Torrent throwdown on the Wizards board

[The Sword 88]

Originally Posted by Celebrim

pdfs suck as game books. At best, you can preview a book with an illege pdf before ordering it online, but pdfs suck as game books and I can't imagine using one.

The previewing is the primary advantage. I always buy a book I want and only play with stuff out of books that I or one of the guys in my group owns but I do like to look through a book first to see if it has anything I want in it that way I don't end up throwing away money on a book that I will never use.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

It is many people's views, including mine, that the intellectual property laws in America are very unjust. They exist to enslave the creators, inventors, musicians and artists, exploit the consumer and protect the rights of the distributors. The creator doesn't own the property created, the company that distributes the property owns it. The creator has to actually give up their rights to it to the company that has print facilities and a distribution network. Ideas, information and art should belong to everyone, not to the distribution companies.

I do not believe this is a problem with IP law. This is a problem with contracts and corporate capitalism. The only way to see any significant and lucrative distribution of your work is to sell off the bulk of the profit to a corporation with the capacity to produce, distribute, and promote it.
Not all corporations work or have to work like this, but you'll generally find the ones that work more equitably with their talent are a heck of a lot smaller and personal and less profitable.

[Westwind]

Originally Posted by Cirex

Let's ASSUME that the 25% is caused, enterily, by downloading. Isn't it weird that the country with the most (we compare USA with Europe now) restrictive laws is the one suffering more from free downloading?

USA is also facing an economical crisis...and that affects it. But it's easier to blame "internet thieves".
I really need to go. I would love to keep discussing it, since civil discussion is great for idea reviewing and so on.

Creative Commons is the way to go. Future will prove me, and over 150 million people, right.

I'd like to think I'm balanced on this issue--and I'll happily concede that piracy isn't responsible for even half that decline. And obvious, any consumer industry is going to get hurt when disposable income declines, although the record industry's decline predates America's economic woes. I haven't found any study (probably since the control group is so small) but I'd be very interested to see the market-specific impact of piracy. If 5.5% (getting that number from the Edison study) of lost record sales are due to piracy, it's a big hit but one a healthy record industry could absorb and, with creative marketing, adapt to--all that's lacking at the moment is a healthy record industry. However, the book market is a very different animal than the media market in terms of margins, etc. On top of that, the role-playing market is not huge, so it's less able to absorb any sort of hit.

Here's a somewhat extreme example to illustrate the point:

Author A writes a book called "Trains." Nice pictures, good book. It gets pirated. I'm willing to bet that it won't make a huge dent in overall train book sales since there are a ton of books in the marketplace about trains and, within the category of trains, a lot of people have different tastes.

Author B writes a book called "Great Finnish Holiday Food." It gets pirated. Now, before this book was written there was no such thing as great Finnish holiday food (I should know, I'm a Finn--I have a recipe that involves putting a whole fish inside a loaf of bread, no joke) so if you want to know anything about this topic, you're essentially forced to buy the book. As soon as this is pirated, you're going to see a much bigger decline in the genre's sales in relative terms than you would with Author A's book.

The RPG market is not a big one and I'm inclined to believe it would be more vulnerable to revenue loss than, say, historical fiction. On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.

[LowSpine]

I am not going into moral issues. Companies only care about moral issues when they are using them to sue in court. Companies only care about money and sales so that is the theme of my arguments.

Companies get funny about illegal downloads because they think that if those downloads did not exist their sales would increase and they would get more money(it is nothing to do with the moral issues.)

This is true to a tiny extent. There is a very small minority of people so tight fisted that they will now not buy a legal copy purely because they have a free pdf.

These are the kind of people who would write out the rules on the back of used envelopes and wrapping paper rather than spend a penny if they did not have to. These people are very very few.

Most of the people who have a pdf and are not going to buy the books were not going to buy the books anyway - pdf or not. They only have the game because it is free and if it wasn't they would just shrug and do something else. (These people are not reducing sales but are creating more players or DMs potentially improving sales)

Some with the pdf will not buy the books because they have decided they do not like the game. This is only the same as checking out a friend's book or a book in the shop and putting it back. These people will probably just delete the pdf anyway. (Not reducing sales much - a little because someone has not wasted their money on something they were going to put in the bin or give to someone else.)

Some people with the pdf that will not buy the books wont purely because they cannot afford to. Maybe in the future they will. Either way - no money - no buyey. (No sales loss.)

Some people will look at the pdfs and think 'Oh nice - I didn't know I would think this was so cool. I'll have to buy these.' (Sales increase.)

3.5 had loads of pdfs and sold very very well. If the companies made out any different it was because they wanted even more, unless they were some of those splat books that were only good enough for toilet paper - in which case boo hoo.

My point is IMHO the sales will not be affected much. The core 3 definitely not. Everyone who really cares about D&D really wants those books and stuff an eye bleeding pdf that would cost 10 times normal cost to print out a really crap pile of wrinkly, smudged, one sided A4s.

Later books will depend on the quality - but that is their problem. Put the work in to something worth owning and they will buy them.

*I'd just like to say I have pdfs of the Wizard's Presents books. I also bought the Wizard's presents books for the sake of physical and digital collecting purposes. These are the most pointless books ever but I got a little out of them and had enough money to not mind paying for them. The same will happen with the new books when amazon pulls their finger out.

[billd91]

Originally Posted by JohnSnow

This is horribly off-topic, but a fair number of legal problems were created by the Courts ruling that Corporations counted as "individuals" (including all the rights thereof) for legal purposes.

Corporations, which have no natural expiration date (unlike, say people), aren't subject to many of the "controls" that govern individual property, like inheritance tax and the like. However, they benefit from all the rights. This creates a skewed situation in many areas, not just intellectual property law.

Whether (or when) this will be altered, I have no idea.

You're preachin' to the choir, man. I'm definitely with you on that score.

Hence, anyone who really feels the need to engage in real civil disobedience against an unjust law should abuse the heck out of Mickey Mouse since the Sonny Bono Act IS is unjust! Viva la revoluccion!

[Transit]

Originally Posted by Westwind

On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.

I think this is a very good point. You can't really compare the pirating of "normal" books by people who just want to read them, with RPG rule books where the ability to cut and paste the text into other documents and spreadsheets is actually a big incentive to download the pirated file.

[Novem5er]

Originally Posted by Rykion

The number of people who would pay to create and distribute information for free is pretty small. The quality of the vast majority of the work would be amateur when compared to the quality of work people actually pay for. Go to any free art website and you'll see dozens of poor artists for each good artist.

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that people should create things for free. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to require everyone who accesses that creation to pay for it.

I think it's fair to make people pay to use art/material/information if they intend to make direct profit from it.

But when was the last time you paid to see a Norman Rockwell painting? Not an actual painting, but a copy thereof. I bet you could do an internet search for Norman Rockwell, find images of his paintings, right-click and Save Image As, and then have access to that image for free for the rest of your life.

Thief? Criminal?

Artists have to get paid or there will be little art going around. But everyone who experiences that art does not have to pay for that experience.

[The Little Raven]

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?

Ridiculously strawman situation, and completely irrelevant. We're discussing an entertainment product being illegally distributed and acquired, not a necessity being unattainable due to collusion.

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.

In the wrong, as far as ethically speaking, no. In the wrong, as far as legally speaking, I have no idea. IANAL. The RIAA could very well be right. It's for a court to decide (and appeal), not me.

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.

WotC is not asking everyone playing the game to own a copy, merely that every copy acquired is by legal means.

Your entire post seems to be full of overly contrived strawmen that have no application in the current situation.

[JohnSnow]

Originally Posted by Novem5er

JohnSnow, I accept your opinion and I always value your posts. No hard feelings, on my part, for any of this.

That said, I think you're arguing against yourself now. You say it's okay to copy a couple pages or to let a few people benefit without having paid for it . . . because it's not hurting anyone? But you're saying that 9,000 downloads is NOT okay because . . . it surely IS hurting someone? You put that burden of proof on me, but isn't it the prosecution's job to provide evidence of guilt?

The distinction I'm drawing has nothing to do with "someone being hurt." It has everything to do with the doctrine of "fair use." What constitutes "fair use" is well-established in the United States (and the U.S. has a pretty liberal viewpoint on the subject, I might add).

It's okay to copy a couple pages for your own use because, well, it's your book. It's okay to share it with a few other people (especially if they're members of your gaming group), as long as you don't make any money, because, again, you've paid for the book and have the right to "use it." All these things constitute YOU using the book - "fair use" as it were. (Moderately off-topic, this is why the RIAA's arguments are total crap. Making a digital copy of your CD is fair use. Making 10 digital copies of your CD is probably still "fair use." Somewhere between there and 100, we definitely leave the bounds of "fair use.")

By the time you're distributing copies over the internet free to people you don't even no, you're no longer talking about "fair use" of the book (or whatever). Because at this point, you're not using it, but rather "distributing it." And, beyond passing on the physical copy (and, by the way, not keeping a digital one), you just don't have any right to do that. The rights to the content go along with the physical book. The only grey area here is if by accident or theft, you lose your physical copy, but I digress.

Clearly, this totally ignores things like "what a person can memorize." Obviously, if you can memorize a book, you can "use it" as long as you want. This is because (at least now) no control can be maintained over what people think. "Thought police" (so far, at least) remains just a joke.

Originally Posted by Novem5er

No, if you read my other posts, I'm not claiming that we just spread free RPG books around the net, nor any other form of knowledge. What I'm saying is that any source of knowledge HAS to be financially supported, but by far fewer people than the number that actually benefit from that knowledge.

I know you aren't claiming that. However, I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with any theory about "harm" and everything with the distinction between what constitutes "fair use" and what qualifies as "distribution."

[The Little Raven]

Originally Posted by malraux

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.

And I totally agree with that. Copyright law in the US is rather ridiculous in some areas. Just like plenty of other laws.

[Argyuile]

Originally Posted by Lizard

How do you propose we decide which poor sucker gets stuck with the bill?

History shows that when everyone gets the benefit but only some do the work, eventually, the hard workers catch on that they're being scammed, and stop working so hard. This is why communism, whether on the large scale of the USSR or the small scale of hippie communes, collapses. This is why kibbutzes have gone toward market systems.

So a system based on some people paying while the majority doesn't will sputter along for a while, based on inertia, but one by one, the payers decide that they're tired of supporting the non-payers and drop out, or, more often, decide "I've paid enough -- someone else's turn!" and become non-payers. Then the pressure on the remaining payers increase, so they're more likely to drop out, and the cycle collapses.

We are in the VERY early part of the cycle -- there's still dupes out there who feel like they're being noble and heroic when they support an artist, even though others just take the work for free. They feel, "Hey, I'll pay for this book now, and someone else will pay for the next book, the writer makes enough to live off, and everyone's happy!" But with each iteration, more leech and fewer pay. The writer has less time to write because he needs to earn money from other projects. The people who supported him feel disgruntled because they were buying, in part, his future productivity. So with less promise of more material to come, they are less likely to pay for what IS produced, and, also, when there's a lot of existing material, people newly aware of the artists are more likely to consume what's already out there for "free" instead of paying for the new material when it's released.

Look at early factory productivity in the USSR, or the way kibbutzes worked in the first generation of Israel's existence, or the way most communes and utopian communities in America started (and this goes back to the 19th century, the hippies were followers and copycats). Then look at how they worked a decade, two decades, a generation later. Same pattern, over and over. We're in a real "up" part of the "free" content cycle. The crash is coming.

It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.

IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back. Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society. The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation. Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation. Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.

[Westwind]

Originally Posted by billd91

Do the DVD sales figures include HD and Blu-ray sales? If they don't, the growth of those two formats (and now just growth of Blu-ray) could account for the change. What evidence was presented that digital piracy was the cause of the decline?

These numbers are a little tougher to come by since all Sony wants you to know is BluRay sales are up a gajillion%. Well, no kidding. Three years ago, sales were 0. Two years ago, sales were however many copies of Pirates of the Caribbean you sold. BluRay (and if you haven't made a choice yet, choose BluRay people--HD is the next Betamax) is really taking off now, so it's hard to parse what BluRay sales you're getting in place of DVD sales. When it comes to DVD sales, it's not so much the -2% growth that's alarming, it's the fact that in 2004 DVD sales grew +29% and now you're suddenly at -2%. Not coincidently, retailers like Borders and Barnes&Noble made major investments in DVD and CD sales around this time (in terms of how many square feet in a store they devoted to those products, also in terms of opening much bigger stores to accommodate a high volume of DVD/CD sales) and take a look at how their stock's been doing lately.

[LowSpine]

I do not have a problem with the pdfs but I do fully believe that wotc deserve to be paid well for hard work. I do not believe in free information. That is just teenage hippy talk for 'I want it! - stamps foot.

[DerekSTheRed]

Originally Posted by Westwind

The RPG market is not a big one and I'm inclined to believe it would be more vulnerable to revenue loss than, say, historical fiction. On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.

I read somewhere the SciFi shows on US network tv don't do well because sponsors don't get a lot of bang for the buck and consequently, networks don't want to run them or cancel them early. SciFi fans are more likely to download the episodes illegally, skip/mute the ads, or just plain ignore commercials. Contrast that to Nascar racing fans who will religiously buy products their favorite driver sponsors. This means Nascar is more valuable to tv advertisers and networks per capita then SciFi fans. If you feel like there is too many "stupid" shows and not enough "smart" shows on tv, it's probably because smart people aren't the target audience anymore because of this.

Cause and effect, if people buy books and make the publisher and creator profit then they are more likely to make and publish more of them. If you want to see more rpg products, do not use illegal copies. If want to see more high quality rpg products, only buy high quality rpg products. They aren't going to publish books, if they don't think they are going to sell.

I understand the whole, argument that you live too far away, or that you buy one book for your group, or you're just browsing and what not. I think it's safe to say WotC would look the other way if the illegal to legal ratio of use was 5:1 or maybe even 10:1. It's when it's 1000:1 or more that they HAVE to do something or else risk not making a profit. It's a cost benefit decision making process.

Derek

[Novem5er]

Originally Posted by Thasmodious

It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create. You can create whatever you want. But if you want to actually make a living or have your work seen or heard (you know, in the sense that art elevates all of humanity), you have to sell your soul to some company who then owns the work you produce

Another fine point! Forgive me if I'm wrong about the specifics of this next statement, but I think it generally applies:

Mike Mearls (et all designers) already got paid to "create" the information. The artists already got paid to create the artwork in the corebooks. The visual design team and copywriters got paid to put the books together. The printing press already got their money. WotC already paid for all this... and it is WotC mission to make that money back by distributing that work, plus X% to make a profit.

What % of D&D players are required to purchase the books to make their money back? What % of players need to purchase books for them to make their expected profit?

Look the IDEAL model for WotC is that 100% of players buy the books. Their worst-nightmare is that 0% of players buy the books. As fans of the books, we don't want that to happen either, or else they wont pay Mike Mearls (et all) to create NEW books.

We already don't expect 100% of players to buy books... but what is our expectation? 50%? 70%? As long as WotC is making their investment back, plus x% for their trouble, then the difference between 60% or 70% player/purchase is a question of corporate profit, not morality.

[DerekSTheRed]

Originally Posted by Argyuile

It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.

IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back. Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society. The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation. Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation. Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.

Before copyright laws, creative people had to find a patron to do creative work. There might have been 1000s of musicians more talented then Mozart who didn't get a chance to show it because of a lack of a patron. Allowing creative people to make a career out of being creative promotes innovation. Having no IP laws didn't stop innovation, it just made it harder.

Derek

[Novem5er]

Originally Posted by JohnSnow

Clearly, this totally ignores things like "what a person can memorize." Obviously, if you can memorize a book, you can "use it" as long as you want. This is because (at least now) no control can be maintained over what people think. "Thought police" (so far, at least) remains just a joke.

(snip)

. . . I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with any theory about "harm" and everything with the distinction between what constitutes "fair use" and what qualifies as "distribution."

You actually make an excellent point. Fair use is a pretty good measuring stick for this situation. But then, why wouldn't it be okay to download a PDF copy of a physical book that you own? Many people here are saying it's immoral to download anything, whether you own the book or not! They seem to imply that the act of having an unauthorized copy is immoral.

I will agree... Mass distribution is wrong. I don't do it. But you also mentioned the "thought police" That's my largest concern. Saying that it's immoral to have information that you didn't pay for is ridiculous... now distributing information beyond fair with the intention that NOBODY has to pay for it? Yeah. I'd draw the line somewhere around there.

[Family]

Originally Posted by Novem5er

We already don't expect 100% of players to buy books... but what is our expectation? 50%? 70%? As long as WotC is making their investment back, plus x% for their trouble, then the difference between 60% or 70% player/purchase is a question of corporate profit, not morality.

That is a fine point for my shampoo brand, but when it comes to my hobby it is moot.


---
Mal: "I would appreciate it if one person on this boat would not assume I'm an evil, lecherous hump."
Zoe: "No one's saying that, sir."
Wash: "Yeah, we're pretty much just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly."

[Rykion]

Originally Posted by Novem5er

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that people should create things for free. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to require everyone who accesses that creation to pay for it.

Certainly, that's what museums and libraries are for. It is also why most stores let you demo games, music, books, etc.

Originally Posted by Novem5er

I think it's fair to make people pay to use art/material/information if they intend to make direct profit from it.

I agree. Learning and enjoyment are also forms of profit.

Originally Posted by Novem5er

But when was the last time you paid to see a Norman Rockwell painting? Not an actual painting, but a copy thereof. I bet you could do an internet search for Norman Rockwell, find images of his paintings, right-click and Save Image As, and then have access to that image for free for the rest of your life.

Thief? Criminal?

Both my mother and grandmother have Norman Rockwell prints. They were paid for. The paintings are likely in the public domain now.

Originally Posted by Novem5er

Artists have to get paid or there will be little art going around. But everyone who experiences that art does not have to pay for that experience.

They do have to pay except at free libraries, free museums, or for art that is the public domain or that is distributed freely by the person or entity that holds the rights.

[JohnSnow]

Originally Posted by malraux

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.

This goes back to the "Corporation" problem. The laws were written before corporate ownership of things was widespread. Inventors, authors and artists were supposed to own their works for a time, and (IIRC) have the right to pass those on to their heirs.

With Patent Law, it's clear - there's an expiration date. Copyrights have become another issue because the framers of the copyright laws never imagined immortal entities (like Corporations) being able to "own" original creations. People die, and then maybe their immediate heirs gain the right over their creations. But after a time, their works become public domain. As it should be. (Can you imagine if Shakespeare's works weren't "public domain?" Or Twain's? The mind boggles...)

Corporations have muddied the waters because they just don't die. The easy, and obvious, solution would be to put a reasonable time-limit (50 years?) on how long exclusive rights can be maintained, exactly as is the case with Patent Law. But given how many large media outlets that would adversely affect, and how deep their pockets are, good luck getting that law to pass.