas Carol without him.

They don't have to live on charity and good will, though it's certainly an option for some people (many already do). The only thing they have to do is play by the same rules as everyone else (i.e. they can't force people to give them money or behave a certain way).

Quote from: Slambo on October 07, 2021, 03:30:25 AM
EDIT: i actually just saw your edit to your original reply to me and its given me more to think over on the matter, im not really sold, partially because whats the basis of monetizing a livestream chat or writing advice as neither things are physical property?

The livestream chat or professional consultation would be services, just like performing live music or mowing somebody's lawn. If you mow somebody's lawn, they can't copy and share the results with others. While somebody can record live music or a livestream (and it's pretty common to upload recordings anyway), nobody can copy and share the experience of being one of the active members of the video chat, or being one of the audience members in a music hall. So even when recordings are shared, there's still an incentive to pay for future instances of the same service (and the recordings can even help drive ticket sales).

Live services are just one example, of course, but the point is that it's much more advisable to make your money through things that can't be copied infinitely with zero loss. Unlike recordings of a live event, my copy of a PDF is 100% just as good as the original that was paid for. So if I already have a copy, then my only incentive to buy is "charity and good will". And while I do buy things on that basis, and have made some of my own money on that basis (free pay-what-you-want game assets), it's not a great model for generating consistent income.

Who needs cash when you can live on thoughts and prayers alone.

Who needs to make something people are willing to pay for when you can force them to pay you against their will.

Quote from: Spinachcat on October 07, 2021, 04:41:01 AM
Of course, this is fine until "digital books" are great at the table. Some may argue their Kindle or iPad is already better for actual gaming than a deadtree version. So these people would represent a financial loss if PDFs were free.

One way to adapt is to produce RPG apps, or modules for apps, that are so good (and so conveniently priced) that it's more desirable to just buy the app/module than it would be to find and figure out how to run a pirated version of the app with pirated copies of modules. This is how Steam makes enormous amounts of money, despite selling stuff that technically can be copied and pasted about as easily as PDFs.

One strategy that's used in open-source software is to offer convenience downloads of the executable (and automatic updates) for money, while expecting freeloaders to compile their own executable from the source code (and do it again whenever they want the latest version).

This doesn't stop anyone from creating and sharing their own convenience downloads, but there's little incentive to do so, since it's ongoing work, and nobody would be paying for theirs.

This isn't as easy to replicate with PDFs, which aren't expected to be updated so often, but the point is that even for products that can be copy/pasted, one way to make money is just to out-convenience the "pirates".

Quote from: Oddend on October 07, 2021, 09:01:50 AM
make money is just to out-convenience the "pirates".

Yep, that could work with an app alright... Although not for me personally, as I think all those RPG apps are shite and just slow down the game.

Never going to work for pdfs. RPG creators are a lazy lot and updates are minor. So, once you've got the pdf no need to ever buy it.

That said, I like supporting Devs I likel so I'm happy to buy their stuff. Plus, it's the best way to get more material made, a financial incentive.

Quote from: Oddend on October 07, 2021, 08:41:58 AM

Quote from: Slambo on October 07, 2021, 03:30:25 AM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 08:42:34 PM

Quote from: Mishihari on October 06, 2021, 08:33:00 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 06, 2021, 04:11:52 PM
Copying is not stealing. It's obvious, irrefutable, and is just something we have to get over and live with.

Except that many folks disagree with it, so it isn't obvious, it has been refuted many, many times, and it does not appear to be going away anytime soon.  Except for those points, you're 100% right.

Not a single one of you has presented a counter-argument (hint: "How would I get rich?" isn't an argument), but go ahead and congratulate yourselves.

I dont think "they can live on charity and good will" is a very compelling argument either. I do thank you for answering my question earlier, and it gave me a lot to think about, but i dont see the benefit in getting rid of IP laws. A lot of it relys on things like reputation, but that didnt help Charles Dickens when people were selling copies of A Christmas Carol without him.

They don't have to live on charity and good will, though it's certainly an option for some people (many already do). The only thing they have to do is play by the same rules as everyone else (i.e. they can't force people to give them money or behave a certain way).

Quote from: Slambo on October 07, 2021, 03:30:25 AM
EDIT: i actually just saw your edit to your original reply to me and its given me more to think over on the matter, im not really sold, partially because whats the basis of monetizing a livestream chat or writing advice as neither things are physical property?

The livestream chat or professional consultation would be services, just like performing live music or mowing somebody's lawn. If you mow somebody's lawn, they can't copy and share the results with others. While somebody can record live music or a livestream (and it's pretty common to upload recordings anyway), nobody can copy and share the experience of being one of the active members of the video chat, or being one of the audience members in a music hall. So even when recordings are shared, there's still an incentive to pay for future instances of the same service (and the recordings can even help drive ticket sales).

Live services are just one example, of course, but the point is that it's much more advisable to make your money through things that can't be copied infinitely with zero loss. Unlike recordings of a live event, my copy of a PDF is 100% just as good as the original that was paid for. So if I already have a copy, then my only incentive to buy is "charity and good will". And while I do buy things on that basis, and have made some of my own money on that basis (free pay-what-you-want game assets), it's not a great model for generating consistent income.

Im consistiently impressed with your insight into the matter. So i guess my next question is how is  it really better not to have copyright law for someone who doesnt want to create derivative works.

Quote from: horsesoldier on October 05, 2021, 11:04:32 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTrove/comments/o7dpt9/what_happened_to_the_trove/

There's some real whoppers there. Now, they hate Daniel D. Fox, which is good, but for different reasons. The amount of entitled whining in there is something else. Apparently only rich kids could afford RPG's--who knew?

Here's one particular mouth breather justifying bad behavior:

QuoteI have a tremendous respect for the gaming community tolerating The Trove. The business model of book publishing is completely outdated in the digital era and needs complete overhaul. The gaming community should be inclusive to all regardless of economic means and globally regardless of country poverty.

The Trove has just forced game publishers authors etc to flex to a model of the future where you expect your work to be freely available and you make your money from people who want to pay you directly, people who can afford it, and people who want the premium printed versions and physical versions.

That does mean eliminsting tthe bloated middleman system of pre-digital publishing with all the parasites feeding off the actual creators.

The same dynamic is happening in music production. The music industry is in upheaval but smart musicians are setting up ways to adapt to a totally new model where their work gets widely available for free - and what artist or musician doesnt want their work to get heard seen or read - and they get paid more directly for premium value like concerts patreon vinyl versions merchandise etc.

Don't believe the capitalist dinosaurs trashing The Trove. All books are free is a completely viable reality that supports both creators and also people who can't afford premium print etc. Be proud of The Trove and look forward to it coming back. And also if you have some favorite designers and creators look them up find their paypal and vimeo and send them some money directly. And be glad your beloved game system can be played by anyone not just rich kids.

Right because the music industry hasn't been in upheaval for nearly 30 years now. How do bands make their money now? Touring. What's the RPG writer equivalent of touring? An obscure band can make a decent living by selling premium physical products and touring small venues. What about a writer? How many kickstarters have there been where you can get a Goodman Games quality leatherbound book?

Apologies if this thread needs to be deleted.

I, for one, look forward to a time when Venger Satanis can go out on tour and... run games for folks sitting at a table at the center of sold-out concert arenas.  At the conclusion of such events, I will fling my dice into the crowd as dozens of women throw their soiled panties back at me. 

Ok, just woke up from a dream I had... what are we talking about?

VS

Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 07, 2021, 02:52:35 PM

Quote from: horsesoldier on October 05, 2021, 11:04:32 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheTrove/comments/o7dpt9/what_happened_to_the_trove/

There's some real whoppers there. Now, they hate Daniel D. Fox, which is good, but for different reasons. The amount of entitled whining in there is something else. Apparently only rich kids could afford RPG's--who knew?

Here's one particular mouth breather justifying bad behavior:

QuoteI have a tremendous respect for the gaming community tolerating The Trove. The business model of book publishing is completely outdated in the digital era and needs complete overhaul. The gaming community should be inclusive to all regardless of economic means and globally regardless of country poverty.

The Trove has just forced game publishers authors etc to flex to a model of the future where you expect your work to be freely available and you make your money from people who want to pay you directly, people who can afford it, and people who want the premium printed versions and physical versions.

That does mean eliminsting tthe bloated middleman system of pre-digital publishing with all the parasites feeding off the actual creators.

The same dynamic is happening in music production. The music industry is in upheaval but smart musicians are setting up ways to adapt to a totally new model where their work gets widely available for free - and what artist or musician doesnt want their work to get heard seen or read - and they get paid more directly for premium value like concerts patreon vinyl versions merchandise etc.

Don't believe the capitalist dinosaurs trashing The Trove. All books are free is a completely viable reality that supports both creators and also people who can't afford premium print etc. Be proud of The Trove and look forward to it coming back. And also if you have some favorite designers and creators look them up find their paypal and vimeo and send them some money directly. And be glad your beloved game system can be played by anyone not just rich kids.

Right because the music industry hasn't been in upheaval for nearly 30 years now. How do bands make their money now? Touring. What's the RPG writer equivalent of touring? An obscure band can make a decent living by selling premium physical products and touring small venues. What about a writer? How many kickstarters have there been where you can get a Goodman Games quality leatherbound book?

Apologies if this thread needs to be deleted.

I, for one, look forward to a time when Venger Satanis can go out on tour and... run games for folks sitting at a table at the center of sold-out concert arenas.  At the conclusion of such events, I will fling my dice into the crowd as dozens of women throw their soiled panties back at me. 

Ok, just woke up from a dream I had... what are we talking about?

VS

We were talking about your crippling addiction to sniffing faerie wings. :D

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 05, 2021, 11:07:05 AM
Yeah, this was annoying as I was using it to avoid giving money to people who say they hate me. Also to look up and research older, out of print games like Boot Hill, or Recon.

The irony of it getting KO'd by Daniel 'Ripped off Warhammer Fantasy' Fox, though, is enough to make me chuckle.

EDIT: I want to add something here, horse. Bands have ALWAYS made their best money touring. There's a reason why the RIAA's enforcements against music piracy didn't exactly stir people, and that's because their contracts were fucking highway robbery. It's also why they desperately fought against digital distribution, because it completely undercut the contract dynamic they'd use to fuck bands over. As it got easier to produce CDs (and later it wasn't even necessary), the distribution model became more and more outdated.

I don't know what the fix is for RPG writers. I've made it clear that I promote pirating material when people straight up state, 'I hate you and don't want your money'. Who am I to argue with them? But I won't pirate Pundit's stuff, or Venger's, or Zak's, or anyone else on the green list (or hell, yellow). Because I want to reward them for not being dickheads (and turning out quality material) with, y'know, cash.

I appreciate that, hoss!  Hey, if anyone wants to get my stuff but is just temporarily stuck for cash, I usually exchange PDFs for honest reviews.  All you have to do is contact me: Venger.Satanis@yahoo.com

I am not sad to see the demise of the Trove. I've been out of the industry for years, and when I was in the industry, it was before the Trove was a thing... but torrent certainly was. I could watch the month to month sales of our evergreen products drop in the month that a PDF of that product hit the torrent sites. It was uncanny - a book that would sell around 100 units a month, month after month, years after its initial publication would drop to about 20 units a month in sales when its torrent went wide.

No amount of people saying that "oh, really, they're just checking it out before they buy" will convince me that piracy doesn't negatively impact sales when I have the data from not just one book, but book after book in a line where I could see that the only thing that changed was how easy it was to pirate a book.

I think that there is probably a place for products that are long out of print to be made available. Heck, Talislanta has a model that we old publishers should aspire to (by the way, do you not own Talislanta? Head to www.talistlanta.com (http://www.talistlanta.com) to pick up any of the out of print back catalog for free). But writing in the RPG industry is a way to make literally dozens of dollars, and if somebody does have an evergreen product that they want to keep selling, the fruits of their labor shouldn't be undercut by a place like the Trove.

Quote from: ArtemisAlpha on October 07, 2021, 03:51:18 PM
I am not sad to see the demise of the Trove. I've been out of the industry for years, and when I was in the industry, it was before the Trove was a thing... but torrent certainly was. I could watch the month to month sales of our evergreen products drop in the month that a PDF of that product hit the torrent sites. It was uncanny - a book that would sell around 100 units a month, month after month, years after its initial publication would drop to about 20 units a month in sales when its torrent went wide.

No amount of people saying that "oh, really, they're just checking it out before they buy" will convince me that piracy doesn't negatively impact sales when I have the data from not just one book, but book after book in a line where I could see that the only thing that changed was how easy it was to pirate a book.

I think that there is probably a place for products that are long out of print to be made available. Heck, Talislanta has a model that we old publishers should aspire to (by the way, do you not own Talislanta? Head to www.talistlanta.com (http://www.talistlanta.com) to pick up any of the out of print back catalog for free). But writing in the RPG industry is a way to make literally dozens of dollars, and if somebody does have an evergreen product that they want to keep selling, the fruits of their labor shouldn't be undercut by a place like the Trove.

Some might pirate then buy, but the true pirate will either pirate it or go without, it's a thing of "principle" to those that think you shouldn't be able to monetize your work or that should resort to begging.

I agree that a place for the long out of print stuff is needed.

I was working on a Warhammer fantasy fan mod for Mount & Blade and the Trove was invaluable for my lore research. As in the vast majority of info I needed was in out of print books. I'm glad I was able to use the Trove when it was around.

Piracy is a service issue. There are always going to be people who want something for free. And those who are willing to pay. I'm willing to pay up to £10 for a PDF, and £20 for a physical book. I see a lot of OSR games that look good but I wouldn't pay the amount they are asking for.  You are never going to convince someone to buy your shitty OSR Retro clone when can just get it for free. And if they can't get it for free they just won't buy it. Focus on providing a good customer service experience and building loyalty amongst your consumers and people will buy your book.

Quote from: King Tyranno on October 07, 2021, 06:21:22 PM
Piracy is a service issue. There are always going to be people who want something for free. And those who are willing to pay. I'm willing to pay up to £10 for a PDF, and £20 for a physical book. I see a lot of OSR games that look good but I wouldn't pay the amount they are asking for.  You are never going to convince someone to buy your shitty OSR Retro clone when can just get it for free. And if they can't get it for free they just won't buy it. Focus on providing a good customer service experience and building loyalty amongst your consumers and people will buy your book.

There's a reason why a lot of people charge a nominal amount (whatever that means in their context) for things they'd be happy to give away for free:  Many people will value things based on what they paid, not how useful it is to them.  I've seen some examples--no idea how accurate--where the "give away" price was as much as $10, because below that most people wouldn't take the thing.  One or two dollars for a small PDF probably fits in the same window.

However, the whole conversation leaves me bemused, because most free things aren't worth to me what I paid for them, and for many of the PDFs that have a cost, I wouldn't waste space on my hard drive for if someone gave it to me, let alone pay to print it out.  Never mind the items that I wouldn't read the whole thing if you paid me to own it.  Time and space are valuable too, and a PDF that makes you dumber just reading it has a negative value.  If I were a shoplifter, I'd sneak back into the virtual store and put it back after buying it--and come out richer in the end. :D

Whereas, apparently some pirates will steal even free or almost free things, hoard them, and ... never read them.  Like birds putting bits of string in their nests.  Which leads me to believe it isn't about economics at all.

Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 07, 2021, 02:52:35 PMAt the conclusion of such events, I will fling my dice into the crowd as dozens of women throw their soiled panties back at me. 

THIS must happen at every VengerCon!

Quote from: Spinachcat on October 07, 2021, 07:59:24 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 07, 2021, 02:52:35 PMAt the conclusion of such events, I will fling my dice into the crowd as dozens of women throw their soiled panties back at me. 

THIS must happen at every VengerCon!

Note to self: Bring spare pair of soiled gamer boxers to VengerCon.

Quote from: DM_Curt on October 07, 2021, 08:05:05 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on October 07, 2021, 07:59:24 PM

Quote from: VengerSatanis on October 07, 2021, 02:52:35 PMAt the conclusion of such events, I will fling my dice into the crowd as dozens of women throw their soiled panties back at me. 

THIS must happen at every VengerCon!

Note to self: Bring spare pair of soiled gamer boxers to VengerCon.

Note to self: Start a mail order bussiness of soiled gamer underwear.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 07, 2021, 09:10:17 AMThat said, I like supporting Devs I likel so I'm happy to buy their stuff. Plus, it's the best way to get more material made, a financial incentive.

Agreed. Support authors who make product you enjoy.

That's why I like Kickstarter.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:06:54 PM
So I should be able to take your song, record it and not give you a dime? We're not talking about any random down the street singing it while he goes home, were talking of profiting from your creativity without your consent and without giving you money.

I am saying that equating the use of intellectual property to physical property is nonsense due to the factor I describe. As an original author of a song, I still have it my head, I can still sing it to others. Nothing has been stolen by another performing the same song after they heard.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:06:54 PM
Should forgeries of famous paintings also become not a crime? What's the difference? Lets say I'm Han van Meegeren and I decide to forge Johannes Vermeer paintings and sell them at 100 dollars each. Should this be allowed too? During the life of Johannes Vermeer?

Again if somebody painted a near perfect copy of Johannes Vermeer painting they have stolen nothing from Vermeer. Vermeer still has the painting he painted.

What this means intellectual ideas has to be approached differently than physical property.

Now millenia ago nobody gave two shits about people copying other people works. If there was a problem it was due to the work being considering violating one or more cultural more, or politically subversive. Creatives made a living by pleasing patrons who supported their works.

The political subversive part is why we have copyright in the first place as the crowned heads of Europe attempted to control the spread and use of printing technology by licensing the rights to make printed work.

But what started out as a tool of censorship ultimately was found useful as a way to encourage folks to create works and share them by giving creators the exclusive right to make copies of their creation.

But that usefulness was always at war with it's utility as a means of censorship. Since the adoption of the Berne conventions it now effectively a form of censorship not by political interests but economic interests.

My personal opinion that Patents are fine but more funding is needed to establish prior art and the process of presenting prior art by the public needs to be more open. Trademark could use some tweaking as the point of trademark is reduce market confusion and fraud by identify the source of the product. So public domain concepts like Conan or Hyboria should not be allowed trademarks. But Marvel's Conan is fine in my opinion

As for copyright my opinion that the old 28 years + 28 years upon renewal adequately compensate creative. That we need a copyright small claims system for amounts less than $3,000. That window for authors to recover their original copyright at 35 years be reduced to the 28 years mark when the original copyright is due to be renewed. That work for hire in copyright be better defined. That there be a formal way to dedicate one's work to the public domain. Also in addition that copyleft becomes an formal option under the law.

Quote from: estar on October 07, 2021, 11:39:17 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:06:54 PM
So I should be able to take your song, record it and not give you a dime? We're not talking about any random down the street singing it while he goes home, were talking of profiting from your creativity without your consent and without giving you money.

I am saying that equating the use of intellectual property to physical property is nonsense due to the factor I describe. As an original author of a song, I still have it my head, I can still sing it to others. Nothing has been stolen by another performing the same song after they heard.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 03:06:54 PM
Should forgeries of famous paintings also become not a crime? What's the difference? Lets say I'm Han van Meegeren and I decide to forge Johannes Vermeer paintings and sell them at 100 dollars each. Should this be allowed too? During the life of Johannes Vermeer?

Again if somebody painted a near perfect copy of Johannes Vermeer painting they have stolen nothing from Vermeer. Vermeer still has the painting he painted.

What this means intellectual ideas has to be approached differently than physical property.

Now millenia ago nobody gave two shits about people copying other people works. If there was a problem it was due to the work being considering violating one or more cultural more, or politically subversive. Creatives made a living by pleasing patrons who supported their works.

The political subversive part is why we have copyright in the first place as the crowned heads of Europe attempted to control the spread and use of printing technology by licensing the rights to make printed work.

But what started out as a tool of censorship ultimately was found useful as a way to encourage folks to create works and share them by giving creators the exclusive right to make copies of their creation.

But that usefulness was always at war with it's utility as a means of censorship. Since the adoption of the Berne conventions it now effectively a form of censorship not by political interests but economic interests.

My personal opinion that Patents are fine but more funding is needed to establish prior art and the process of presenting prior art by the public needs to be more open. Trademark could use some tweaking as the point of trademark is reduce market confusion and fraud by identify the source of the product. So public domain concepts like Conan or Hyboria should not be allowed trademarks. But Marvel's Conan is fine in my opinion

As for copyright my opinion that the old 28 years + 28 years upon renewal adequately compensate creative. That we need a copyright small claims system for amounts less than $3,000. That window for authors to recover their original copyright at 35 years be reduced to the 28 years mark when the original copyright is due to be renewed. That work for hire in copyright be better defined. That there be a formal way to dedicate one's work to the public domain. Also in addition that copyleft becomes an formal option under the law.

So, if you agree that the law is needed but needs an overhaul why the fuck are you arguing that IP piracy isn't theft?

Again, you publish a game, I take it, print it and sell it, I have effectivelly cut you off of a part of the market, IF I have volume economy I can undermine you further by selling cheaper than you, especially since I didn't incur in the expenses you did.

You lost sales, sales ARE money so I took money out of your pocket.

But whatever, YES IP law needs an overhaul, just like trademark law, especially to protect the creator and to stop the megacorporations from doing what they have been doing.

As to why IP law should be different from normal property law?

How many people want to go see gone with the wind the original movie? Not many, Go farther back and the interest gets even smaller. So the property's value decreases over time to a point where it's zero.

Making IP eternal only stops creativity, making it not existent stops creativity, there should be a happy middle.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:01:12 PM
Why one is illegal but the other shouldn't?

The problem of intellectual ideas is that they don't exist in the background. To take the idea to the extreme all authors of romance novels would be paying royalties to the person who first thought of telling a story about two people meeting and falling in love.


To take a famous example, Star War, IP Law taken to an extreme would have George Lucas paying royalties to everybody on this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sources_and_analogues

Folks like Joseph Campbell, Frank Herbert (Dune), E.E. Doc Smith (Lensmen series), Akira Kurosawa (The Hidden Fortress), Associated British Pictures (the Dambusters), and so on.

So far society has adopted an arbitrary point that the it is the expression of an idea not the idea itself that is copyrighted. For patent, the thing patented must be an invention that is novel. Invention in patent law has a precise meaning. Novelty is a big more vague but an important concept used in judging whether something is patentable.

The natural state of ideas is to spread, and be adapted. But that too isn't without consequences as the early history of printing has shown. In the decades after the Gutenberg Press has spread, some successful printers became predatory and often crowded out competitors by printing their own copies of a popular work faster and cheaper the original printer that took a gamble on the author in the first place.

There are creative works where a well heeled corporation can dominate an IP if not otherwise restrained by copyright for example movies. However technology has advanced to the point where certain works like books and images the reproduction cost is effectively near near zero. Sure there is a cost if you want it in a physical form. But even there technology has advanced that cheap copies that are good enough are well within reach of the average person.

In this situation the problem isn't the capital a person or company can bring to bear, but rather how much an audience they have. If come out with a book that can be perfectly duplicated by any home printer, I could still lose out to Disney because more people pay attention to them than me if copyright didn't exist.

You been making the point that author should be compensated for their creative efforts. I agree not because it is a moral right, but rather it serve a useful purpose for society as outlined by the US Constitution.

QuoteTo promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

That goal in my view is still relevant to present day society despite the technology's ability to allow copies trival for certain types of works.

Finally there there is another existing system of managing intellectual that also proven successful. Namely the system of publishing and peer review. There the general expectation that results are made public in full to allow for replication and verification by other scientists in the field. That what been published is meant to be reused and built on to continue to advancement of the field.

Sure there been disturbing recent trends toward commercialization of the process. The journals in which papers are published have been acting predatory in the past few decades. There been a trend to a patent more and more results locking up important concepts for two decades. But this system, not copyright, patents or trademarks, is foundational for modern society. The extra wealth generated because of this system is what allows us the luxury to think debating copyrights, patents, and trademarks is important.

Do you think the people of hte Kalahari, Amazon, or Papua New Guinea really care about one creative person copying or adapting the work of another creative person?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:12:45 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 06, 2021, 04:01:12 PM
Why one is illegal but the other shouldn't?

The problem of intellectual ideas is that they don't exist in the background. To take the idea to the extreme all authors of romance novels would be paying royalties to the person who first thought of telling a story about two people meeting and falling in love.


To take a famous example, Star War, IP Law taken to an extreme would have George Lucas paying royalties to everybody on this list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars_sources_and_analogues

Folks like Joseph Campbell, Frank Herbert (Dune), E.E. Doc Smith (Lensmen series), Akira Kurosawa (The Hidden Fortress), Associated British Pictures (the Dambusters), and so on.

So far society has adopted an arbitrary point that the it is the expression of an idea not the idea itself that is copyrighted. For patent, the thing patented must be an invention that is novel. Invention in patent law has a precise meaning. Novelty is a big more vague but an important concept used in judging whether something is patentable.

The natural state of ideas is to spread, and be adapted. But that too isn't without consequences as the early history of printing has shown. In the decades after the Gutenberg Press has spread, some successful printers became predatory and often crowded out competitors by printing their own copies of a popular work faster and cheaper the original printer that took a gamble on the author in the first place.

There are creative works where a well heeled corporation can dominate an IP if not otherwise restrained by copyright for example movies. However technology has advanced to the point where certain works like books and images the reproduction cost is effectively near near zero. Sure there is a cost if you want it in a physical form. But even there technology has advanced that cheap copies that are good enough are well within reach of the average person.

In this situation the problem isn't the capital a person or company can bring to bear, but rather how much an audience they have. If come out with a book that can be perfectly duplicated by any home printer, I could still lose out to Disney because more people pay attention to them than me if copyright didn't exist.

You been making the point that author should be compensated for their creative efforts. I agree not because it is a moral right, but rather it serve a useful purpose for society as outlined by the US Constitution.

QuoteTo promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.

That goal in my view is still relevant to present day society despite the technology's ability to allow copies trival for certain types of works.

Finally there there is another existing system of managing intellectual that also proven successful. Namely the system of publishing and peer review. There the general expectation that results are made public in full to allow for replication and verification by other scientists in the field. That what been published is meant to be reused and built on to continue to advancement of the field.

Sure there been disturbing recent trends toward commercialization of the process. The journals in which papers are published have been acting predatory in the past few decades. There been a trend to a patent more and more results locking up important concepts for two decades. But this system, not copyright, patents or trademarks, is foundational for modern society. The extra wealth generated because of this system is what allows us the luxury to think debating copyrights, patents, and trademarks is important.

Do you think the people of hte Kalahari, Amazon, or Papua New Guinea really care about one creative person copying or adapting the work of another creative person?

So, building a house is an idea, the house isn't.

In the same vein writing a novel about X is an idea, the actual novel(s) isn't.

And the end, so you want us to revert to being mlike people living in the stone age?

Are you a ludite?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
So, if you agree that the law is needed but needs an overhaul why the fuck are you arguing that IP piracy isn't theft?

Because theft has a specific meaning that not applicable.

Theft is the unlawful taking of tangible property. Taking a book from you without permission is theft whether you wrote or not. Copying a book is not theft. It is however a violation of your rights. Generally dealt in civil court but if over a certain amount can be prosecuted as a felony. Copying a book doesn't carry the same moral weight as stealing somebody tangible property does.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
Again, you publish a game, I take it, print it and sell it, I have effectivelly cut you off of a part of the market, IF I have volume economy I can undermine you further by selling cheaper than you, especially since I didn't incur in the expenses you did.

I do agree that without copyright the above situation would exist. I would also agree that for the most part that if there was no copyright creative would tend to hoard their works, share it only in limited ways, and that society would be the poorer for it. But I don't equate the act of copying a book to the moral equivalent of theft.

And I submit that because too many people, like yourself consider copying the moral equivalent of theft that it led to the copyright regime today. That as it turned out folks and corporations are hoarding works, share them only in limited ways, and that society has become the poorer for it. Worse, many works are now forever lost like the earliest jazz recordings. Pieces of our cultural heritage is forever gone because too many, like yourself say that copying is immoral unless somebody with the right to do so give permission.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
You lost sales, sales ARE money so I took money out of your pocket.

Would you have the same moral outrage if I walked into the market house where you sold corn for decades, and set up a stall to sell my corn for half the price?  You were at the market house first. You sold corn there for decades. Who am I to walk in there to take away your business and sell corn in that market house? What moral rights are at play here?

Side note the basic situation I outline here is a thing in Europe.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
Making IP eternal only stops creativity, making it not existent stops creativity, there should be a happy middle.

Sure but that middle won't happen if people still consider copying the moral equivalent of theft of physical property. The alternate is view it as what benefits a free society the most? For the United States that idea is enshrined in the constitution although it been damaged when we signed on to the Berne Convention and it's idea of copyright. Treaties can be problematic in that regard.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:41:50 AM
So, building a house is an idea, the house isn't.

In the same vein writing a novel about X is an idea, the actual novel(s) isn't.

And the end, so you want us to revert to being mlike people living in the stone age?

Are you a ludite?

I think you are so biased and so fixed in the idea that intellectual property is the same as physical property that you can't imagine that an alternative view can exist.
As for being a luddite, I outlined some pretty traditional ideas of copyright, patents, and trademarks in my fixes.

Finally my personal view is that everything I do rest on a foundation built by others. That morally I am obligated to contribute back just as much back to the common pool for others to do the same. Hence while I author and sell my work, I also make much of what I do freely available for other use for whatever purpose they see fit provided that they do the same. Hence my use of the Open Game License for my work. The exception being is work that I license from others like Judges Guild. In which case I abide by the terms of the license agreement.

In practice what I found that most folks are interested in doing their own thing. Occasionally I will get a group or individual who does something major with one of my work. So far that has meant Blackmarsh. For example Heroes and Other Worlds sells a version of Blackmarsh for their system. So does a group of folks in Spain. I been contacted by others and encouraged them to do the same.

However when it comes to sales what people want is authenticity. Sure they want my best works but they want it to be Rob Conley's work. So when I release a new product or do a kickstarter that is what most of them are paying for. To support me in producing more of the material they like. Plus it helps that while I am a slow writer, that I deliver what I promise on the date I promised.

Allowing Heroes and Other Worlds and other folks to have copies of Blackmarsh isn't going to hinder sales of my upcoming Majestic Fantasy Realm project. If anything it will boost it because of the goodwill generated by makin gmy personal works open content. Which by the way goodwill is a tangible business concept.

Now I can do this because of impact technology has had on written works. So I would stuck with traditional copyright as the only practical method if I authored a play or tried to put together a film. I wouldn't like it but it would be the only way to get the project going in the face of well-heeled competitors with predatory behaviors. Even then it would be an uphill battle as only my specific expression of the  idea would be protected.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:52:14 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
So, if you agree that the law is needed but needs an overhaul why the fuck are you arguing that IP piracy isn't theft?

Because theft has a specific meaning that not applicable.

Theft is the unlawful taking of tangible property. Taking a book from you without permission is theft whether you wrote or not. Copying a book is not theft. It is however a violation of your rights. Generally dealt in civil court but if over a certain amount can be prosecuted as a felony. Copying a book doesn't carry the same moral weight as stealing somebody tangible property does.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
Again, you publish a game, I take it, print it and sell it, I have effectivelly cut you off of a part of the market, IF I have volume economy I can undermine you further by selling cheaper than you, especially since I didn't incur in the expenses you did.

I do agree that without copyright the above situation would exist. I would also agree that for the most part that if there was no copyright creative would tend to hoard their works, share it only in limited ways, and that society would be the poorer for it. But I don't equate the act of copying a book to the moral equivalent of theft.

And I submit that because too many people, like yourself consider copying the moral equivalent of theft that it led to the copyright regime today. That as it turned out folks and corporations are hoarding works, share them only in limited ways, and that society has become the poorer for it. Worse, many works are now forever lost like the earliest jazz recordings. Pieces of our cultural heritage is forever gone because too many, like yourself say that copying is immoral unless somebody with the right to do so give permission.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
You lost sales, sales ARE money so I took money out of your pocket.

Would you have the same moral outrage if I walked into the market house where you sold corn for decades, and set up a stall to sell my corn for half the price?  You were at the market house first. You sold corn there for decades. Who am I to walk in there to take away your business and sell corn in that market house? What moral rights are at play here?

Side note the basic situation I outline here is a thing in Europe.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:06:31 AM
Making IP eternal only stops creativity, making it not existent stops creativity, there should be a happy middle.

Sure but that middle won't happen if people still consider copying the moral equivalent of theft of physical property. The alternate is view it as what benefits a free society the most? For the United States that idea is enshrined in the constitution although it been damaged when we signed on to the Berne Convention and it's idea of copyright. Treaties can be problematic in that regard.

Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Let me put it this way: I've the idea of developing a Pulp RPG. Would you give $60 US for that? How about $5 US? No? Why?

A couple of years later, after spending my time and investing in it I have a finished game, the hardback goes for $60, the paperback goes for $40 and the PDF for $20 Would you buy any of those? Why?

So, if I tell you I have the idea of writing a pulp game and you beat me to the punch you stole my idea, but ideas aren't property.

If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 01:07:31 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:41:50 AM
So, building a house is an idea, the house isn't.

In the same vein writing a novel about X is an idea, the actual novel(s) isn't.

And the end, so you want us to revert to being mlike people living in the stone age?

Are you a ludite?

I think you are so biased and so fixed in the idea that intellectual property is the same as physical property that you can't imagine that an alternative view can exist.
As for being a luddite, I outlined some pretty traditional ideas of copyright, patents, and trademarks in my fixes.

Finally my personal view is that everything I do rest on a foundation built by others. That morally I am obligated to contribute back just as much back to the common pool for others to do the same. Hence while I author and sell my work, I also make much of what I do freely available for other use for whatever purpose they see fit provided that they do the same. Hence my use of the Open Game License for my work. The exception being is work that I license from others like Judges Guild. In which case I abide by the terms of the license agreement.

In practice what I found that most folks are interested in doing their own thing. Occasionally I will get a group or individual who does something major with one of my work. So far that has meant Blackmarsh. For example Heroes and Other Worlds sells a version of Blackmarsh for their system. So does a group of folks in Spain. I been contacted by others and encouraged them to do the same.

However when it comes to sales what people want is authenticity. Sure they want my best works but they want it to be Rob Conley's work. So when I release a new product or do a kickstarter that is what most of them are paying for. To support me in producing more of the material they like. Plus it helps that while I am a slow writer, that I deliver what I promise on the date I promised.

Allowing Heroes and Other Worlds and other folks to have copies of Blackmarsh isn't going to hinder sales of my upcoming Majestic Fantasy Realm project. If anything it will boost it because of the goodwill generated by makin gmy personal works open content. Which by the way goodwill is a tangible business concept.

Now I can do this because of impact technology has had on written works. So I would stuck with traditional copyright as the only practical method if I authored a play or tried to put together a film. I wouldn't like it but it would be the only way to get the project going in the face of well-heeled competitors with predatory behaviors. Even then it would be an uphill battle as only my specific expression of the  idea would be protected.

SURE, but YOU choose to give Blackmarsh away for free, it's not the same thing, it's your product and you have the right to do with it as you please.

You don't have the right to take MY product and sell it without giving me any monetary compensation for my time, work and money spent developing it.

You guys talk as if Games grew on trees you don't need to care for.

To write a game involves, time, software, a computer, electricity, internet to do research, art, formating, all of that costs money. And you think I don't have the right to have that product protected from thiefs!?

I've and idea, since I'm a generous kinda folk I'm putting it in the public domain:

We should develop a vaccine that grants true and permanent immunity to ALL coronaviruses.

Now, if you share my idea world wide we could save millions of lives.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:53 AM
To write a game involves, time, software, a computer, electricity, internet to do research, art, formating, all of that costs money. And you think I don't have the right to have that product protected from thiefs!?

No I don't think you have the right to have your protect from what you call thieves. I do however think it that it is a good thing to give you exclusive right to copy and profit from the things you create for a limited time as a societal benefit.

That the difference between our view. You view what you create as a form of personal property and like all property it needs to be protected by the legal system. I view copyright as a incentive for creators to take those extra steps towards making their effort a finished work and sharing the result by granting creators a limited monopoly to profit from their work. But my primary criteria in weighing changes to copyright is what benefits society more not the protection of personal property. Which also incidentally is the view of the United States Constitution and the founding father who wrote that clause.

And up until 1976 the United States was historically skeptical of strong copyrights. Everything we are wrestling with has come about in the past five decades.

Wow, that's a lot of pages of GeekBugle being an idiot.

People pay for ideas.  People have literally paid millions of dollars for the film rights for a book that hasn't even been written yet.  The right to use an idea is itself valuable.  Even before products that derive from the work exist, owning an idea can be very profitable. 

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 08, 2021, 10:12:04 AM
Wow, that's a lot of pages of GeekBugle being an idiot.

Just another typical day then.

Quote from: Slambo on October 07, 2021, 01:09:15 PM
So i guess my next question is how is  it really better not to have copyright law for someone who doesnt want to create derivative works.

While there are answers to this question, it's important to remember that answering it is not necessary to justify abolishing IP law: it's analogous to asking how abolishing slavery would help slaves who don't want to be free, or asking how ending the "war on drugs" would help people who don't want to use them.

For example, abolishing slavery did not make slavery a crime; slavery was always a crime, but the governments that protected the slave industry eventually just acknowledged this by abolishing the state protection of a certain criminal class.

Likewise, legalizing drug use doesn't make drug use a peaceful behavior (i.e. a "victimless crime"); it always was a peaceful behavior, but the governments who have victimized those people are slowly starting to acknowledge it.

Once you recognize IP protectionism as the fiat criminalization of peaceful behavior (even if it's a behavior that frightens the cowardly and offends the faint of heart), it becomes self-evident that abolishing it would be a good thing.

As for actually speculating on the most likely effects of IP abolition, I would point you to Stephan Kinsella, who does a much better job than I can. Any one of his talks is great, but these are a few of my favorites that I've listened to. The first two are the same ones I recommended to GeekyBugle earlier in the thread.

• Intellectual Property - The Root of All Evil (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfU34KkNV1s)
• On Life without Patents and Copyright: Or, But Who Would Pick the Cotton? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IfRmkCxyk8)
• How Intellectual Property Hampers Capitalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWShFz4d2RY)
• Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0RXfGGMGPE)
• Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Part 2) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhVdHpMt2W0)

Quote from: deadDMwalking on October 08, 2021, 10:12:04 AM
Wow, that's a lot of pages of GeekBugle being an idiot.

People pay for ideas.  People have literally paid millions of dollars for the film rights for a book that hasn't even been written yet.  The right to use an idea is itself valuable.  Even before products that derive from the work exist, owning an idea can be very profitable.

They have paid millions for the rights of a book that doesn't exist from an unknown author? Or from a famous author and the book is not the first in the series?

You're the idiot that doesn't understand anything.

Edited to add: They have paid said author millions because they can't just take his work and use it dumbass!

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 07:06:46 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:53 AM
To write a game involves, time, software, a computer, electricity, internet to do research, art, formating, all of that costs money. And you think I don't have the right to have that product protected from thiefs!?

No I don't think you have the right to have your protect from what you call thieves. I do however think it that it is a good thing to give you exclusive right to copy and profit from the things you create for a limited time as a societal benefit.

That the difference between our view. You view what you create as a form of personal property and like all property it needs to be protected by the legal system. I view copyright as a incentive for creators to take those extra steps towards making their effort a finished work and sharing the result by granting creators a limited monopoly to profit from their work. But my primary criteria in weighing changes to copyright is what benefits society more not the protection of personal property. Which also incidentally is the view of the United States Constitution and the founding father who wrote that clause.

And up until 1976 the United States was historically skeptical of strong copyrights. Everything we are wrestling with has come about in the past five decades.

Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Let me put it this way: I've the idea of developing a Pulp RPG. Would you give $60 US for that? How about $5 US? No? Why?

A couple of years later, after spending my time and investing in it I have a finished game, the hardback goes for $60, the paperback goes for $40 and the PDF for $20 Would you buy any of those? Why?

So, if I tell you I have the idea of writing a pulp game and you beat me to the punch you stole my idea, but ideas aren't property.

If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 10:34:42 AM
[Once you recognize IP protectionism as the fiat criminalization of peaceful behavior (even if it's a behavior that frightens the cowardly and offends the faint of heart), it becomes self-evident that abolishing it would be a good thing.

As for actually speculating on the most likely effects of IP abolition, I would point you to Stephan Kinsella, who does a much better job than I can. Any one of his talks is great, but these are a few of my favorites that I've listened to. The first two are the same ones I recommended to GeekyBugle earlier in the thread.

So Videos are not a good fit for me given that I am partially deaf. So I did some googling and found Kinsella's writing.
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

The part he is missing in his discussion of IP as property rights and IP as Contract is the fact that the act of creation requires an investment of resources. Everything he says about the scarcity is on point and accurate in my opinion. How IP law hinders the ability of other to use their property as they see fit seems to me a reasonable conclusion as well. Overall he misses the fact they are only applicable once an idea exists. Or more specifically once an idea has been shared beyond the confines of one's own mind.

As I said before, I view the ideas behind creative works as property to be nonsense. However I recognize their work involve to create an idea in the first place. I also agree that without incentives people will often not do that work to bring a idea to it's fullest fruition. An example is something like Lord of the Rings Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down. Tolkien was able to convince a publisher to put in capital and time to make multiple copies in nicely bound books because they could realize a return on the time spent.

So to me good IP law is an incentive given by society to creative to take their work to the level by allowing people to get a return on the time they spent on the act of creation.

To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 10:34:42 AM
[Once you recognize IP protectionism as the fiat criminalization of peaceful behavior (even if it's a behavior that frightens the cowardly and offends the faint of heart), it becomes self-evident that abolishing it would be a good thing.

As for actually speculating on the most likely effects of IP abolition, I would point you to Stephan Kinsella, who does a much better job than I can. Any one of his talks is great, but these are a few of my favorites that I've listened to. The first two are the same ones I recommended to GeekyBugle earlier in the thread.

So Videos are not a good fit for me given that I am partially deaf. So I did some googling and found Kinsella's writing.
https://mises.org/library/against-intellectual-property-0

The part he is missing in his discussion of IP as property rights and IP as Contract is the fact that the act of creation requires an investment of resources. Everything he says about the scarcity is on point and accurate in my opinion. How IP law hinders the ability of other to use their property as they see fit seems to me a reasonable conclusion as well. Overall he misses the fact they are only applicable once an idea exists. Or more specifically once an idea has been shared beyond the confines of one's own mind.

As I said before, I view the ideas behind creative works as property to be nonsense. However I recognize their work involve to create an idea in the first place. I also agree that without incentives people will often not do that work to bring a idea to it's fullest fruition. An example is something like Lord of the Rings Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down. Tolkien was able to convince a publisher to put in capital and time to make multiple copies in nicely bound books because they could realize a return on the time spent.

So to me good IP law is an incentive given by society to creative to take their work to the level by allowing people to get a return on the time they spent on the act of creation.

To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

Bolding mine.

So the act of taking that idea from the abstract of my mind and into a form that can be sold requires what? Oh, right the investment of resources.

If only someone had been saying this for this entire conversation...

So you take my game/novel/song/movie/etc and replicate it or create a derivative work from it, then sell it.

You didn't pay me a red cent.

You are benefiting from my investment without compensating me from it.

If only there was a word to describe the act of taking resources from someone without a monetary exchange...

But DeadBrainWalking dares call me an idiot...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

However how you sell your corn is an idea. You were first to come up with the idea to sell at that market house in the first place. You may have invested decades in making your stall just so and years in cultivating business relationship with various customers. Then I waltz in selling corn at half the price you are.

There is more to selling corn than possession of the physical product and setting a price. How you sell your corn is a bunch of ideas. If ideas are property then me moving into that market house just meant I stole your idea to sell corn at that market house. I compounded the theft by having temerity to sell my corn at half of your price.

In many parts of the world this kind of thing is consider a moral or property right and protected by law. Usually applied to goods that are strongly associated with a regional or national identity. Like the various types of wines in France.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Yes and after I produced my copy you still have your copy that you printed.

Furthermore by having a system of IP laws like copyright, you are now demanding control over some of my physical property. My printer, my ink, my paper, my box making machine and so on. Is that moral or right? Who is now stealing from who?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

And if I did this without license from Judges Guild?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tUszeCPHaO8/XXmC1qYIuCI/AAAAAAAAR2w/uueQRC8B6vQP5vubQxLxnIWJDGdeZJRwACNcBGAsYHQ/s200/Wilderlands%2Bof%2Bthe%2BFantastic%2BReaches%2BCover%2BRev%2B02.png)

Would I be stealing then? I retyped the entirety of the book by hand. I did the layout, I bought the most of the art. I did use some of the original art but I could easily substituted other art I had rights too.

The book has everything the original has but with a completely new presentation. If I didn't have a license what did I stole if I used all my own art?

As for stealing digital goods that is not a clear issue because you can't steal a digital file unless you take the physical media that it is on. You can only make a copy. You still have the original file at the end of the day. The law is still trying to catch up but generally the penalty these days start with unauthorized access and goes on from there.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
So the act of taking that idea from the abstract of my mind and into a form that can be sold requires what? Oh, right the investment of resources.

However this doesn't give you a property right to the idea. And the article explains why.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
You are benefiting from my investment without compensating me from it.

Why is that a right? You still benefit from having come up with the idea whether it be a game or a sword. You still own the physical products that resulted from your idea.

If you pick up a paper cup from a sidewalk does the owner of the sidewalk owe you compensation for having cleaned up the litter that was strewn about?

Just because you do some labor without a prior agreement doesn't mean the rest of us owe you compensation for it.

But it may be in our interest to make it worth your while to do that labor particularly for creative works. Hence my reason why we should have some form of IP law.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:05:18 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Did you took the corn from my field/truck? No? Then no.

But the idea is to sell corn, the corn isn't an idea but a tangible good that costs money to produce.

However how you sell your corn is an idea. You were first to come up with the idea to sell at that market house in the first place. You may have invested decades in making your stall just so and years in cultivating business relationship with various customers. Then I waltz in selling corn at half the price you are.

There is more to selling corn than possession of the physical product and setting a price. How you sell your corn is a bunch of ideas. If ideas are property then me moving into that market house just meant I stole your idea to sell corn at that market house. I compounded the theft by having temerity to sell my corn at half of your price.

In many parts of the world this kind of thing is consider a moral or property right and protected by law. Usually applied to goods that are strongly associated with a regional or national identity. Like the various types of wines in France.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
Likewise, the idea to write a game is the idea, the actual game is a tangible good that cost money to produce.

Yes and after I produced my copy you still have your copy that you printed.

Furthermore by having a system of IP laws like copyright, you are now demanding control over some of my physical property. My printer, my ink, my paper, my box making machine and so on. Is that moral or right? Who is now stealing from who?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 11:15:08 AM
If you take my finished product, print it and sell it you didn't stole an idea, you stole MY product. Even if it was only in digital format it is a product.

And if I did this without license from Judges Guild?

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tUszeCPHaO8/XXmC1qYIuCI/AAAAAAAAR2w/uueQRC8B6vQP5vubQxLxnIWJDGdeZJRwACNcBGAsYHQ/s200/Wilderlands%2Bof%2Bthe%2BFantastic%2BReaches%2BCover%2BRev%2B02.png)

Would I be stealing then? I retyped the entirety of the book by hand. I did the layout, I bought the most of the art. I did use some of the original art but I could easily substituted other art I had rights too.

The book has everything the original has but with a completely new presentation. If I didn't have a license what did I stole if I used all my own art?

As for stealing digital goods that is not a clear issue because you can't steal a digital file unless you take the physical media that it is on. You can only make a copy. You still have the original file at the end of the day. The law is still trying to catch up but generally the penalty these days start with unauthorized access and goes on from there.

You keep conflating simple piracy with what I'm talking, most pirates would never pay for anything, if they can't pirate it they go without.

You keep responding to my arguments about you taking my game and selling it without compensating me with money with banal arguments, and then you aknowledge my argument about the investment responding to someone that sorta agrees with you.

No, by stating that my game is mine and only I can sell it I'm not violating your rights nor controlling anything of yours, you can still pirate it if you can find it and print it in your personal printer if you so choose. What you can't do is go to a printer and have it printed and made into a book and then sell it because you don't have the right to make a profit of MY investment of resources without my consent and just economic compensation agreed between we both.

You pirating it is still immoral and a crime, because being able to play it without buying it is taking advantage of MY investment of resources without a monetary exchange. Therefore theft.

To create said digital goods I made an investment of resources, why do you claim the right to enjoy the fruits of my labor, creativity and investment without a monetary exchange?

Are you working to not understand what I'm writting and to answer to other stuff while aknowledging my arguments in response to others?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down.

Did he actually say this? If so, that's embarrassing. But if it's true that Tolkien was an open coward, why would that justify violating the rights of innocent people just in case any other cowards are also talented? I don't think the potential for fine entertainment is worth victimizing innocent people.

If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:10:32 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
So the act of taking that idea from the abstract of my mind and into a form that can be sold requires what? Oh, right the investment of resources.

However this doesn't give you a property right to the idea. And the article explains why.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:01:25 PM
You are benefiting from my investment without compensating me from it.

Why is that a right? You still benefit from having come up with the idea whether it be a game or a sword. You still own the physical products that resulted from your idea.

If you pick up a paper cup from a sidewalk does the owner of the sidewalk owe you compensation for having cleaned up the litter that was strewn about?

Just because you do some labor without a prior agreement doesn't mean the rest of us owe you compensation for it.

But it may be in our interest to make it worth your while to do that labor particularly for creative works. Hence my reason why we should have some form of IP law.

Because you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money!

You don't have the obligation to buy my stuff, that's correct, but you also don't have the right to enjoy the fruits of my investment without giving me money.

Again, the idea is lets write a game about X, that's the idea, so far I have made zero investment.

In order to take that idea from the abstract and make it into something you could play I made investments. Therefore that idea is no longer an abstract, it's a finished game. Yet you claim you have the right to take said finished game and use it/sell it without giving me money.

What do you call taking the resources from someone without economic compensation?

Why is it that stealing a car is a crime? There are other cars identical to it. Because to BUY that car you made an investment of resources, and by taking the car I'm depriving you of said resources.

That's the difference beteween buying and stealing.

If I buy your car you still have no car, but you have an ammount of resources freely agreed between us.
If I steal your car you have neither.

If you take my game to play it you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

If you take it to print and then sell you are benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

In both cases you're benefiting from MY investment without just compensation.

But please do keep trying to justify your immoral and illegal actions.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
To use one of Kinsella's example from the paper I quoted. The point of society conferring a monopoly on the creation of copies of the iron sword that the smith created isn't to recognize any type of property, moral, or contract rights. It is to encourage that smith to make the sword in the first place. Which to me is worthwhile provided the term of the monopoly isn't something stupid like life+95 years along with recognizing fair use, recognizing the first sale doctrine, and so forth and so on.

If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:41:54 AM
Without the protection of copyright Tolkien have not have done the work to finish the ideas they had into the form we now have. Tolkien stories would have remained in his head and within his notes. Shared among family and friends like the Inklings. But because of copyright he was able to justify the time he put in to write the Hobbit and later the Lord of the Rings to what we see them down.

Did he actually say this? If so, that's embarrassing. But if it's true that Tolkien was an open coward, why would that justify violating the rights of innocent people just in case any other cowards are also talented? I don't think the potential for fine entertainment is worth victimizing innocent people.

If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Bolding mine.

Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. Your authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not produce shit. Fuck you.

Edited for gramatical error

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:28:10 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Bolding mine.

Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not produce shit. Fuck you.

"Lots of people eat food without stealing it."

"Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not eat shit. Fuck you." - GeekyBugle Probably

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM
You keep conflating simple piracy with what I'm talking, most pirates would never pay for anything, if they can't pirate it they go without.

And you avoided answering my question. By sitting down and typing down every word of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, myself. By doing the layout myself. Even doing the maps myself. And purchasing the art myself. Did I steal Judges Guild's Property if I didn't have a license. Yes or No?

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

While that used to be true of books, digital technology has made it possible for individuals to do what it took an entire staff of a publishing house to do 50 years ago. There may come a time with nearly all creative works no matter the scale can be done by a single individual.  But even then there still the time invested by the creative to realize their work. The point of having copyright is to give creative the incentive to complete their work.

It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
Did he actually say this?

No he did not say this. But he did act like most authors did at the time and had a contract with a publisher BEFORE he started writing both book. And his entire creative process was laid out in great details in the History of Middle Earth series.

I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that neither the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings would have been written without those contracts and without IP law backing those contract. In fact we do know from the professor's own letters that his passion was the Silmarillion. That the Lord of Rings was born of he and the publisher agreeing to have a sequel to the Hobbit.  Tolkien tried to get the publication of the Silmarillion wrapped up in that deal but the publisher agreed only to the hobbit sequel.

So I stand by my statement that without copyright, without his contract with the publisher that the Hobbit would have remained a story told his children, that Lord of the Rings would have been still born, and the most we would have had is a rough draft of the Silmarillion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM

Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:50:42 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:28:10 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If Tolkien did not say this, then there's no reason to assume he thought that way. Lots of artists, engineers, designers, etc., produce work under open licenses (or forgo licensing altogether).

Bolding mine.

Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not produce shit. Fuck you.

"Lots of people eat food without stealing it."

"Willingly, you forgot that part they willingly do that. You're authoritarianism disguised of libertarianism wants to force everybody to do that or not eat shit. Fuck you." - GeekyBugle Probably

Right, because not allowing you to steal my shit is equal to you not stealing my shit willingly.

Your "argument" is: "The source of all theft is private property, if we abolished private property there would be no more theft."

That's all you have besides conflating an idea "Lets make a long knife and call it a sword" with the sword already made.

The IDEA isn't the sword, just like the IDEA isn't the game, novel, etc.

Ideas cost nothing (almost always since sometimes it costs market research but I can beat you to it and it's not theft).

Taking said ideas from the abstract to something you can sell does cost money.

Again, heres an idea I'm putting in the public domain willingly because I'm that kind of generous guy:

Lets make a vaccine that grants true and permanent immunity to ALL types of coronaviruses.

If you hurry and share my idea world wide we could save hundreds of millions of lives so get to it.

You wont? Why? Could it be because my idea is worth nothing without the investment needed to produce said vaccine? (Assuming it was possible I know it isn't).

Likewise dumbass, the idea of writing a game about X is worth shit. Once I make the investment needed to take it from the abstract into something that can be sold it MIGHT be worth something.

You don't have the obligation to buy it (give money for writting it), but you also don't have the right of taking advantage of my investment without giving me whatever ammount of money I'm asking for the finished product.

But you think you do, because reasons. Again fuck you.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM
You keep conflating simple piracy with what I'm talking, most pirates would never pay for anything, if they can't pirate it they go without.

And you avoided answering my question. By sitting down and typing down every word of the Wilderlands of High Fantasy, myself. By doing the layout myself. Even doing the maps myself. And purchasing the art myself. Did I steal Judges Guild's Property if I didn't have a license. Yes or No?

Is it a word for word copy? Are the maps an exact copy? Or is it just a "copy" in the same sense that any retroclone is a copy of a famous game?

You see, the idea is the abstract, the words arranged in a certain way (like I have already stated elsewhere in this thread) are not an abstract, those are a tangible work that took investment of resources to produce.

See, I don't know the original and havent read your take either so I can't make a call wiothout knowing that, but...

If it's not a word for word exact copy with the maps being an exact copy then it's not the same product is it?

That's why the OGL has a clasule about designating open content and why trade dress is often not included as such.

Oh, and that's another thing, is the wilderlands under the OGL?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

While that used to be true of books, digital technology has made it possible for individuals to do what it took an entire staff of a publishing house to do 50 years ago. There may come a time with nearly all creative works no matter the scale can be done by a single individual.  But even then there still the time invested by the creative to realize their work. The point of having copyright is to give creative the incentive to complete their work.

It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
Did he actually say this?

No he did not say this. But he did act like most authors did at the time and had a contract with a publisher BEFORE he started writing both book. And his entire creative process was laid out in great details in the History of Middle Earth series.

I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that neither the Hobbit or the Lord of the Rings would have been written without those contracts and without IP law backing those contract. In fact we do know from the professor's own letters that his passion was the Silmarillion. That the Lord of Rings was born of he and the publisher agreeing to have a sequel to the Hobbit.  Tolkien tried to get the publication of the Silmarillion wrapped up in that deal but the publisher agreed only to the hobbit sequel.

So I stand by my statement that without copyright, without his contract with the publisher that the Hobbit would have remained a story told his children, that Lord of the Rings would have been still born, and the most we would have had is a rough draft of the Silmarillion.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:17:19 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM

Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

Man there's really not getting thru you. You agree that IP law is needed, and yet claim IP works aren't property. You need to decide which is true.

And you also need to stop conflating the abstract (idea) with the concrete (a finished creative work).

IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:26:10 PM
If you take my game to play it you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

If you take it to print and then sell you are benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

In both cases you're benefiting from MY investment without just compensation.

But again, benefiting from someone else's investment isn't an inherent wrong.

Suppose you invest and make a great game store. You send out flyers; you work on creating an eye-catching sign; you make your game store pretty and work to keep it clean. That's a lot of investment on your part. I open up a cheapo game store across the street with packed shelves, second-hand games, and so forth.

I am benefiting from the investment that you put in getting gamers to come to this corner, because they'll see my store and might buy a game cheaply from my store compared to yours. Am I stealing from you?

I think the answer here is no, I'm not. Just because you invest money in something, that doesn't mean that you are guaranteed a reward. Sometimes investments benefit others more than they benefit you.

-----

As others have said, I approve of limited copyright because I like having a robust book and media market. But it is an artificial incentive created by the government to encourage certain behavior. I'd compare it to the old American government giving land leases to anyone who would move out west to certain territories. Go out and put in some work to clear some land, and the government will let you benefit from that public land as a farm for 20 years. The government does this as a reward to encourage certain behavior.

But that's an artificially created right. You can't just go anywhere and expect that if you work on public land, then it becomes yours.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

"Your failed business model is not my problem."

Just because traditional methods of production rely on a protection racket doesn't mean that non-coercive methods of production can't or don't exist. It's the existence of the protection racket that has allowed the entertainment industry to go so long without figuring out how to run a business without the mafia on their side (if you think "mafia" is an exaggeration, please look up what happened to Kim Dotcom for having a generic file hosting service).

If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies (https://www.blender.org/about/studio/), which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhbcDzbGSU), is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (https://youtu.be/9vz06QO3UkQ), which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Quote from: jhkim on October 08, 2021, 01:27:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 12:26:10 PM
If you take my game to play it you're benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

If you take it to print and then sell you are benefiting from my investment without giving me money.

In both cases you're benefiting from MY investment without just compensation.

But again, benefiting from someone else's investment isn't an inherent wrong.

Suppose you invest and make a great game store. You send out flyers; you work on creating an eye-catching sign; you make your game store pretty and work to keep it clean. That's a lot of investment on your part. I open up a cheapo game store across the street with packed shelves, second-hand games, and so forth.

I am benefiting from the investment that you put in getting gamers to come to this corner, because they'll see my store and might buy a game cheaply from my store compared to yours. Am I stealing from you?

I think the answer here is no, I'm not. Just because you invest money in something, that doesn't mean that you are guaranteed a reward. Sometimes investments benefit others more than they benefit you.

-----

As others have said, I approve of limited copyright because I like having a robust book and media market. But it is an artificial incentive created by the government to encourage certain behavior. I'd compare it to the old American government giving land leases to anyone who would move out west to certain territories. Go out and put in some work to clear some land, and the government will let you benefit from that public land as a farm for 20 years. The government does this as a reward to encourage certain behavior.

But that's an artificially created right. You can't just go anywhere and expect that if you work on public land, then it becomes yours.

Another false equivalence...

Did you take my store away from me?

No, you took the idea and ran with it.

As someone that has been a business owner let me tell you a small secret:

The best place to put a taco stand is where there are already other taco stands, and no one looses anything, because the place becomes known for being the place to go eat tacos.

So a place that becomes known for being the place where you can go buy/play games would benefit both, the pioneer and the johny come lately.

If you're going to answer to me again I would appreciate you didn't use logical fallacies in your "arguments" against me.

As for the land leases, you needed to work the land a certain time and then it became yours. Unless you contend your government had no right to do so it's not the same, yet another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

You don't have the obligation to buy my shit, but that's not granting you the right to just take it without giving me money.

Lets go back to tacos. I put a taco stand near your workplace. Do you have any obligation to buy my tacos? Nope
Do you have the right to eat my tacos without paying for them? Nope.

I write a game and publish it. Do you have any obligation to buy it? Nope
Do you have the right to get the book in whatever format without paying for it? Nope.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 12:20:34 PM
If someone is too cowardly to perform a service, for fear that someone else may also offer the same service, they're deserving only of mockery, not coddling at the expense of everyone else.

If the smith in question would shake in his boots at the thought of producing a sword without the government breaking the thumbs of his competitors, then there must already be a worthy competitor in town whose thumbs he's afraid of, and unless he wants to compete with better quality or lower prices or both, then that other smith will suit the town just fine.

If there is no other smith, then maybe he'd be brave enough to go into business without the help of the local protection racket. And once a competitor emerges and scares him back under his rock, then the town will still have a smith, so no great loss.

Oh for fuck sake, you know damn well that there are creative works that require tremendous teamwork like a movie production. it would be extremely impractical with the current state of the work make something like the Lord of the Rings without the right to control how the finished worked is copied and distributed. Without some type of IP Law nobody would be willing to invest the resources needed to create something on that scale with the current state of the art.

"Your failed business model is not my problem."

Just because traditional methods of production rely on a protection racket doesn't mean that non-coercive methods of production can't or don't exist. It's the existence of the protection racket that has allowed the entertainment industry to go so long without figuring out how to run a business without the mafia on their side (if you think "mafia" is an exaggeration, please look up what happened to Kim Dotcom for having a generic file hosting service).

If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies (https://www.blender.org/about/studio/), which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhbcDzbGSU), is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (https://youtu.be/9vz06QO3UkQ), which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
Man there really is no middle or nuance with you two.

You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

Bolding mine.

Translation: "Not allowing me to take your shit without paying you for it is harming me!" Fucking commies man.

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Actually, I'm completely aware that I do damage by piracy.

Which is why I'm pirating from people who promote SJW/wokeist bullshit.  You wound my culture? I wound you.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 01:52:48 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Actually, I'm completely aware that I do damage by piracy.

Which is why I'm pirating from people who promote SJW/wokeist bullshit.  You wound my culture? I wound you.

I'd hate to take the wind out of your sails (truly), but "pirating" information simply leaves the content creator financially in the same state as if you had never heard of them to begin with (i.e. it does nothing).

I fully endorse not sending money to people who would have you corralled into a boxcar, but if "piracy" was harmful to creators, then it would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the "harm" done by the rest of the world also not buying their products.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Is it a word for word copy? Are the maps an exact copy? Or is it just a "copy" in the same sense that any retroclone is a copy of a famous game?

Sections of it are a word for word copy. I edited it differently. The maps are a different artistic presentation of the original.

The difference mine is the color version.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-70UOR1dhORA/UzDEtMJoxcI/AAAAAAAAJdE/QokG5ura2a4/s1600/conley_sample.jpg)


The original looked something like this.
(https://www.thealexandrian.net/images/20191202.jpg)

Mine looked like this
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1wEcATsGUqI/Wrwh5MDklLI/AAAAAAAAQXw/d7gtyLBi_Ew3fgYM679YVfBR337u8yoaQCLcBGAs/s1600/wohf_sample_page.jpg)

I know they don't depict the same thing but I typed in the data from the original and with the help of my editor checked them for accuracy.

Also it differs a lot in how the everything is presented. The tables between cleaned up and their looks standardize. Also I added extensive commentary that wasn't in the original. But everything that was in the original is in my version.
For an example of mine
https://d1vzi28wh99zvq.cloudfront.net/pdf_previews/238024-sample.pdf

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
That's why the OGL has a clasule about designating open content and why trade dress is often not included as such.

Oh, and that's another thing, is the wilderlands under the OGL?

95% of the product is product identity the only thing that open content are a few monster listings.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
If it's not a word for word exact copy with the maps being an exact copy then it's not the same product is it?

Yet under current IP law I needed to have a license and permission from Judges Guild to do this product. Which I had. Most of the text, the maps were a derivative of items copyrighted by Judges Guild.

None of it was an actual copy unless you consider me typing in text as opposed to scanning or taking a photo copying. If that the case only the tables are a close copy. The rest is my original writing that in many cases paraphrased the original text. The original text was too terse and too badly organized for my purposes.

So again my question stands, if I didn't have a license, if I didn't use open content under license, would this work be stealing despite not literally not copying any physical or digital products made by Judges Guild.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
And you also need to stop conflating the abstract (idea) with the concrete (a finished creative work).

Do you know it is possible to patent a game? Since Patents cover ideas this is part of conversation about IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Man there's really not getting thru you. You agree that IP law is needed, and yet claim IP works aren't property. You need to decide which is true.

Actually I don't, I don't need to consider creative works property in order to create a law that give you the exclusive right to copy and distribute to works you create.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

In fact the current US Code governing copyright, patents, and trademark doesn't use the word property much. I posted a link to definitions used in the US Copyright Code. Property is used in some places because is part of the name of a law pass by congress. It used in section 107 covering what Libraries may do with items that come into their possession. The word is used in Section 114 which is about royalties for sound recordings and how they are distributed but it is about superseding similar state laws. Same thing for Section 115. And reason State Property laws is because IP rights produce income.

Instead the central concept here is the "work".

QuoteA work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

And the core of this whole law is section 106 the conferring of exclusive rights. And sections 107 to 122 outlines various exceptions and nuances to the blanket grant below.

QuoteSubject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Not where it says that one creative work is the property of the creator.

Finally this is why I needed a license from Judges Guild to my project.

Quote(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

QuoteA "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction. :(

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 02:05:44 PM
I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction. :(

Did any of your regular clients switch to using the free dump instead of paying you to create new stuff?

Do you believe anyone using the free dump was a potential client before the dump?

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:05:15 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Is it a word for word copy? Are the maps an exact copy? Or is it just a "copy" in the same sense that any retroclone is a copy of a famous game?

Sections of it are a word for word copy. I edited it differently. The maps are a different artistic presentation of the original.

The difference mine is the color version.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-70UOR1dhORA/UzDEtMJoxcI/AAAAAAAAJdE/QokG5ura2a4/s1600/conley_sample.jpg)


The original looked something like this.
(https://www.thealexandrian.net/images/20191202.jpg)

Mine looked like this
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-1wEcATsGUqI/Wrwh5MDklLI/AAAAAAAAQXw/d7gtyLBi_Ew3fgYM679YVfBR337u8yoaQCLcBGAs/s1600/wohf_sample_page.jpg)

I know they don't depict the same thing but I typed in the data from the original and with the help of my editor checked them for accuracy.

Also it differs a lot in how the everything is presented. The tables between cleaned up and their looks standardize. Also I added extensive commentary that wasn't in the original. But everything that was in the original is in my version.
For an example of mine
https://d1vzi28wh99zvq.cloudfront.net/pdf_previews/238024-sample.pdf

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
That's why the OGL has a clasule about designating open content and why trade dress is often not included as such.

Oh, and that's another thing, is the wilderlands under the OGL?

95% of the product is product identity the only thing that open content are a few monster listings.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
If it's not a word for word exact copy with the maps being an exact copy then it's not the same product is it?

Yet under current IP law I needed to have a license and permission from Judges Guild to do this product. Which I had. Most of the text, the maps were a derivative of items copyrighted by Judges Guild.

None of it was an actual copy unless you consider me typing in text as opposed to scanning or taking a photo copying. If that the case only the tables are a close copy. The rest is my original writing that in many cases paraphrased the original text. The original text was too terse and too badly organized for my purposes.

So again my question stands, if I didn't have a license, if I didn't use open content under license, would this work be stealing despite not literally not copying any physical or digital products made by Judges Guild.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
And you also need to stop conflating the abstract (idea) with the concrete (a finished creative work).

Do you know it is possible to patent a game? Since Patents cover ideas this is part of conversation about IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:13:08 PM
Man there's really not getting thru you. You agree that IP law is needed, and yet claim IP works aren't property. You need to decide which is true.

Actually I don't, I don't need to consider creative works property in order to create a law that give you the exclusive right to copy and distribute to works you create.

https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

In fact the current US Code governing copyright, patents, and trademark doesn't use the word property much. I posted a link to definitions used in the US Copyright Code. Property is used in some places because is part of the name of a law pass by congress. It used in section 107 covering what Libraries may do with items that come into their possession. The word is used in Section 114 which is about royalties for sound recordings and how they are distributed but it is about superseding similar state laws. Same thing for Section 115. And reason State Property laws is because IP rights produce income.

Instead the central concept here is the "work".

QuoteA work is "created" when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time; where a work is prepared over a period of time, the portion of it that has been fixed at any particular time constitutes the work as of that time, and where the work has been prepared in different versions, each version constitutes a separate work.

And the core of this whole law is section 106 the conferring of exclusive rights. And sections 107 to 122 outlines various exceptions and nuances to the blanket grant below.

QuoteSubject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Not where it says that one creative work is the property of the creator.

Finally this is why I needed a license from Judges Guild to my project.

Quote(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

QuoteA "derivative work" is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a "derivative work".

Right, so it is a derivative work, which is covered by IP law, as it should, you took everything from the original and included it with better/cleaned presentation which ammounts to editing.

Does it make a difference if I type everything while plagiarizing your thesis or photocopy it?

You can patent a game, but not game mechanics, which are the ideas. As in you can't patent the idea of puting the small ball in that hole to earn points. Because that's the idea.

Likewise I can patent a mechanism for a vending machine. But you can develop your own mechanism for your own vending machine, which is the idea.

You keep conflating the IDEA with the product. Those are not the same.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 02:15:47 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 02:05:44 PM
I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction. :(

Did any of your regular clients switch to using the free dump instead of paying you to create new stuff?

Do you believe anyone using the free dump was a potential client before the dump?

What does that matter? Do they have the right to enjoy his shit without paying him for it? Against his will? Fucking commies man.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies (https://www.blender.org/about/studio/), which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhbcDzbGSU), is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (https://youtu.be/9vz06QO3UkQ), which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

An explanation? Sure! It is a step on the path to a future where elaborate movie production will become doable by an individual or a very small group.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

You said that it was cowardly for a creator not to share in the basis they won't get compensation. My counterpoint is some creative works are so time consuming and resource intensive to make that the only way to realize them if the people involved are compensated.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

I don't support how IP Law as it now stands. As I stated clearly earlier in the thread, I feel that 28 years plus an additional 28 years of if the creator renews is adequate compensation. But during those 28 to 56 years the creator has exclusive rights. I am also favor of a copyright small claims court systems, and I am in favor moving from 35 years to 28 years the windows for the original author to reclaim their copyright. The idea is that when renewal comes up the original author can opt to reclaim the copyright in their works. The only exception would be work for hire and I would favor a better and clear definition of what work for hire means. Also the idea of collaborative works needs some work when multiple individuals are involved the creation of a work. Finally a method of formally committing one's work to the public domain and/or copyleft is needed.

As for the idea of harm, nobody getting harmed here. Several folks throughout US history including Supreme Court justices has written variants of "True Liberty can not exist when people don't consider the consequences of their action on other people's liberty." For example not allowing people to build nuclear reactors in their backyards, or fining people for not getting a smallpox vaccine.

In the case of IP we know that people realizing their creative ideas is a positive good for society. We want to encourage this. Prior to the advent of the internet the only effective method of encouraging this was grant of some type of monopoly. Now this only completely true for certain type of creative works. For the works that been impacted by the internet and digital technology; music, some images, and written works; we need to modify this. But it remains unclear exactly what modifications are needed. But even works that have been impacted there still a time component that people need encouragement in order for them to make the investment.

In short the situation isn't simplistic. Adopting a completely libertarian solution is not going to work, neither treating IP as tangible property when it is not, nor is rounding up all the pirates and shooting them will work.

Hope that makes sense.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:29:31 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
If you want to use this argument, you'll have to explain the existence of the Blender Foundation Open Movies (https://www.blender.org/about/studio/), which are open source movies made with open source software (which you'll also have to explain the existence of - especially Blender itself, which is quickly becoming the most popular 3D production software in the industry).

One of my favorite documentaries, Get Lamp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRhbcDzbGSU), is also CC-BY. So is The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (https://youtu.be/9vz06QO3UkQ), which, incidentally, it's the story of how IP law was used to bully a modern day hero into suicide.

How are these movies produced? Why? How could it be done? Clearly there was no incentive, and they were just made by crazy people! Or maybe the "Nobody Would Solve the Problem Because I Personally Can't Think of How" hypothesis just isn't supported the empirical evidence. The problem has already been solved in many ways by many people.

An explanation? Sure! It is a step on the path to a future where elaborate movie production will become doable by an individual or a very small group.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 12:54:59 PM
It not cowardly for somebody to provide for themselves or their family first.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
I never stated this though, so I don't see how it's relevant. Don't start acting like GeekyBugle.

You said that it was cowardly for a creator not to share in the basis they won't get compensation. My counterpoint is some creative works are so time consuming and resource intensive to make that the only way to realize them if the people involved are compensated.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:32:22 PM
You've made lots of great points on why IP law makes no sense and is intentionally harmful toward people who have done nothing wrong; I don't see how you can be in favor of it.

"Doing harm to people temporarily" isn't some kind of "reasonable middle ground" between "doing no harm" and "harming too much". It's just doing harm.

I don't support how IP Law as it now stands. As I stated clearly earlier in the thread, I feel that 28 years plus an additional 28 years of if the creator renews is adequate compensation. But during those 28 to 56 years the creator has exclusive rights. I am also favor of a copyright small claims court systems, and I am in favor moving from 35 years to 28 years the windows for the original author to reclaim their copyright. The idea is that when renewal comes up the original author can opt to reclaim the copyright in their works. The only exception would be work for hire and I would favor a better and clear definition of what work for hire means. Also the idea of collaborative works needs some work when multiple individuals are involved the creation of a work. Finally a method of formally committing one's work to the public domain and/or copyleft is needed.

As for the idea of harm, nobody getting harmed here. Several folks throughout US history including Supreme Court justices has written variants of "True Liberty can not exist when people don't consider the consequences of their action on other people's liberty." For example not allowing people to build nuclear reactors in their backyards, or fining people for not getting a smallpox vaccine.

In the case of IP we know that people realizing their creative ideas is a positive good for society. We want to encourage this. Prior to the advent of the internet the only effective method of encouraging this was grant of some type of monopoly. Now this only completely true for certain type of creative works. For the works that been impacted by the internet and digital technology; music, some images, and written works; we need to modify this. But it remains unclear exactly what modifications are needed. But even works that have been impacted there still a time component that people need encouragement in order for them to make the investment.

In short the situation isn't simplistic. Adopting a completely libertarian solution is not going to work, neither treating IP as tangible property when it is not, nor is rounding up all the pirates and shooting them will work.

Hope that makes sense.

So, you and I disagree on the why but do agree on the what. Since I'm not an ideologue that's good enough for me, IP should be protected and both current laws of IP and trademark need to be modified.

Did I sumarize correctly your position on the subject?

If so all is good and we can be on the same side even if we disagree on the why.

The notion that people downloading games makes them popular and profitable is demonstrably false.

Giving my games away hasn't made them more popular.  That's for sure :D

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
Does it make a difference if I type everything while plagiarizing your thesis or photocopy it?

I believe that the question I asked you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
You can patent a game, but not game mechanics, which are the ideas. As in you can't patent the idea of puting the small ball in that hole to earn points. Because that's the idea.

Actually you can. Well more accurately you could. If you tried now there too much prior art so it would be considered obvious.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
Likewise I can patent a mechanism for a vending machine. But you can develop your own mechanism for your own vending machine, which is the idea.

Unless it embodies the only practical way to make that aspect of the Vending Work.

And I know this happened because my father was sued by the guy who build the first metal cutting table to cut HVAC parts. We didn't know about the patent when we built the machine. In fact there was multiple competitors out there. But as turned out this guy was the first to put together all the elements of a Metal Cutting machines that cut HVAC parts. He sued the entire industry and won. Everybody who sold a HVAC cutting machine in the 90s had to pay this guy substantial royalties.

And my industry is not the only one that this happened too. A more famous example was the intermittent windshield wiper. A guy came up with the only practical solution to the problem. Demoed it, and also got a patent. Everybody ignored him and came out with their own. He sued everybody in the industry and won.

It rare that an invention is that fundamental but it happens and there is no way around it because Patents cover the ideas as well.

Take your vending machine example. What are the elements of a vending machines? You have a something that receives and count coins, a place to store the coins, a dispensing mechanism, and a way to load products into the machine. At one point in the past the above combination was novel enough to be patented just as I described it. In the late 19th century there were was a time where something held that patent. I believe it was for dispensing postcards in railroad stations. After the patent expired the race was one and further patent were for specific types of vending machine and when those expired, for specific mechanism within vending machines. Today pretty much any vending machine patent is only good for that exact vending machines.

Some fields like gasoline engines or computer chips slowly evolve through the combined efforts of everybody involved. Nobody has a fundamental patent.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
You keep conflating the IDEA with the product. Those are not the same.

And you don't have a understanding of patent law. Did you know you can get a patent on a material for example? They called composition of matter patents and companies get them when they invent a new alloy for example.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:29:31 PMI don't support how IP Law as it now stands. As I stated clearly earlier in the thread, I feel that 28 years plus an additional 28 years of if the creator renews is adequate compensation. But during those 28 to 56 years the creator has exclusive rights. I am also favor of a copyright small claims court systems, and I am in favor moving from 35 years to 28 years the windows for the original author to reclaim their copyright. The idea is that when renewal comes up the original author can opt to reclaim the copyright in their works. The only exception would be work for hire and I would favor a better and clear definition of what work for hire means. Also the idea of collaborative works needs some work when multiple individuals are involved the creation of a work. Finally a method of formally committing one's work to the public domain and/or copyleft is needed.

Agree with this, and also think that the renewal is where the work for hire exception should be carved out.  They hire you to write it, they own the original 28 year copyright.  Then you have the option to renew it, which gives you another 28 years to take it yourself or license it out to the original holder or whatever you want to do with it.  From that, it's pretty easy to set up a right of first refusal, such that if you renew, decide to sell, you name the price but the original holder has to be given first chance to purchase.  No monkey business with inheritance either, it's like a deed.  You die 21 years in, your heirs/estate now owns it.

In practice, with a law like that, wouldn't be a lot of times it would get used, because now the one that hired you has a vested interest in treating you well that first 28 years.

Of course, that only works if the time frame is reasonable.  None of this Evil Mouse Corp. extend to infinity and beyond nonsense.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:46:44 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
Does it make a difference if I type everything while plagiarizing your thesis or photocopy it?

I believe that the question I asked you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
You can patent a game, but not game mechanics, which are the ideas. As in you can't patent the idea of puting the small ball in that hole to earn points. Because that's the idea.

Actually you can. Well more accurately you could. If you tried now there too much prior art so it would be considered obvious.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
Likewise I can patent a mechanism for a vending machine. But you can develop your own mechanism for your own vending machine, which is the idea.

Unless it embodies the only practical way to make that aspect of the Vending Work.

And I know this happened because my father was sued by the guy who build the first metal cutting table to cut HVAC parts. We didn't know about the patent when we built the machine. In fact there was multiple competitors out there. But as turned out this guy was the first to put together all the elements of a Metal Cutting machines that cut HVAC parts. He sued the entire industry and won. Everybody who sold a HVAC cutting machine in the 90s had to pay this guy substantial royalties.

And my industry is not the only one that this happened too. A more famous example was the intermittent windshield wiper. A guy came up with the only practical solution to the problem. Demoed it, and also got a patent. Everybody ignored him and came out with their own. He sued everybody in the industry and won.

It rare that an invention is that fundamental but it happens and there is no way around it because Patents cover the ideas as well.

Take your vending machine example. What are the elements of a vending machines? You have a something that receives and count coins, a place to store the coins, a dispensing mechanism, and a way to load products into the machine. At one point in the past the above combination was novel enough to be patented just as I described it. In the late 19th century there were was a time where something held that patent. I believe it was for dispensing postcards in railroad stations. After the patent expired the race was one and further patent were for specific types of vending machine and when those expired, for specific mechanism within vending machines. Today pretty much any vending machine patent is only good for that exact vending machines.

Some fields like gasoline engines or computer chips slowly evolve through the combined efforts of everybody involved. Nobody has a fundamental patent.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:26:50 PM
You keep conflating the IDEA with the product. Those are not the same.

And you don't have a understanding of patent law. Did you know you can get a patent on a material for example? They called composition of matter patents and companies get them when they invent a new alloy for example.

Yes you asked that, in case it wasn't clear my position is that there's no difference by which means you copy something.

I already stated that patent law was a different beast and needed to be treated different than artistic IP, maybe you missed it?

Idea: Lets make a new material with X characteristics.
Concrete product: Said new material which needed investment to become a reality.

The reason I think patent law needs it's own discussion is because there are some cases where granting the patent might hurt more than not granting it.

Take for instance a coin receptacle for a vending machine, a wide patent for the idea is stupid, even more so if there's no other way to do it. IMHO

It needs to be treated different than creative/artistic IP.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:45:52 PM
So, you and I disagree on the why but do agree on the what. Since I'm not an ideologue that's good enough for me, IP should be protected and both current laws of IP and trademark need to be modified.

Did I sumarize correctly your position on the subject?

If so all is good and we can be on the same side even if we disagree on the why.

Yes IP should be protected although we disagree on the reason why they should be protected.

But I will point out that the why makes a difference in the long run. If it turns out that society doesn't need to grant a monopoly on works or a specific type of work in order for progress or advancement to happen then I will vote or advocate for abolishing those monopolies. For example patron client relationship becomes the dominate means of compensating creatives.

And it won't be clear cut. Any change will have to be thoroughly debated. The change will mean that some that prosper under the new system and some will not. We see that now. Authors that were total asshole were successful under a traditional publisher-author relationship wilted with the advent of the Internet. Which places more of a premium on direct contact with one's audience. Before only the publisher had to deal with the person being a dick. With the internet it is on full display for everybody to see. And even when it has nothing to do with politics, people don't like dealing with assholes. Especially when it in their face after watching a video or reading a blog post.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 02:48:08 PM

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:29:31 PMI don't support how IP Law as it now stands. As I stated clearly earlier in the thread, I feel that 28 years plus an additional 28 years of if the creator renews is adequate compensation. But during those 28 to 56 years the creator has exclusive rights. I am also favor of a copyright small claims court systems, and I am in favor moving from 35 years to 28 years the windows for the original author to reclaim their copyright. The idea is that when renewal comes up the original author can opt to reclaim the copyright in their works. The only exception would be work for hire and I would favor a better and clear definition of what work for hire means. Also the idea of collaborative works needs some work when multiple individuals are involved the creation of a work. Finally a method of formally committing one's work to the public domain and/or copyleft is needed.

Agree with this, and also think that the renewal is where the work for hire exception should be carved out.  They hire you to write it, they own the original 28 year copyright.  Then you have the option to renew it, which gives you another 28 years to take it yourself or license it out to the original holder or whatever you want to do with it.  From that, it's pretty easy to set up a right of first refusal, such that if you renew, decide to sell, you name the price but the original holder has to be given first chance to purchase.  No monkey business with inheritance either, it's like a deed.  You die 21 years in, your heirs/estate now owns it.

In practice, with a law like that, wouldn't be a lot of times it would get used, because now the one that hired you has a vested interest in treating you well that first 28 years.

Of course, that only works if the time frame is reasonable.  None of this Evil Mouse Corp. extend to infinity and beyond nonsense.

Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

56 years is way too long.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 02:58:27 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:45:52 PM
So, you and I disagree on the why but do agree on the what. Since I'm not an ideologue that's good enough for me, IP should be protected and both current laws of IP and trademark need to be modified.

Did I sumarize correctly your position on the subject?

If so all is good and we can be on the same side even if we disagree on the why.

Yes IP should be protected although we disagree on the reason why they should be protected.

But I will point out that the why makes a difference in the long run. If it turns out that society doesn't need to grant a monopoly on works or a specific type of work in order for progress or advancement to happen then I will vote or advocate for abolishing those monopolies. For example patron client relationship becomes the dominate means of compensating creatives.

And it won't be clear cut. Any change will have to be thoroughly debated. The change will mean that some that prosper under the new system and some will not. We see that now. Authors that were total asshole were successful under a traditional publisher-author relationship wilted with the advent of the Internet. Which places more of a premium on direct contact with one's audience. Before only the publisher had to deal with the person being a dick. With the internet it is on full display for everybody to see. And even when it has nothing to do with politics, people don't like dealing with assholes. Especially when it in their face after watching a video or reading a blog post.

I'm fine with that, if or when such time comes the author still gets compensated, but you'd need to prove that abolishing IP wouldn't hurt said relationship to the point where the author stops being able to profit from his creation.

Unles such author is a dick, no one has the obligation to support a dick. So people choose not to give him money boo hoo, but they can't also enjoy his creation because they don't have that right.

I mean I put it behind a paywall for a reason, pay or not but don't just take it.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 01:59:05 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 01:52:48 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 01:21:26 PM

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:18:53 PM
IMO, Pirates needed to be arrested, tried, convicted and sent to jail.

I would agree if I thought it would solve anything, it won't.
Plus if the owner of the IP doesn't care then what?
Of course if the owner didn't really care he would have put his work under CC0 or in the public domain from day one.

Actually many people are quite ignorant on the damage they do by downloading the protected works of others.
The person running that site (Pirate Trove?) is assuredly one who deserves serving time in a "federal pound him in the ass prison".

Actually, I'm completely aware that I do damage by piracy.

Which is why I'm pirating from people who promote SJW/wokeist bullshit.  You wound my culture? I wound you.

I'd hate to take the wind out of your sails (truly), but "pirating" information simply leaves the content creator financially in the same state as if you had never heard of them to begin with (i.e. it does nothing).

I fully endorse not sending money to people who would have you corralled into a boxcar, but if "piracy" was harmful to creators, then it would be a drop in the bucket compared to all the "harm" done by the rest of the world also not buying their products.

I'm sorry, what?

You literally just advocated for the person running the Trove to be sentenced to 'federal pound him in the ass prison' and now you're trying to say it doesn't do anything?

Maybe make up your mind, brah.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 03:04:14 PM
I'm sorry, what?

You literally just advocated for the person running the Trove to be sentenced to 'federal pound him in the ass prison' and now you're trying to say it doesn't do anything?

Maybe make up your mind, brah.

No, that was this guy:

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
"federal pound him in the ass prison"

I do not endorse or support large scale filesharing operations of copyrighted material.

However, as a creator I also don't care. If you build up a strong enough rapport with a sufficiently large customer base, there's no reason to be worried about this. The people who will download from a filesharing site are either people who never would have paid money for your product, or will pay money for your product regardless.

The people who have reasons to go ballistic about filesharing are not indie content creators, and if indie creators feel that way they probably haven't thought it through or still have something to learn about the business. The ones who do have reason to care are corporations and corporate shills, or neurotic psychopaths, people whose products are based on some kind of deception (say, a game that pretends to look like a gritty fantasy game but is actually about Social Justice), or some combination of all of the above.

Regarding IP, the thing it's important for as far as I'm concerned is not to prevent filesharing, but to prevent people from making direct copies of your product FOR SALE. And we know that if IP didn't exist the first people using this would be the Big Corporations who would be just outright stealing anything creatives made and not giving them a dime.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 02:15:47 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 02:05:44 PM
I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction. :(

Did any of your regular clients switch to using the free dump instead of paying you to create new stuff?

Do you believe anyone using the free dump was a potential client before the dump?

When I talk about stock agencies. I'm talking about mega corporations who already pay their artists a pittance. They house millions of images, I don't know who downloads my stuff. But what I can tell you, after the 'big leak' lots of our income went down. And who knows what knock on effect it had. We are not talking about a few thousand images here.

Now, speaking about these stock agencies. Here's a thing that happens a lot. Not to me as I'm too small but the possibility is there. Some of the more popular photographers have had their images leaked as well. So every now and then, a phantom account is created by some cnut. Who then sells that person's photography as their own. With there being millions of pics and illustrations it could take months before these shits are found out. And that's probably by fluke as thee companies do little to route these bastards out. And even then, you've got to prove you own the image. This takes time.

And of course, at best, these criminals just have their account blocked. And generally being from India or China they are effectively immune to any consequences. And they just open up another one using a dodgy ID or credit card. This is a regular occurrence on their forums.

So yes... Its fucks with your income.

Quote from: RPGPundit on October 08, 2021, 03:36:02 PM
Regarding IP, the thing it's important for as far as I'm concerned is not to prevent filesharing, but to prevent people from making direct copies of your product FOR SALE. And we know that if IP didn't exist the first people using this would be the Big Corporations who would be just outright stealing anything creatives made and not giving them a dime.

My point exactly, but fucking commies keep arguing about filesharing because reasons.

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 03:39:27 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 02:15:47 PM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on October 08, 2021, 02:05:44 PM
I make a living from art (not from RPGs stuff, obviously). But some years ago, I had a lot of my stock art stolen and then re-distributed for free. Me, and thousands of other artists, incidentally.

So, as far as I'm concerned, it's 'theft' because you are stealing money from my pocket. AKA - affecting my personal earnings.

Sadly, there's not much you can do about it. Mainly, because these attacks are perpetrated by professional criminals outside western jurisdiction. :(

Did any of your regular clients switch to using the free dump instead of paying you to create new stuff?

Do you believe anyone using the free dump was a potential client before the dump?

When I talk about stock agencies. I'm talking about mega corporations who already pay their artists a pittance. They house millions of images, I don't know who downloads my stuff. But what I can tell you, after the 'big leak' lots of our income went down. And who knows what knock on effect it had. We are not talking about a few thousand images here.

Now, speaking about these stock agencies. Here's a thing that happens a lot. Not to me as I'm too small but the possibility is there. Some of the more popular photographers have had their images leaked as well. So every now and then, a phantom account is created by some cnut. Who then sells that person's photography as their own. With there being millions of pics and illustrations it could take months before these shits are found out. And that's probably by fluke as thee companies do little to route these bastards out. And even then, you've got to prove you own the image. This takes time.

And of course, at best, these criminals just have their account blocked. And generally being from India or China they are effectively immune to any consequences. And they just open up another one using a dodgy ID or credit card. This is a regular occurrence on their forums.

So yes... Its fucks with your income.

"Bbut muh freedom to take your shit and not pay for it!" Odbrain probably.

This conversation reminds me a lot of some dialogue from Guardians of the Galaxy

Quote
    "Your criminal records have also been expunged. However, I have to warn you against breaking any laws in the future."
    "Question. What if I see something that I wanna take and it belongs to someone else?"
    "Then you will be arrested."
    "But what if I want it more than the person who has it?"
    "Still illegal."
    "That doesn't follow. No, I want it more, sir. Do you understand me? What are you laughing at? What? I can't have a discussion with this gentleman?"
    ―Rocket Raccoon and Rhomann

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:58:49 PM
Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

Whatever the time frame is, either the creator has it for the full time, including their heirs.  Or the person who paid you to create it gets the first half, and then first chance to buy the second half off of you.  If the goal of the law is to encourage content creation, then it has to recognize the contributions of both parties.  If a corporation can own it, then an estate can own it.  Shouldn't matter who has rights to the estate.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 03:03:14 PM
56 years is way too long.

Maybe, but 15/15 is either too short or darn close to it.  I wouldn't go less than 20/20.  If you want 25/25 for nice round numbers, that works.  The original idea is that if you produced something as a young adult, and lived a full life, you'd own it for most of that life.  If you died young, your heirs would have something to compensate them. 

Personally, I think it should be set to match what is considered an adult--and that should be consistent through the law.  That is, your kids benefit if you aren't around but your grandchildren probably don't.  But age of an adult gets into all kinds of tricky questions that aren't going to be resolved even if agreement could be reached on IP law. In some cases, we are now counting people up to age 26 as dependents.  Barring a change in that, 28/28 isn't off.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 05:57:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:58:49 PM
Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

Whatever the time frame is, either the creator has it for the full time, including their heirs.  Or the person who paid you to create it gets the first half, and then first chance to buy the second half off of you.  If the goal of the law is to encourage content creation, then it has to recognize the contributions of both parties.  If a corporation can own it, then an estate can own it.  Shouldn't matter who has rights to the estate.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 03:03:14 PM
56 years is way too long.

Maybe, but 15/15 is either too short or darn close to it.  I wouldn't go less than 20/20.  If you want 25/25 for nice round numbers, that works.  The original idea is that if you produced something as a young adult, and lived a full life, you'd own it for most of that life.  If you died young, your heirs would have something to compensate them. 

Personally, I think it should be set to match what is considered an adult--and that should be consistent through the law.  That is, your kids benefit if you aren't around but your grandchildren probably don't.  But age of an adult gets into all kinds of tricky questions that aren't going to be resolved even if agreement could be reached on IP law. In some cases, we are now counting people up to age 26 as dependents.  Barring a change in that, 28/28 isn't off.

It's not "ownership". It's a temporary granting of monopoly privileges in order to encourage a socially desirable behavior. Just look at any of GeekyBugle's posts to see why that's important -- telling people they can own ideas creates a massive sense of entitlement. This is exactly why Disney and other large companies were able to extend their legal monopolies to what is an effectively infinite duration. Because somewhere in the past 40 years, people have started to think of it as a right, and began reacting to restrictions as if their rights were being violated, and thus effectively have been supporting the corporate taking of our shared culture. It's socialist thinking, and it's the same problem that cropped up with the emergence of other positive rights. We see the same outrage when it comes to things like a UBI, or minimum wages. Monopolies are inherently anti-free market restrictions on fair competition, and they need to be recognized as such. We need to make it very clear that forcing others to provide something for you or forcing others to limit their behavior is not a right, though it may be a temporary and limited gift or privilege given in extreme cases for clear reasons.

And why should someone be granted those rights for their entire life? Saying it should last the life of the author seems like a backdoor way of granting ownership, albeit with a restriction on inheritance. That's the wrong approach, because the only reason to grant monopoly privileges is utilitarian: To encourage people to make more creative things. So the limit on the duration should be pragmatic, and based on the typical lifecycle of a product. How long does it take to produce and a song and make it into a hit? Only a couple years, max. So the limit shouldn't be any longer that. This isn't a title of ownership, but a grace period where they're given an advantage they can use to monetize their invention or creation. It should be a use or lose it situation, because they have to do something useful with their creation before it's released into the public domain. For something like pharmaceuticals, where the development, testing, and production can take a very long time, there's an argument for a longer period. But that's an outlier, and even there the current 20 years seems to be too long. Most monopolies should terminate in a fraction of that period.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 07:30:17 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on October 08, 2021, 05:57:05 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 02:58:49 PM
Sounds reasonable, it allows the author time to benefit from his creation while stoping the Rat Shack from doing what they are doing.

Inheritance, does the heir own it until the original time limit expires and then it's public domain or what?

Trademarks, what about those? Should anyone be able to trademark Superman and thus prevent everybody from ever using it even if it got into public domain?

Whatever the time frame is, either the creator has it for the full time, including their heirs.  Or the person who paid you to create it gets the first half, and then first chance to buy the second half off of you.  If the goal of the law is to encourage content creation, then it has to recognize the contributions of both parties.  If a corporation can own it, then an estate can own it.  Shouldn't matter who has rights to the estate.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 03:03:14 PM
56 years is way too long.

Maybe, but 15/15 is either too short or darn close to it.  I wouldn't go less than 20/20.  If you want 25/25 for nice round numbers, that works.  The original idea is that if you produced something as a young adult, and lived a full life, you'd own it for most of that life.  If you died young, your heirs would have something to compensate them. 

Personally, I think it should be set to match what is considered an adult--and that should be consistent through the law.  That is, your kids benefit if you aren't around but your grandchildren probably don't.  But age of an adult gets into all kinds of tricky questions that aren't going to be resolved even if agreement could be reached on IP law. In some cases, we are now counting people up to age 26 as dependents.  Barring a change in that, 28/28 isn't off.

It's not "ownership". It's a temporary granting of monopoly privileges in order to encourage a socially desirable behavior. Just look at any of GeekyBugle's posts to see why that's important -- telling people they can own ideas creates a massive sense of entitlement. This is exactly why Disney and other large companies were able to extend their legal monopolies to what is an effectively infinite duration. Because somewhere in the past 40 years, people have started to think of it as a right, and began reacting to restrictions as if their rights were being violated, and thus effectively have been supporting the corporate taking of our shared culture. It's socialist thinking, and it's the same problem that cropped up with the emergence of other positive rights. We see the same outrage when it comes to things like a UBI, or minimum wages. Monopolies are inherently anti-free market restrictions on fair competition, and they need to be recognized as such. We need to make it very clear that forcing others to provide something for you or forcing others to limit their behavior is not a right, though it may be a temporary and limited gift or privilege given in extreme cases for clear reasons.

And why should someone be granted those rights for their entire life? Saying it should last the life of the author seems like a backdoor way of granting ownership, albeit with a restriction on inheritance. That's the wrong approach, because the only reason to grant monopoly privileges is utilitarian: To encourage people to make more creative things. So the limit on the duration should be pragmatic, and based on the typical lifecycle of a product. How long does it take to produce and a song and make it into a hit? Only a couple years, max. So the limit shouldn't be any longer that. This isn't a title of ownership, but a grace period where they're given an advantage they can use to monetize their invention or creation. It should be a use or lose it situation, because they have to do something useful with their creation before it's released into the public domain. For something like pharmaceuticals, where the development, testing, and production can take a very long time, there's an argument for a longer period. But that's an outlier, and even there the current 20 years seems to be too long. Most monopolies should terminate in a fraction of that period.

Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 08:11:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Yep, private property is a "positive right" and also socialist.

But wanting free access to MY shit is totally capitalist ancap free markets...

You can't be this dense, I refuse to believe it, but maybe you are, who knows? After all human stupidity is infinite.

In your mind wanting people to pay for shit I made is socialist but you wanting those people to have free access to the shit I made is capitalism...

Consensual exchange of goods for you is socialism, but forcing me to give away the goods I produce is capitalism...

But I'm the one that suffers from doublethink...

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:27:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 08:11:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Yep, private property is a "positive right" and also socialist.

But wanting free access to MY shit is totally capitalist ancap free markets...

You can't be this dense, I refuse to believe it, but maybe you are, who knows? After all human stupidity is infinite.

In your mind wanting people to pay for shit I made is socialist but you wanting those people to have free access to the shit I made is capitalism...

Consensual exchange of goods for you is socialism, but forcing me to give away the goods I produce is capitalism...

But I'm the one that suffers from doublethink...

Did you make the book? Then yes, it's your property. With a few limitations we can ignore, you can do whatever you want with it, including selling it or keeping it for your exclusive use.

But at least three people have explained to you why they think the book is property, but the collection of words in the book is not. You have strong opinions on the subject and it's fine if you don't agree with us, but it's really hard to talk with you about the subject because you don't seem to even understand the points we've been making.

If you're willing to step back and try to grok the concept, I'll explain it again. Property exists because of scarcity. We only have limited resources in the world, and we have to figure out how to utilize them. The idea that we can all just share everything fails from a utilitarian perspective. Just think of public parks and roads, and how much garbage they tend to collect. An owner has a strong vested interest in caring for what they own, but when ownership if diffuse or unclear, people just don't bother as much to maintain it. This leads to what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The reason owners tend to care for what they own is because they directly benefit from its use, sale, or utilization. So ownership has a utilitarian basis. We want people to own things, and we want a free market where people can make exchanges of mutual benefit, because it's the best way to ensure the limited resources of the world are used in the most efficient way to meet human needs. This tends to benefits everyone, not just the owners.

But ideas, stories, songs, and so on aren't limited resources. If you steal someone's car, they have to do without. But if you write a story, and someone copies it, you still have the story. It wasn't taken away from you, like the car was. If you throw trash on someone's lawn, they have to clean it up. But if someone writes a new version of your story except all the major characters are blue, your story isn't trashed. Your version still exists, as well as the new one. So there's no scarcity, when it comes to intellectual creations. Property and property rights exist because of scarcity, so the story you wrote isn't some kind of property.

I believe in incentives, and I think it's worthwhile trade off to grant a temporary monopoly to writers and artists and so on to encourage future works. But I also think monopolies are very bad things, and that there is great value allowing everyone to exploit our intellectual heritage in new ways as soon as possible, so the duration should be sharply limited.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:08:00 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:27:31 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 08:11:47 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 08:02:52 PM
Yes Pat, it's socialists that support private property... Fuck me, how can you write something like that and hit send?

I've found it really ironic how you're calling everyone communists for opposing your socialist ideas about positive rights that have to be imposed on others. It's a serious case of doublethink on your part.

Yep, private property is a "positive right" and also socialist.

But wanting free access to MY shit is totally capitalist ancap free markets...

You can't be this dense, I refuse to believe it, but maybe you are, who knows? After all human stupidity is infinite.

In your mind wanting people to pay for shit I made is socialist but you wanting those people to have free access to the shit I made is capitalism...

Consensual exchange of goods for you is socialism, but forcing me to give away the goods I produce is capitalism...

But I'm the one that suffers from doublethink...

Did you make the book? Then yes, it's your property. With a few limitations we can ignore, you can do whatever you want with it, including selling it or keeping it for your exclusive use.

But at least three people have explained to you why they think the book is property, but the collection of words in the book is not. You have strong opinions on the subject and it's fine if you don't agree with us, but it's really hard to talk with you about the subject because you don't seem to even understand the points we've been making.

If you're willing to step back and try to grok the concept, I'll explain it again. Property exists because of scarcity. We only have limited resources in the world, and we have to figure out how to utilize them. The idea that we can all just share everything fails from a utilitarian perspective. Just think of public parks and roads, and how much garbage they tend to collect. An owner has a strong vested interest in caring for what they own, but when ownership if diffuse or unclear, people just don't bother as much to maintain it. This leads to what is known as the tragedy of the commons. The reason owners tend to care for what they own is because they directly benefit from its use, sale, or utilization. So ownership has a utilitarian basis. We want people to own things, and we want a free market where people can make exchanges of mutual benefit, because it's the best way to ensure the limited resources of the world are used in the most efficient way to meet human needs. This tends to benefits everyone, not just the owners.

But ideas, stories, songs, and so on aren't limited resources. If you steal someone's car, they have to do without. But if you write a story, and someone copies it, you still have the story. It wasn't taken away from you, like the car was. If you throw trash on someone's lawn, they have to clean it up. But if someone writes a new version of your story except all the major characters are blue, your story isn't trashed. Your version still exists, as well as the new one. So there's no scarcity, when it comes to intellectual creations. Property and property rights exist because of scarcity, so the story you wrote isn't some kind of property.

I believe in incentives, and I think it's worthwhile trade off to grant a temporary monopoly to writers and artists and so on to encourage future works. But I also think monopolies are very bad things, and that there is great value allowing everyone to exploit our intellectual heritage in new ways as soon as possible, so the duration should be sharply limited.

So because you can print a theoretically infinite number of my book (without buying the rights from me) then it's a okay to just go ahead and do so because free markets?

Ideas aren't finite, but the game isn't an idea, it's a finished product, it has my words structured in the way I did, if you had writtn a game with the same basic concept, lets say Pulp, your ideas would be there, probably a little different than mine codified with your words that you arranged in a different way than I.

The IDEA is to write a pulp game. So far I have incurred in no expense, zero investment. Go ahead and take it IDGAF

The PRODUCT is the finished game. Now I have incurred in expenses, I made an investment. You're under no obligation to buy it, but you sure as fuck don't have the right to take it for free and much less to take it print it and sell it without giving me any money I and only I deem sufficient to give you the right to do so.

Investement of resources said Estar, well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

To buy a car I make an investment of resources. If you buy it from me I loose the car but I get at least part of said investment.

If you steal it then I loose the investment and the car. It's not about the car, it's about the voluntary exchange of goods at an agreed price.

Now lets change to a game:

To write a game I make an investment of resources. If you buy one of my books I get back minus taxes and whatever % the store takes a part of my investment with probably some profit.

If you pirate it I get no return on my investment (I don't care much about this because most pirates wouldn't have bought it anyhow), but this doesn't mean they have the right to enjoiy the fruits of my investment without just compensation to me.

If you take it to sell it without buying the right to do so from me then I loose money because I get no return on my investment. This is the part that concerns me the most, but you and your croonies keep on harping about pirates. Under your totally capitalist system Disney, Hasbro or another corporation should be able to just print it without buying the rights from me. Because you can distinguish between ideas and finished product.

And when I say this shouldn't be you cry about entitlement and about how nobody owes me money for just writing a game.

You just don't understand those words either: Nobody owes me money JUST for writting a game. On that we agree, you have the right to buy it to play it or not and not play it (Or be an immoral fuck and pirate it). But you don't understand the part about you don't having the right to enjoy the fruits of my investment (since for some reason if I say labor you reeeee because you must think writting is easy and takes no time and needs no monetary investment) without giving me some money in exchange for those fruits. And this includes both plain piracy or stealing it to sell.

If even after this you keep on Reeeeeeing how the one for privvate property and the free and voluntary exchange of goods for money is an entitled socialist while you that feel entitled to the fruits of my investmnet without giving me any money are the one true ancap capitalist free market advocate I will have to conclude you fell on your head as a child.

I'm not advocating for an UBI for anyone, But I'm sure as fuck also not advocating for some entitled fuck to have free access to the fruits of my investment of resources without giving money in exchange. ты понимаешь товарищ?

ty ponimayesh' tovarishch?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 09:54:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

It's probably all wasted efforts. There don't seem to be many left on this board who are willing to engage with people with different opinions. It's all SOMEONE DISAGREED WITH ME! NO! I MUST ATTACK combined with attempts to misconstrue every sentence.

<insert it's all so tiresome meme>

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

Yep, we already established you think that advocating for private property and the free exchange of goods for money is socialism.

And that you think that labelling me an entitled socialist is you not being hostile and listening to what I have to say.

Does gravity also work different in your world?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 10:22:30 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

Yep, we already established you think that advocating for private property and the free exchange of goods for money is socialism.

And that you think that labelling me an entitled socialist is you not being hostile and listening to what I have to say.

Does gravity also work different in your world?

No, I don't. That's exactly the opposite of what I've stated. You're not even trying to understand what anyone is saying to you.

And who called multiple people in the thread communists, again? If you throw something at somebody, and they throw it back at you, they're not the aggressor. You are.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
Investement of resources said Estar, well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

Yeah so about that. You are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created. However it is a good idea for society to allow people to seek a return on a investment of time and resources for a creative work to encourage more investment into making ideas and other creative works.  ​

I get you think you have a inherent right to monopolize the expression of the ideas you think of like a game. But I and others don't agree with that. But society is willing to allow you to have a monopoly to give you the incentive to create copies of game to be used or enjoyed by others. But you don't own anything other the property you created.

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 10:05:54 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 09:54:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

It's probably all wasted efforts. There don't seem to be many left on this board who are willing to engage with people with different opinions. It's all SOMEONE DISAGREED WITH ME! NO! I MUST ATTACK combined with attempts to misconstrue every sentence.

<insert it's all so tiresome meme>

If it makes you feel any better ive seen this argument play out dozens of times about ip but this is the first time ive actually got a good grasp of what the anti-IP people think and how they believe abolishing ip laws would work out. Its got me to think alot about what my future business nodel may be when i finally finish some stuff for publishing.

Quote from: estar on October 08, 2021, 11:38:23 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
Investement of resources said Estar, well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

Yeah so about that. You are not getting what I said, the investment of resources does not grant you any rights other than ownership of any physical objects that were created. However it is a good idea for society to allow people to seek a return on a investment of time and resources for a creative work to encourage more investment into making ideas and other creative works.  ​

I get you think you have a inherent right to monopolize the expression of the ideas you think of like a game. But I and others don't agree with that. But society is willing to allow you to have a monopoly to give you the incentive to create copies of game to be used or enjoyed by others. But you don't own anything other the property you created.

How magnanimous of you!

You're willing to allow me to benefit from my investment, creativiy and efort!?

WOW! Should I kiss your ass?

You're all wrong and you're so entitled and full of yourselves that you're making me think that IP should last forever.

Great work guys, keep on pushing your socialism and I'll convert into a Disney advocate!

You lot seem to think you have any inherent right to the creative works of others and not only that, those others benefgit from their works only thanks to your larguese...

But I'm the socialist says Pat... Fuck me, how can you lot be so entitled?

Quote from: Slambo on October 09, 2021, 12:54:28 AM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 10:05:54 PM

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 09:54:08 PM

Quote from: Pat on October 08, 2021, 09:46:40 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 08, 2021, 09:32:55 PM
...well let me explain it to you in those terms so you may understand since you seem a little slow.

I went out my way to be nice despite your hostility, but since you clearly have no interest in listening to what anyone else has to say, fuck the hell off socialist.

It was a noble effort.

On the bright side, this thread has accumulated some good material for anyone who actually has the patience to read.

It's probably all wasted efforts. There don't seem to be many left on this board who are willing to engage with people with different opinions. It's all SOMEONE DISAGREED WITH ME! NO! I MUST ATTACK combined with attempts to misconstrue every sentence.

<insert it's all so tiresome meme>

If it makes you feel any better ive seen this argument play out dozens of times about ip but this is the first time ive actually got a good grasp of what the anti-IP people think and how they believe abolishing ip laws would work out. Its got me to think alot about what my future business nodel may be when i finally finish some stuff for publishing.

Thanks, though I think Oddend addressed that a lot more than I. I'm not even anti-, except in the technical sense that I don't like calling it property. I still believe some level of monopoly protection is worthwhile, after all. If you're interested a perspective that's more focused on fundamental rights than statism, the Mises Institute isn't bad start. While I'm not a libertarian or an an-cap, by coming at it from an economic perspective they do a good job of dissecting things like property rights instead of just being zealots chanting slogans.

Publishing seems to be a tough business these days. It's in the midst of probably the greatest change it's faced since the printing press, and it hasn't settled out yet. A lot of traditional wisdom is out the door, and a lot of prognosticators are selling snake oil.

Speaking as an author, "life of the author" for copyright seems completely sensible to me. It's my work, I own it as long as I'm alive.

Now, that still leaves a question of the length of copyright for work-for-hire or if you sell your rights to someone else (or to a corporation). In that case, I'd say maybe 25 years; and that would be a term that would be transferrable if it was sold again, but the count doesn't start over.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on October 09, 2021, 01:23:44 AM
WOW! Should I kiss your ass?

Yes because you asking me to curtail use of my property (printers, ink, etc.) and curtail my right to freedom of speech and expression in order to compensate you for your creativity. In the exchange you gain a monopoly when it comes to making copies of your creative works and the rest of us gain something useful or entertaining.

As I said before if a days comes where society can gain something useful and/or entertaining without having to grant monopoly then I would be glad to get to rid of them.

Finally it is rare that a truly unique work is made by a creative. One that seemly appears to spring out of the blue with little to no precedent in the work before. The vast majority of creative works are a hybrid of what came melded with a few original ideas. Much of the game that you use in your examples is a result of dipping into humanity common heritage. Morally once you done that, you are obligated to the same. For example sections of my Majestic Fantasy RPG is inspired by Tolkien creativity. Elisabeth Moon's Deed of Paksenarrion, Feist's Midkemia series, Howard's Conan; all mixed up with my own original ideas. The Majestic RPG wouldn't work without those ideas despite presence of my original work.  The same is likely true with any  game you came up. Especially if it not something abstract like Chess, Jenga, or Go but tied to some type of background or setting.

Quote from: Oddend on October 08, 2021, 03:09:04 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on October 08, 2021, 03:04:14 PM
I'm sorry, what?

You literally just advocated for the person running the Trove to be sentenced to 'federal pound him in the ass prison' and now you're trying to say it doesn't do anything?

Maybe make up your mind, brah.

No, that was this guy:

Quote from: DocJones on October 08, 2021, 01:41:11 PM
"federal pound him in the ass prison"

I apologize. Damn nested quotes.