Torrent throwdown on the Wizards board

[Geek-Zilla]

Having read this thread and the one linked by the OP...I thought I might chime in with my two cents worth.

We currently live in a society that has a generation of youth that has grown up with the internet as a significant fixture in their lives. There is a common perception with that generation that information on the internet is and should be free. Now, this is not to say that this perception is right or wrong...it's just the way that it is. Also, let me be clear that this attitude is not limited to todays youth...many today, regardless of their age/generation, share this attitude. With that being said, if you ask the average person "Should people get paid for their work/effort?" The general answer is going to be yes.

So how in this day and age, do you get content to the consumer and money to the producer? That really is the million dollar question. Some would argue that DRM is the solution, but with the Sony Rootkit debacle people have a general distrust of DRM. In fact, DRM free music for download (through a pay service) is a value added benefit for consumers and marketed as such. There is the RIAA/MPAA approach by going after the end-user, but this also has it's problems. It just doesn't work. It alienates your consumer base, is bad PR, it's costly, and actually makes the people "smarter" in terms of how not to get caught. Case in point...I work in the IT field, and I know that a person who would never download a pirated DVD/MP3 from home, because it can be traced to their IP address, will download that content from a free public WiFi hotspot without a second thought.

So what is the optimal solution? I really don't know....if I did I'd probably be rich. But just off the top of my head this a possible option that could work (or not): A content provider publishes a work in two forms, one being the book for purchase at a B&M store for let's say $30, the other being a purchased legal download PDF from their site for $30. Along with that PDF there is a coupon/certificate that the person could take, say to a Kinkos, where they could have it printed and bound.

To be honest I know nothing about the printing business....just kinda of thinking out load.

Anyway....just some thoughts about this....and really looking forward to get my hands on the books!!!

[Cirex]

Originally Posted by Rykion

We live in an information age. Many people's livelihoods are completely based on being paid to create and/or spread information. This group includes teachers, authors, artists, musicians, doctors, accountants, programmers, analysts, and other specialists. Obviously, they shouldn't be paid because knowledge should be free.

Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.

The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.

[RigaMortus2]

Originally Posted by Xsjado

I (and a lot of people) find reading huge blocks of text on a computer screen difficult and what happens when you actually need to play?

I am in the minority that actually PREFERS to read on the computer screen vs a book, assuming the copy is a good one. I can spend hours reading websites and pdfs, whereas I get bored reading books after about an hour.

However, I will say this. I find it a lot easier to reference stuff from a book than on a pdf. If I know what page it is on or near, it's easier to flip through the book for me...

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by Silverblade The Ench

Here's an idea for D&D:
The DDI subscriber thing, why not have an additional service, say $5 a month,for free pdfs of ANY D&D product. Think about it...how many folk would sign up for that...how much revenue would it engender!

Marvel Comics has already done something similar to this. For, I think, $10 a month you can view all of Marvel's digital titles unlimited. They don't have all of their comics "scanned" into the system yet, but they have an impressive list of both new and old titles, and it grows daily. I'd have signed up if I weren't a DC man myself. The titles are viewed over the web, and can't be downloaded (unless some enterprising hacker has already gotten past this). I wonder how well this is working for Marvel? I would LOVE to see something similar integrated into the D&D Insider package, it would rock!

[malraux]

Originally Posted by JohnSnow

As far as copyright violation, no company has actually tried to press the case because they're afraid of the repercussions. The cable industry spent years being afraid to prosecute those who stole signal. We punished the distributors, but it didn't stop. By contrast, companies that have gone after the end-user have seen success. Not at putting those people in jail, mind you, but at turning them into paying customers, or at least preventing them from stealing our signal.

RIAA? Are you telling me that I can't find lots of music on torrents now?

[warlockwannabe]

Originally Posted by Cirex

Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.

The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.

You can try to rationalize till you turn blue. The fact is if you have taken something without permission or paying for it, you have stolen it.

[malraux]

Originally Posted by Cirex

Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.

The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.

Well, the effect of music downloads on sales is close to zero. I'd expect that different segments could have other effects.

[Dire Bare]

While sometimes it's fun to read all the pathetic justifications for infomation theft in these types of threads, it gets wearying after a while. One positive of this never-ending argument is that I get a good chance to update my ignore list by perusing threads like this.

Information was meant to be free! Uh, why? Who says? I think food should be free, but it isn't. I think that no one truly should "own" land, but that's how it works anyway.

[Cirex]

Originally Posted by warlockwannabe

You can try to rationalize till you turn blue. The fact is if you have taken something without permission or paying for it, you have stolen it.

The Spanish law, among the law of most European countries, disagree with you.
I don't need permission of the owner (it's rightly specified in the laws).
And I'm not stealing something. I am not taking anything away with the use of force, the owner still has it and I got no profit intentions.

Malraux, that line holds truth for most markets, even pharmaceutical products (says so in the study, need to research further) and for our case, books.
I know it by hand by movies and accounting products, since I've worked with both.
Software is probably the most delicated one, especially accounting programs and Windows itself (due licenses).

Dire_Bare, thanks for making-up more stuff. Greatly appreciated.

[Rykion]

Originally Posted by Cirex

Nobody is saying that, so don't make up things trying to defend your position.

The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.

Yes they are. There is no difference in saying all knowlede should be free, and that we shouldn't pay people for their knowledge.

I guarnatee that the effects of illegal downloads is far greater than near zero effect. While someone who downloads 100 CDs of music a month wasn't going to buy all of them, they'd probably buy 5 or so. Even if it's just a loss of 5 CD sales per year for the average downloader we're talking about millions of dollars in lost revenue.

[JohnSnow]

Originally Posted by Cirex

To steal means you take something away from someone. If I steal a car, the owner doesn't have it. If I download a song, the owner still has full powers over it. Don't forget that stealing has a profit intention (selling a car, in example). Downloading has no economical profit (if you do, then it's illegal). Downloading doesn't equal stealing.

I don't know how it works in Spain, but under U.S. law, when you buy a car (or a CD, or a book), you own the physical product. However, what you do not own is the text of the book, or the song itself. Those remain the property of the artist, author, company, or whoever holds the copyright.

What you pay for is the right to use that product, in the form of a physical item. That has been legally construed to include the right to reproduce the product for your own use.

Originally Posted by Cirex

Harvard studies, among others, reached this conclussion :

*

You know what that means? That people who download stuff wouldn't have paid for it anyways. And the people who download and buy the same product don't count for "stadistics".
If right now I download 25 D&D books that I do not own, I'm causing zero economical harm to WotC, since I wouldn't have bought them anyways. Oh, and I am not breaking my nation's law.

Like I said, I don't know how it works in Spain, but what you are doing violates copyright law in the United States, where WotC is based. "Economic harm" is not a relevant criteria in assessing the violation of copyright law. It may be valid in assessing the penalty, but not the legality.

WotC owns the work in its books. You do not. Nor does someone who bought the book. As such, owning the book (or pdf) confers no right to distribute the product to others. With ONE exception. You may choose to distribute the physical product to others, by sale or gift, but only once. And you may not (legally) keep a download or scan if you do so. That is, unless you have paid WotC, or one of its authorized resellers, for said download or scan. Ditto for that person if they pass the book on.

That's the law. You may quibble with it. But that's U.S. copyright law.

To be fair, the United States has stricter rules on intellectual property than many other countries. Including Spain, apparently. Preserving ownership over what you create is intended to encourage innovation and creativity. As such, it was written into the U.S. Constitution. I take it you believe this ownership is a bad thing? Or do you just believe that illegal distribution truly has no effect?

The "they weren't going to pay anyway" argument is an awfully slippery slope, legally speaking. It can be used to justify all sorts of morally questionable behavior.

[Argyuile]

Originally Posted by Gargoyle

People rationalize it by saying "I've got the hard copies on pre-order" or "I wasn't going to buy it anyway so they haven't lost a customer".

I believe that it's still wrong to download illegal PDFs for two reasons:

1. It's against the law.

2. I don't agree that the "ends justify the means". In other words, I don't care what the outcome is in a discussion on ethics, I believe that wrong behavior is still wrong, no matter if "no one is hurt" or the "outcome is for the best". That said, I know that's my opinion, and that why society has laws...see #1.

Rebellion was against the law when the US broke from the UK. Anyone involved in the underground railroad helping free slaves was breaking the law also. While clearly this incident different. Just because its "against the law" in no way shape or form makes it unethical.

While the ends don't always justify the means it often does as in my slavery example.

Law does not equal morality or ethics and both morality and ethics are subjective.

[Novem5er]

Originally Posted by Rykion

We live in an information age. Many people's livelihoods are completely based on being paid to create and/or spread information. This group includes teachers, authors, artists, musicians, doctors, accountants, programmers, analysts, and other specialists. Obviously, they shouldn't be paid because knowledge should be free.

Absolutely, knowledge should be free! Anything else creates a caste system where people with money have knowledge and people without knowledge do not.

I AM a teacher. I get paid to spread knowledge. The knowledge I spread is paid for by the general public, not the recipients of the knowledge. The public has chosen to pay taxes to support the spread of knowledge, not the knowledge itself.

What if student goes home and makes a "copy" of the knowledge he learned by teaching it to his parent? That's a good thing!

Knowledge itself is free, but there needs to be an incentive for people to create or spread it. If the public stopped paying teachers, then we wouldn't teach. If the public stopped buying RPG books, then there would be no more RPGs!

The moral choice is not in "copying" knowledge, but rather in choosing to support the cost that is needed to have created it. Not everybody is going to pay for the knowledge that they've obtained, but they don't have to. Of all the people who will benefit from a knowledge or art, it only takes a much smaller portion of people to have supported its creation.

[Cirex]

Originally Posted by Rykion

Yes they are. There is no difference in saying all knowlede should be free, and that we shouldn't pay people for their knowledge.

I guarnatee that the effects of illegal downloads is far greater than near zero effect. While someone who downloads 100 CDs of music a month wasn't going to buy all of them, they'd probably buy 5 or so. Even if it's just a loss of 5 CD sales per year for the average downloader we're talking about millions of dollars in lost revenue.

For the first part, show me the exact quote that says "I don't pay for stuff because it should be free".

For the second, prove that 5%.
Now, for the other 95%, the bands get to be more known, so, in fact, they get to sell more merchandising and concert tickets.
A quick fact -> Music CD sells decreased 0.7% last year in Spain (by any factor, actually) while concerts increased up to 45%.

[pogminky]

What would happen if the powers that be decided that scanning, copying and distributing stuff entirely for free was just fine and legal?

[Family]

If "we" don't purchase product, then those that do will have product cater made for them, to ensure sales.

"we" will be stuck downloading whatever the baby boomers purchase (in terms of entertainment product).

Copyright laws exist simply because intellectual property is seen as valuable.

Yes, enforcement is an issue, but it is still a risk, and immoral.

If you copy a file that you otherwise would not have bought, you are using your time and finding release in it instead of another activity, possibly one you might have paid for.

People’s jobs are on the line.

Unfortunately "we" ends up meaning millions of people, you think that "you" are not substantial. That is sad.

"you" are a sad parasite who is twisting your conscience to think your selfish immoral impact on society doesn't matter. It does.

Please contribute.

---
Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."

[warlockwannabe]

Originally Posted by Argyuile

Rebellion was against the law when the US broke from the UK. Anyone involved in the underground railroad helping free slaves was breaking the law also. While clearly this incident different. Just because its "against the law" in no way shape or form makes it unethical.

While the ends don't always justify the means it often does as in my slavery example.

Law does not equal morality or ethics and both morality and ethics are subjective.

The only time revolution becomes legal is if you win. There is never any ethicality to stealing.

[Korgoth]

Regardless of what anybody says, if you live in the USA and you torrent the PDFs you're committing a crime. If you care enough, try to get the laws changed. Until then, you're bound by them.

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by SteveC

There are many societies that are as near to being free of murder as any society made up of human beings can be. Once again, this is a political argument, and has no place on ENWorld.

"Near to being" is not the same as "being." There are no societies free of murder in the world. To claim otherwise is naive.

...and those people manage to accomplish what, exactly?

A reduction in the amount of piracy that affects our products.

I don't know which company you work for, but I would find it extremely likely that torrents of all of their products exist despite your lawyers best efforts.

We can't prevent it, but we can stem the tide, which is what we do. Just because it's impossible to completely prevent things does not mean you should simply stop trying.

If you work for any major software house, you're also in a position to have one or more orders of magnitude more resources available to you than WotC does.

We're not part of any big company. We're a moderate-sized developer. I'd say we probably have roughly the same legal resources available as Wizards (maybe a bit less, since they have Hasbro's backing).

Stopping software piracy is not synonymous with defending your IP.

No, but when your IP is software, it's a huge part of it.

Again, I seriously doubt that your company has managed to stop their products from being made available on the Internet.

Stopped? No. Reduced? Yes.

[DerekSTheRed]

Originally Posted by Cirex

Sorry, that's not a fact. It's not even close to a true statement. It's a point so easy to take down that if I download the same copy 500 times, according to you, I have caused the loss of 500 potentially sold books.

That's false.

I will use the example I used above. If anyone, right now, downloads 30, 50, 200 D&D books, are they causing an economical harm to WotC? Nope, because that person wouldn't have bought those 30, 50 or 200 books anyways.

I know it's a hard concept, but it's the truth. If I grab any random hard drive, out of anyone, mine, my brother, my friends, a lawyer, a teacher, a member of the Senate, a Government worker, I will find an amount of downloaded stuff, be it 1gb, be it 1 tb. The amount of money that would have been spent on that stuff if the download was not available would be close to zero.

I'd like to make a point I read on slashdot that sums up the way I feel. There is a difference between finite and renewable resources. Information is renewable i.e. copying doesn't degrade the original. However, the time it takes to create that information is finite i.e. people don't live forever.

You're not being asked to pay for information, you're being asked to pay for the time (and by extension creativity) it takes to create that information. In that regard, illegal downloading without paying for the physical books is morally wrong since you're not paying your share of that designer's time.

The question then becomes does it really affect WotC sales significantly. That is not so clear cut. I do think, it's in the best interest of copyright holders to do a base level of copyright theft prevention. Just do enough to keep the honest people honest and that's it. It's not worth the trouble to do more then that.

Derek