Torrent throwdown on the Wizards board

[malraux]

Originally Posted by pogminky

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

Walmart (or other gigantic business) would crush all smaller companies under it. Now if non-commercial copying were legal.... I doubt we'd have much of a difference between that hypothetical and now.

[The Little Raven]

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.

Rebellion because of the suppression of fundamental legal rights and illegally copying and distributing someone else's property are not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even the same sport.

One is about the restoration of that which the law guarantees you, while the other is about acquiring a product through illicit means. One is a violation of the law in order to fix a deteriorating social order, while the other is about selfishness, pure and simple.

[Cirex]

Originally Posted by JohnSnow

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, 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.



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 assess the violation of copyright law. WotC owns the work. 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.

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. Preserving ownership over what you create is intended to encourage innovation and creativity. I take it you believe this is a bad thing?

I am a Spanish citizen, so what I do from Spain is under Spanish laws.

I know USA has stricter rules and it is NOT encouraging innovation and creativity. Copyright was born to encourage the spreading and expanding of culture. Ironic, isn't it?

A faster and smoother expansion of culture encourages innovation and creativity. Think about how many little movie directors, music bands, unknown writers, etc. made it to the public thanks to the free expansion of culture. A few of those who discovered those little authors will have enough inspiration to create its own art, to share it with the other people, in short, to expand the culture.

How many musicians would exist if people would be allowed to just have one music CD at house?


Family, you posted the same thing yesterday. The line "People’s jobs are on the line" makes me chuckle when I see it.
Once again, no effect on sales.

If a company closes down, it's because they had a quality/marketing issue, not due downloading.

[Rykion]

Originally Posted by Cirex

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%.

The first part comes from my response to Novem5er who said that all knowledge should be free.

Where is your proof for less than 5%? A Harvard study on something that would be impossible to get exacts on isn't really proof of anything. How do you know that CD sales in Spain wouldn't have increased by 10% last year without internet pirates?

[warlockwannabe]

Originally Posted by Cirex

I am a Spanish citizen, so what I do from Spain is under Spanish laws.

I know USA has stricter rules and it is NOT encouraging innovation and creativity. Copyright was born to encourage the spreading and expanding of culture. Ironic, isn't it?

A faster and smoother expansion of culture encourages innovation and creativity. Think about how many little movie directors, music bands, unknown writers, etc. made it to the public thanks to the free expansion of culture. A few of those who discovered those little authors will have enough inspiration to create its own art, to share it with the other people, in short, to expand the culture.

You know, I dont recall ever reading anything from spain. Or buying any products from there. Or music....
Or anything really. Britain yes, Germany, even belgium. But not spain... Odd really. What is spain known for? Seriously this isnt a snyde remark, but what do you really export to the US?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Originally Posted by Xsjado

Did they ever put out legal pdfs in the first place?

Yes, quite a few of them. Check RPGNow.com and other vendors.

[TheWyrd]

I'm a PDF addict. I have my entire collection of M&M on PDF on my hard drive. All purchased quite legally I might add. WotC would get lots of my money if they put out D&D 4e the same way.

[Argyuile]

Originally Posted by warlockwannabe

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

Warlock you talk in a lot of absolutes. If I needed to steal to survive (clearly not the case here but to your point) I would certainly do so and I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. If I "stole" slaves from someone who legally owned them (in order to free them) are you saying that the slave owner has the moral high ground above me, the thief?

[Korgoth]

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.

Wait, so people who steal the D&D books are some combination of George Washington and Harriet Tubman?

It was morally right to support the underground railroad because slavery was an unjust law. Anti-piracy laws are not unjust. Being a buzzkill is not unjust.

Maybe I decide that I should be allowed to steal cars from a car dealership and take them around on joyrides. Maybe I even decide to leave money for gas and mileage at the dealership when I'm done. It's still Grand Theft Auto because I took their property against their will and because that's what the law says it is.

Also, morality and ethics are not subjective. If someone walks up and kicks you in the groin, you're outraged because although you were innocent of any wrongdoing someone inflicted physical pain and harm upon you. He didn't subjectively wrong you, he objectively wronged you. If someone murders six million Jews he isn't subjectively a monster, he's objectively a monster because everyone who doesn't possess mental illness is able to understand that genocide is wrong (those who do it may not admit that it's wrong, but of course they know it).

[Rykion]

Originally Posted by Novem5er

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.

How would you feel if you found out somebody recorded all your classes without your permission and put them on the internet? What if the school district decided to fire you and just played those videos to the next year's students? You are being paid for your knowledge, and you are not distributing it for free.

Edit: And the public is paying for the knowledge itself. If you aren't teaching the specific information for a child in the correct grade, you probably won't be a teacher for long.

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by Novem5er

Absolutely, knowledge should be free!

I often see the "Information should be/wants to be free" argument when we're talking about someone else's information and property. I'd like to see proponents of this policy post their personal and financial information in a public fashion. Such disclosure would show more sincerity than hiding behind internet anonymity.

[Cirex]

I'm sorry, forums are a bit slow for me and I can't answer to everybody. By when I have published one reply, I got 3 more to write...

Originally Posted by pogminky

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

Like in most European countries? It's going fine. Some companies are in denial and refuse to change their habits. Their loss. It's a lost battle.
Some others are taking alternative methods and they are going fine. Little music bands or independant cinema are enjoying their new life. Everything is ok at this side of the Ocean.

Originally Posted by Rykion

The first part comes from my response to Novem5er who said that all knowledge should be free.

Where is your proof for less than 5%? A Harvard study on something that would be impossible to get exacts on isn't really proof of anything. How do you know that CD sales in Spain wouldn't have increased by 10% last year without internet pirates?

Well, maybe he was inspired by the "Knowledge, like air, shouldn't be denied to anyone" line, but that's just an exception. As for myself, if I got to buy a book, I buy it, no problem. I got 4e preordered, I buy RA Salvatore books and books about economy, accounting, etc.
I downloaded the pdf of a book called "Copy this book", which uses Creative Common license, and you know what? I'm going to buy it soon! I want to carry it and mark some important lines on it.

The Harvard study is the first of many, as they even say. No other group of people dared to try it.

I like to put small bands as example. I listen to Melodic Death Metal, and in all seriousness, I wouldn't know who Insomnium, Before the Dawn or Dark Tranquility are if it wasn't for free downloads (and the wikipedia). Now I got t-shirts of all of them and I be damned that I was too slow to buy the Wacken festival tickets.

That money, from merchandising and tickets, go straight to their funds, while if they sell CDs, they only receive 3-10% of the money from each CD. I really don't know who is the thief here...

[Novem5er]

Originally Posted by DerekSTheRed

You're not be 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.

Derek

Exactly! But does every player around the table have to purchase their own set of books in order to be "supporting" the creators? Of course not. But where is the line? If I buy all three core books and run a game with 5 players (who haven't bought any books), then is this okay?

What if I run 2 different campaigns with different players and NONE of them have bought the books? Is this okay?

My point is that X number of people who purchase any information will result in X + Y number of people accessing that same information. Every company knows this and it's always been that way. They key is to make sure that X number of people still buy books. Thus, the act of downloading or copying is really mute, as long as X people purchase the product.

Anything else is just a measure of profit. Wouldn't it be MORE profitable if EVERYBODY playing HAD to buy their own books? There are extremes on both ends... Nobody buys books (0 profit and company fails) and EVERYBODY buys books (max profit). The reality is in-between and it always has been.

[warlockwannabe]

Originally Posted by Argyuile

Warlock you talk in a lot of absolutes. If I needed to steal to survive (clearly not the case here but to your point) I would certainly do so and I wouldn't feel bad about it at all. If I "stole" slaves from someone who legally owned them (in order to free them) are you saying that the slave owner has the moral high ground above me, the thief?

Of course! I'm a sith!

As for the needing to survive, youll find there is a common law exception in most parts. But if you need to steal to survive, your ignoring a lot of other avenues of food. As for slaves, slavery is illegal. So its a moot point. You cant legally own a slave in the US.

[Argyuile]

Originally Posted by Mourn

Rebellion because of the suppression of fundamental legal rights and illegally copying and distributing someone else's property are not in the same ballpark. Hell, it's not even the same sport.

One is about the restoration of that which the law guarantees you, while the other is about acquiring a product through illicit means. One is a violation of the law in order to fix a deteriorating social order, while the other is about selfishness, pure and simple.

So lets say for the sake of argument that an industry was colluding to fix prices. Lets say on some staple like bread. At what point am I justified in stealing? Is it at any point before I die of starvation?

I would also have to ask you if I have the books and I make PDF's for my own personal use and never distribute them am I still in the wrong? The RIAA says yes if you pay for a CD you get the CD, not anything else for any reason, broke your CD with no copies to bad buy a new one.

The MPAA says that everyone in a room watching a movie should own a copy of the movie in order to legally be able to watch it. Wanna get the finding Nemo for your kids? Better buy one copy for each kid, one for yourself and one for your wife.

[malraux]

Originally Posted by Mourn

I often see the "Information should be/wants to be free" argument when we're talking about someone else's information and property. I'd like to see proponents of this policy post their personal and financial information in a public fashion. Such disclosure would show more sincerity than hiding behind internet anonymity.

In defense of the "Info should be free" claim, the constitution is clear that it should be free.... eventually. Copyright is supposed to exist only for a limited time to give the creator a chance to make a buck then open it up so that someone else can build upon the idea.

[vagabundo]

Originally Posted by Cirex

The effect of downloads on sales is close to zero.

This. Most people downloading the books probably already have them on pre-order and are very unlikely to cancel it becuase of the download.

From a practical POV, who is going to print a 1000 pages? How much would it cost on a home printer.

Anyway, aside from WOTC probably expecting this, I dont think it will ruin the offical launch.

Back to business as usual, so what about those badge minions...

[warlockwannabe]

Originally Posted by Argyuile

So lets say for the sake of argument that an industry was colluding to fix prices. Lets say on some staple like bread. At what point am I justified in stealing? Is it at any point before I die of starvation?

I would also have to ask you if I have the books and I make PDF's for my own personal use and never distribute them am I still in the wrong? The RIAA says yes if you pay for a CD you get the CD, not anything else for any reason, broke your CD with no copies to bad buy a new one.

The MPAA says that everyone in a room watching a movie should own a copy of the movie in order to legally be able to watch it. Wanna get the finding Nemo for your kids? Better buy one copy for each kid, one for yourself and one for your wife.

I have to say it! *french accent* Let them eat cake!

Ok that being over. You deal with a lot of what ifs and not what ares. Please give something relevant to today.

[RangerWickett]

I, for one, long since stopped caring if people pirated PDFs of products I wrote.

Wolfgang Baur uses a ransom model, where he only actually releases the work he has written once a certain amount of money has been paid. He releases some free content to raise interest, then raises money to make writing worth his while.

WotC is part of Hasbro, and is probably too corporate to change their thought processes enough to make that work. Plus they have a business cycle they have to keep with, so their quarterly profits are high enough. However, they are doing more than just releasing books. They've also got minis, maps, online programs (theoretically) -- all things that you can't just 'pirate.'

I do wish WotC had put PDFs of their books on sale. I know a fair number of people would have actually paid for it. A lot would pirate it, sure, but I figure in any given gaming group, at least one player will buy a physical copy to make playing the game easier.

If they could have sold the books by PDF, and if the Digital Initiative was already up and running, I think WotC could have really profited. As some people have pointed out, a lot of folks online just expect to be able to get stuff for free. You can fight this, but I suspect we've tilted too far, and society is just changing.

So you don't fight it. You find other things to sell people: services (DI) and physical objects (minis and maps).

Even if some people just pirate 4e and play it without buying the books, I imagine a fair number of them will still buy minis and maps. WotC still gets to move product. The game just becomes a big advertising campaign for the real product: the minis and maps. Just like cartoons for the longest time have just been ads for toys.

[Argyuile]

Originally Posted by warlockwannabe

Of course! I'm a sith!

As for the needing to survive, youll find there is a common law exception in most parts. But if you need to steal to survive, your ignoring a lot of other avenues of food. As for slaves, slavery is illegal. So its a moot point. You cant legally own a slave in the US.

So if it was legal it would all be hunky dory in your book?

"When fascism comes to America, it will be draped in the flag and carrying the cross."- Sinclair Lewis