File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[tetsujin28]

I can't see how file sharing would take any bigger a bite out of profits than when cheap photocopiers were invented. Folks these days take them for granted, but I remember when they were The Thing That Will Destroy Civilization As We Know It. The only exception would be the indie guys, but I hazard to make a guess that it's the products of the Big Guys (tm) that are being illegally copied.

 

[Rel]

This has indeed been an interesting thread and I regret even more that I won't be able to make it to Gen Con this year because I'd be very interested in attending the seminar that was mentioned earlier.

I wish only to make one more point that I haven't really seen fully addressed and I think it is fairly relevant to the discussion. A number of the people in this thread have defended the idea that, while it is generally considered "wrong" to download a product without paying for it, that there is no economic loss to the seller in the event that the person in question wouldn't have paid the listed price for the product in the first place. I would contend that the fact that illegal filesharing is so rampant in the first place has already harmed the seller before he sells his first product.

The seller must consider right up front that his product is going to be up against some very stiff competition, namely, the same product, for free. In a completely rational market, nobody would ever buy his product because they can get an identical product for free. The only thing muddying the waters here is the ethics involved. By asking for any money at all, the seller is placing his faith in the segment of the market (a segment that I believe to be dwindling) that is both honorable enough and retains enough foresight to see the wisdom of paying for the product in question.

I would suspect that many a seller has said to himself, "Self, my product is probably worth $10. But if I ask for $10, more people are going to steal it than if I ask for $5. Maybe if I ask for $5, folks won't sell out their morality for quite that cheap."

The Sigil touched on this "price point" concept earlier, but I don't think that too many people latched onto the idea that the seller may be accepting a loss compared to what he could have gotten in a market without theft. I therefore posit that these vendors are being significantly financially harmed, albeit indirectly, by those who say "I wouldn't have bought it at the listed price anyway so no harm done."

I will however concede that the proverbial genie is out of the bottle and that this trend (illegal filesharing) is not going anywhere. This may well signal the death of the way that copyright law has been dealt with in the past and require a new way for various products to be distributed in the future. But I will not concede that these people are doing no harm to this industry because I cannot bring myself to relinquish the thin ethical barrier to the complete collapse of the "PDF for sale" gaming market.

 

[resistor]

Okay. Store surveillance tape shows a guy walking in, stashing a radio under his jacket, and walking out. He comes back in and does the exact same thing four more times. Nobody notices at first, but he gets caught on the fifth try. Security discovers the first four instances while reviewing security footage while waiting for the cops. Cops arrive, search the guy's car, but can't find the other four radios. How many counts of shoplifting does he get charged with when the cops drag him off to the station? 5 counts, because their is circumstantial video evidence, even if they could only find one of the five radios. Proof of the download now usually works the same way as that surveillance video, thanks to a lot of recent kiddie porn cases, where "someone else must have downloaded it on my computer" didn't work as an excuse.

Bullcrap.

The case of someone downloading a PDF and having their IP discovered is much more akin to this:

A lot of gas stations have outside security cameras aligned to film the bumpers of cars that go through. Let's suppose that someone drives through, fills up, and drives off without paying. Because the camera was fixed on the bumper of the car, there is no record of the person himself (this is true of internet access: we see the equipment used to perform the crime, not the person behind it). Now, we can get some information from this film; certainly we at least know the color and make of the car. This is similar to knowing the IP address of the the perpetrator.

Knowing the make and color is information, but it is not enough to pin it to a specific person. Even in the case of someone with a non-changing IP, it is at best tedious tracking that IP back to a person: lots of red-tape and paperwork getting the ISP to release their record. In the worst case, that of a constantly changing IP, it is well-nigh impossible. Just as with the gas video that only shows the make and color, it is conceivable that we might find the person, but not likely and certainly not easy.

Now, we HOPE that the gas video also caught the license number of the car. This would be of great help to us, but it is still not conclusive evidence: while we can discover exactly which car it was, we cannot say for certain who was driving it. This similar to a case where the offender happens to have a non-changing IP and the ISP has been cooperative in revealing it. Again, it is extremely difficult to prove who was operating the computer at that instant, however.

There might be three people who drive a given car on a daily basis, any of whom could have been the gas thief. Equally, there could be three (or oftentimes more) people who use a given computer on a daily basis. Without additional evidence (like another camera that caught the actual person on tape), the prosecutor is at best looking at a tough legal battle and at worst looking at the impossible.

Having an IP record is circumstantial evidence. If the offender happens to have non-changing address (which you won't know until you've gotten through the ISP's red-tape, which isn't a picnic in and of itself), then you have strong circumstantial evidence. But it remains just that: circumstantial evidence, and one cannot be convicted on such. Hard evidence, such as a copy of the file on the offender's computer, is required for a conviction, or forensic evidence that the file was at one time on their computer.

To further illustrate the absurdity of your example, consider this:

A man steals four radios from a store, as you described before. A security officer notices it later, and reviews all the tapes. He notices that the thief is male, always wears blue jeans and a red hat, and has a beard.

Does this mean that the next bearded man wearing blue jeans and a red hat that enters the store can be charged with four counts of shoplifting? NO. A security video, just like an IP, is not a conclusive identification.

You have evidence that an unknown person with a given description (Used a Computer that had IP 43.21.354.12 at 12:35:02PM or Male/Beard/Blue Jeans/Red Hat). This does not, however, give grounds to convict some random person who happens to fit that description.

 

[Aezoc]

As much as I hate "me too" posts, I have to say that resistor summed up my feelings on that point perfectly.

 

[James Heard]

>Either these books are the real ones and you personally are giving them away, or >these books are the free demos which anyone should be able to download without >concern. Which is it?

And no amount of justification allows for planting viruses on people's computers. Spreading viruses for any reason is a felony, while copyright infringement is usually a civil crime unless you can prove felony losses I think. None of which matters, I know someone I won't be buying a product they have any hand whatsoever in now. People who take the law into their own hands don't have an ethical leg to stand on, and don't deserve my business.

 

[scott-fs]

Filesharing ? Illegal ? Not in Canada

"Sharing copyrighted works on peer-to-peer networks is legal in Canada, a federal judge ruled on Wednesday, handing the record industry a sharp setback in its international fight against file swappers."

Cnet News.com

I felt that this might be interesting to add to the discussion. I had only heard this second hand not long ago, and didn't think to search for a link for this particular discussion. At the current time, it is currently legal to download and have files shared in a p2p program. Downloading in Canada has always been legal (ie downloading is NOT copyright Infringement).

Copyright Infringement (as far as Canada is concerned) is the act of distributing something which you do not own the copyright. That's right, distribute. Giving something to someone else, but not taking something someone is offering.

For those who read the article in the link provided above and at the end of this message, it also explains that simply having a file located in a directory that happens to be shared does not constitute distribution unless you take a positive action such as sending copies out or advertising that they are available to be copied.

In that recent case, the Supreme Court ruled that libraries were not "authorizing" copyright infringement simply by putting photocopy machines near books. The libraries were justified in assuming that their customers were using the copiers in a legal manner, the high court ruled.

Finckenstein said the same rationale should apply to peer-to-peer users.

"The mere fact of placing a copy on a shared directory in a computer where that copy can be accessed via a P2P service does not amount to distribution," Finckenstein wrote. "Before it constitutes distribution, there must be a positive act by the owner of the shared directory, such as sending out the copies or advertising that they are available for copying."

Needless to say, we pay a price for our ability to share files. The government imposes fees on recordable media and mp3 players, which they then take and distribute to copyright holders.

The only thing that doesn't make sense is that only recording artists/labels see this revenue. Movie Studios and, Software and Video Game companies, do not see any of this, and it has been my experience that music is not the only thing that gets put on such media. Games are the obvious one. Most games require a cd to run (unless you crack it), and in general, we make copies of our games so that we don't wear out the originals.

The regulators cited a long-standing rule in Canada, in which most copying for personal use was allowed. To repay artists and record labels for revenue lost by this activity, the government imposes a fee on blank tapes, CDs and even hard disk-based MP3 players such as Apple Computer's iPod, and distributes that revenue to copyright holders.

Cnet News.com


Does this mean that I will go out and start downloading as much music as I can find ? No. Does this mean that I will search for gaming products to get "for free" ? No. What it does mean is that I know legally that I am fine to download something to preview it. If it is good enough, I will support the artist or company. It is very difficult to find cds for European bands here where I live (unless they are incredibly popular), and I much prefer to support B&M stores, rather than go online. More for the fact that when I pay for it, I'll have it in my hand right then, rather than having to wait a few days.

As this will apply to the RPG market: I don't plan to be purchasing much more d20, as I'm pretty much done with it. Most of my future purchases will be creating a Harn collection. As a result, I'm not likely to be a customer for any publisher on these boards (presuming most are d20/OGL publishers), therefore any pdfs I may download in the future will not constitute a lost sale. On the other hand, products that I would be interested in are historical supplements that are very well researched. If I came across a book called for example: "Real World Religions" which accurately detailed many of earth's religions since the beginning of time, it would be an invaluable resource as I'm trying to introduce in my campaign setting the feel of religions from history.

 

[Sledge]

Something just occurred to me... to be fair it is 2AM so I'm not sure how coherent this will be.
The problem with "Piracy" is one of ethics. Not of whether piracy is right or wrong, but instead the understanding of electronic information which can be copied without changing the original. We are still thinking in terms of the physical world. However the copying issue has no physical implications. We have games companies and record companies and book companies trying to tell us what we can do with their hardware. There was even a debate at one point whether playing a game and creating your own resources for it would result in the game creator owning all you do. A copyright holder may still insist that when you buy a CD you had better not change it in any way shape or form. Movie companies try and force you to watch movies in a certain way. Until this digital manipulation was a possibility no one cared if you did it to a physical version. If I want to take my old vhs tapes and recut them no one will stop me. They may laugh, but it's my tape. Now all of a sudden I don't own that movie anymore. The companies tell me I just have a license to their movie. Games companies release games that are specifically intended to defeat backups. I can no longer do anything with my purchases except what the producer intended. In effect I am now expected to just rent them. So we have two different ethics, one I can own this, and two I can only rent it. If I buy a machine and want to modify it I can. I can even take it apart and put it together separately. If I buy the parts I can even copy it. My electronic "property" however has no parts to buy. All it takes is my time. We have a mishmash of confusion that is massively blurring ethics. A publisher looks at it one way having put plenty of good effort into a product, but the so-called pirate sees it as no different than borrowing a friend's books without the inconvenience of having to worry about returning it. The publisher sees a lot of people that are reading the book but not buying it and gets upset at the lost sales. The borrower sees himself as no different than someone that uses a library or even checks out books at a bookstore a few minutes a day. Certainly it is more convenient but since when does convenience have anything to do with right or wrong?
All of this comes out of the problems capitalism is discovering when products are no longer tangible. Before we had the authors selling books in order to generate finances to support the author. Now we are trying to sell the content of those pages.
In the end it will eventually come down to this. Everyone will have to face the knowledge of their consequences eventually. In the end it won't be about the purchase, but instead about supporting those that brighten and enhance our lives. As the author of VoFT put on their website people that have donated can consider themselves to have paid for the product. The ethical thing when all the capitalism is dropped is to feed the authors and the artists. Sustain them so they can continue to create wonders for our minds.

 

[WizarDru]

You call that an extreme example? It really isn't. At one point, people were paying up to $25 for The Wisdom of Lobo a "comic book" published by DC. IIRC, it was perfectbound, full color cover, 32 blank pages inside, retailing at somewhere around $3.00 when it initially reached the stores.

"The Wit and Wisdom of Lobo" was never sold by itself...it was part of a slipcase pack containing two graphic novels and the comic. It was a joke as part of a package, and never intended to be sold separately. Judging by ebay right now, no one is buying Lobo, period. I doubt anyone ever paid $25 for it...perhaps the whole set.

On the other hand, one can buy an air guitar on ebay, so who knows?

 

[Thanatos]

Okay. Store surveillance tape shows a guy walking in, stashing a radio under his jacket, and walking out. He comes back in and does the exact same thing four more times. Nobody notices at first, but he gets caught on the fifth try. Security discovers the first four instances while reviewing security footage while waiting for the cops. Cops arrive, search the guy's car, but can't find the other four radios. How many counts of shoplifting does he get charged with when the cops drag him off to the station? 5 counts, because their is circumstantial video evidence, even if they could only find one of the five radios. Proof of the download now usually works the same way as that surveillance video, thanks to a lot of recent kiddie porn cases, where "someone else must have downloaded it on my computer" didn't work as an excuse.

You are confusing theft of physical items with copyright infringement of intellectual property and these are two different things under the law. Since you are comparing apples to oranges, there isn't any point in addressing your scenerio.

"proof" of the download does not work the same way as surveillance video. How about all those people who have gotten off of kiddie porn charges because other people have had access to their computer or their computer was found to have had virii and trojans on it? Funny...it DID work for them, contrary to what you are saying. It's already proven to be a working defense in caselaw. Has it worked in every case? no, but then, what kind of prosecution or defense has worked 100% of the time? *shrugs*

 

[jasper]

I Sue Freely, “Mr. Jasper you claim that IP is not real and costs nothing but time. And you would have not bought Wonderful Wizard from WOTC anyway.”

Jasper, “Correct”

I Sue Freely, “How much did your computer cost?

Jasper, “About 1250 dollars with all the add ons including the printer and games I bought that day.”

I Sue Freely - So I can safely say your computer cost 1000 dollars.

Jasper - yes but...

I Sue Freely- but 1000 dollars is close. How much do pay for internet access? Give me a round number.

Jasper- $30.

I Sue Freely- how many gigs does you hard drive have?

Jasper -Two

I Sue Freely- and Wonderful Wizard is a 5 meg PDF?

Jasper - Correct.

I Sue Freely- so the product which cost you nothing, is taking up no real space at all. Is taking up about two dollars and fifty cents worth of your hard drive space?

Jasper- Huh?

I Sue Freely - 5 megs of space taken up by Wonderful Wizard is taking up .0025 percent of your hard drive. Which multiplied by $1000 the cost of your computer is $2.50. So you must admit Wonderful Wizard is worth at least $2.50 since you are saving it on your hard drive. And you have mentioned it cost $30 a month for unlimited access. This comes to 43,200 minutes during a 30 day month. So if took you 5 minutes to download Wonderful Wizard and you could stay on your computer every day, every hour, and every minute of a month, it would cost you to pay your internet access company about .00001157 cents. However according to your internet records your average is 30 hours per month. Which means it cost you about 27 percent of a penny to pay the internet company for the privilege of ripping off WOTC of their product Wonderful Wizard. So you are willing to pay your computer company money to have a FULL and TOTALLY EXACT version of Wonderful Wizard. And you are willing to pay your internet company to have a FULL and TOTALLY EXACT version of Wonderful Wizard. But you not willing to pay WOTC their rightful due for creating the product.