Crothian
First Post
But it can effect how much money they earn. Now if that its true or can be proven is not as important as that is what the people holding the copyrights seem to believe.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case
- Thread starter JohnRTroy
- Start date
But it can effect how much money they earn. Now if that its true or can be proven is not as important as that is what the people holding the copyrights seem to believe.
Yes and no.
People can believe a lot of things, but those things can be very foolish and damaging to their own company. So yes, it's important what the people holding the copyright believes, but it's also important what the reality of the situation is.
EA held the copyright to Spore and believed it was worthwhile to try to protect it with very unpopular DRM. It, uh, didn't work out for them.
Make up your mind. First you seemed to suggest that they'd rather not get a sale if the sale was the result of piracy, now you say they do want me to buy their books? Do they want my business or not?
I also want to point out that I bolded the word "believed", because that's part of what I'm getting at. The amount that it's costing them is based on assumptions that are false. I've said this at least 3 times already, but I don't know how much it actually is costing, neither do you, and neither do they. It's a guess, and a guess made on faulty assumptions.
Actually what I said was that people were getting annoyed because of "principle", rather than there being actual damage. If your counterargument is "it's about breaking the law", then that really proves my point, that it violates your notion of what is right or wrong (which is commonly referred to as "principle").
Supporting piracy? When did I support piracy again? At the very most, I may have implied that piracy is being overly demonized; that while it may (and I think does) have negative impact, that this impact is often exaggerated and is often backed up by very suspect arguments.
However, you seem quite certain that there is a negative impact on behavior from something such as possessing a digital copy of a book a book that you have purchased and own, for your own personal use, and not sharing with anybody else. I want you to explain to me what the negative impact is.
Well, the question in this particular instance is really who gets to decide what's best promoting the progress of the useful arts, which in this case, means best facilitating the creation and distribution of books.
There are really only two positions on this that make sense.
1. Its best to use the present copyright system, and to punish illegal file sharing, because the progress of the useful arts is best promoted by making the useful arts profitable so that people will engage in them more often. Publishers have a profit motive to encourage them to best understand how and when they profit, and to make decisions about licensing, open products, and copyright enforcement.
2. The progress of the useful arts requires not only that the useful arts be created, but also that they be distributed as widely as possible. Copyright helps incentivize creation, but it doesn't incentivize distribution. A degree of violation of copyright (probably an expanded conception of fair use, possibly a general tolerance of low level piracy) should be accepted in order to better spread the useful arts once they've been created. This view is generally held by people who also believe that free rider effects (ie, a decrease in profitability) will not be so strong as to overwhelm the distribution effects granted by a more lax copyright system.
Option 3, the one I see around here every so often, is probably dumb. Option 3 goes like this:
3. Its best for the progress of the useful arts if game creators get paid, but they're idiots who don't know how to make money. For a variety of reasons yhey can make more money if they let me and/or people like me download their materials without consequence. They just don't realize the many benefits of releasing open copies of their work.
This point of view usually relies on the idea that professional publishers are too blinded by tradition and a lack of understanding of the internet economy to recognize truths about modern marketing. It also relies on an unstated assumption that consumers who engage in piracy are best able to evaluate the benefits of open products to the companies from which they pirate.
Point of view number 3 is pretty much ridiculous- it tries to have its cake and eat it too by arguing that profitability is somehow aided by following the opinions of those who have the most incentive to ignore profitability in favor of embracing free riding. This is unlikely.
I'm going to take a stab at this. Not opining on the actions of any person(s), just attempting to advance the discussion with ideas for all to consider.
I've noticed over the past few years a trend in thinking where users/consumers make a distinction between the tangible and intangible. Because you can physically interact with an actual book, you consider it "real" (by you I mean a person, not anyone specific on this board). If you can not physically interact with it, you do not consider it "real". We seem to have developed this literal distinction between the "reality" of the same "thing" in the really real world, and the "digital" world. I think this has led us to a belief that if it's not a tangible object, it can't be "stolen" (or infringed if you prefer).
It's a human way of thinking. "It's not a real object, so I didn't steal/infringe anything".
So the real question for debate should be; Is it the object, or the idea?
Really we're talking about two different kinds of objects when we discuss copyright infringement and piracy. You have real-world objects like pencils, and alarm clocks, and potatoes. The pencil _is_ the pencil, there's nothing more to it. It's purpose is served when it is used to make marks on something like paper.
A book, by comparison, is perhaps better described as comprising two separate things; 1. the physical object, and 2. the ideas contained within the object which are relayed to the reader by use of language and symbols. You can have a physical book with blank pages (or with pages covered in symbols that do not actually convey meaning - like Lorem Ipsum), and it is still a book. A book like this, if taken by one person from another person without permission could be described as "stolen". The physical thing was taken.
A book with symbols that actually conveys meaning contains a _second_ thing, that is, the idea that is being conveyed. In a more topical example, let's say we have a physical book (object), that includes the Rules for D&D (idea to be conveyed). When you buy the book, you are buying two things, the physical book (object) _and_ access to the rules (idea). For players of D&D, a physical book full of blank pages has no value if the intention in buying it was to have access to the rules so the game could be played. The value is in having access to the idea conveyed by the book.
So, what exactly is the "product"? Is it the physical book, or the idea conveyed by the symbols on the pages _in_ the book? I would argue that (unless you wanted a blank journal to write in), the product you are actually intending to buy is the _idea_ in the book. The physical book is just the delivery system for the idea.
Now we have computers that are networked together, and the delivery system for the idea has changed.
If I remember my Hobbes' "Leviathan" correctly, the idea he promoted was that if you put your labour in to something, the result was owned by you to do with as you pleased. So if you had an orchard of apple trees that belonged to you and no one else (you discovered them first, and no one had claim to the land, trees, or apples) or you planted them on land you owned, then by putting your labour into them by growing them and picking them, you had converted your labour into something of potential value.
So you can trade those apples to someone else for a goat, let's say. Or, if you don't need a goat right now, you can trade those apples for money. The money is a representation of your labour. You have turned your labour (planting and picking the apples) into something (money) you can use later to trade for something you need/want.
Your labour > your valuable commodity.
A man creates an idea. Rules to a game. He put his labour in to it, and the result was an idea that _he_ created. He decides it might have value to others. He needs a way to deliver that valuable idea to others, so he uses symbols to record the idea on pages in a physical book. Now we have the internet, and the idea can be disseminated without the need for a physical book, but the idea was still his. He put his labour into it, so it is his to sell, or not.
Are you paying for just the physical book, or are you paying for the idea represented on the pages? (Yes, of course there is value in having a physical object to rely on, carry with, protect from losing data, but as we said if you buy the book to have the rules to play the game, then the same physical book with no words in it would lose its value, so the real value is in the idea conveyed by the text).
Do you buy the book, or the idea? The CD, or the music? The DVD, or the movie? The movie theatre is the delivery system for the story displayed visually (idea). If you sneak into the theatre to watch the movie without paying, have you "stolen" something?
So if the product is the idea, and not the physical book, then if you take the idea to use without paying the creator of the idea for it (so that he can turn his labour into something else), is that theft? (and yes, I am using theft instead of copyright infringement).
I suppose that leads to two different considerations: Moral vs Legal.
The moral one is the tricky one, since morality is subjective.
The legal one is not so tricky. We, the people, have chosen to live in a society where we elect a government to represent us. Then we give them the power to enact laws on our behalf. Those laws are.. well, laws... you obey them, or break them. Not liking a law because it makes something inconvenient for you is not an excuse to break it, or a means of mitigating your actions. If you don't like the law, work to change the law _legitimately_. Whether or not the law was actually broken will be determined by a court or peers, but if the law says you can't do "x", and you did "x", then you have broken the law.
I've noticed over the past few years a trend in thinking where users/consumers make a distinction between the tangible and intangible. Because you can physically interact with an actual book, you consider it "real" (by you I mean a person, not anyone specific on this board). If you can not physically interact with it, you do not consider it "real". We seem to have developed this literal distinction between the "reality" of the same "thing" in the really real world, and the "digital" world. I think this has led us to a belief that if it's not a tangible object, it can't be "stolen" (or infringed if you prefer).
It's a human way of thinking. "It's not a real object, so I didn't steal/infringe anything".
So the real question for debate should be; Is it the object, or the idea?
Really we're talking about two different kinds of objects when we discuss copyright infringement and piracy. You have real-world objects like pencils, and alarm clocks, and potatoes. The pencil _is_ the pencil, there's nothing more to it. It's purpose is served when it is used to make marks on something like paper.
A book, by comparison, is perhaps better described as comprising two separate things; 1. the physical object, and 2. the ideas contained within the object which are relayed to the reader by use of language and symbols. You can have a physical book with blank pages (or with pages covered in symbols that do not actually convey meaning - like Lorem Ipsum), and it is still a book. A book like this, if taken by one person from another person without permission could be described as "stolen". The physical thing was taken.
A book with symbols that actually conveys meaning contains a _second_ thing, that is, the idea that is being conveyed. In a more topical example, let's say we have a physical book (object), that includes the Rules for D&D (idea to be conveyed). When you buy the book, you are buying two things, the physical book (object) _and_ access to the rules (idea). For players of D&D, a physical book full of blank pages has no value if the intention in buying it was to have access to the rules so the game could be played. The value is in having access to the idea conveyed by the book.
So, what exactly is the "product"? Is it the physical book, or the idea conveyed by the symbols on the pages _in_ the book? I would argue that (unless you wanted a blank journal to write in), the product you are actually intending to buy is the _idea_ in the book. The physical book is just the delivery system for the idea.
Now we have computers that are networked together, and the delivery system for the idea has changed.
If I remember my Hobbes' "Leviathan" correctly, the idea he promoted was that if you put your labour in to something, the result was owned by you to do with as you pleased. So if you had an orchard of apple trees that belonged to you and no one else (you discovered them first, and no one had claim to the land, trees, or apples) or you planted them on land you owned, then by putting your labour into them by growing them and picking them, you had converted your labour into something of potential value.
So you can trade those apples to someone else for a goat, let's say. Or, if you don't need a goat right now, you can trade those apples for money. The money is a representation of your labour. You have turned your labour (planting and picking the apples) into something (money) you can use later to trade for something you need/want.
Your labour > your valuable commodity.
A man creates an idea. Rules to a game. He put his labour in to it, and the result was an idea that _he_ created. He decides it might have value to others. He needs a way to deliver that valuable idea to others, so he uses symbols to record the idea on pages in a physical book. Now we have the internet, and the idea can be disseminated without the need for a physical book, but the idea was still his. He put his labour into it, so it is his to sell, or not.
Are you paying for just the physical book, or are you paying for the idea represented on the pages? (Yes, of course there is value in having a physical object to rely on, carry with, protect from losing data, but as we said if you buy the book to have the rules to play the game, then the same physical book with no words in it would lose its value, so the real value is in the idea conveyed by the text).
Do you buy the book, or the idea? The CD, or the music? The DVD, or the movie? The movie theatre is the delivery system for the story displayed visually (idea). If you sneak into the theatre to watch the movie without paying, have you "stolen" something?
So if the product is the idea, and not the physical book, then if you take the idea to use without paying the creator of the idea for it (so that he can turn his labour into something else), is that theft? (and yes, I am using theft instead of copyright infringement).
I suppose that leads to two different considerations: Moral vs Legal.
The moral one is the tricky one, since morality is subjective.
The legal one is not so tricky. We, the people, have chosen to live in a society where we elect a government to represent us. Then we give them the power to enact laws on our behalf. Those laws are.. well, laws... you obey them, or break them. Not liking a law because it makes something inconvenient for you is not an excuse to break it, or a means of mitigating your actions. If you don't like the law, work to change the law _legitimately_. Whether or not the law was actually broken will be determined by a court or peers, but if the law says you can't do "x", and you did "x", then you have broken the law.
Spore is a great example of attempts to control a copyrighted aspect backfiring on a publisher. I was one of the people who looked forward to this game for a couple years, who planned on buying it on the release day, and changed my mind *exclusively* based on being VERY unhappy regarding the way they handled DRM. Not only did I not buy Spore, I haven't bought any EA game since.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
Noman, crino, everyone else...
if you want to support or not support illegal activity, please fork this...I am outraged at this thread...I have been trying to keep up on the news of the lawsuit...however I am being beaten over the head with your moral arguments...
remember drug dealers and drug users are victumless crimes, so is prostitution. I am sure there are other examples...but point blank I am sick of this. I am not trying to get myself booted from this thread (As I have before when these topics come up) but I do feel it is boarder line harressment for you guys to force a topic of it's rails to support your politcal agenda (Piracy is OK)...if you fork I will leave you alone, but right now you are intrudein on an informational thread...please fork it already it is 1 button away from quote...
if you want to support or not support illegal activity, please fork this...I am outraged at this thread...I have been trying to keep up on the news of the lawsuit...however I am being beaten over the head with your moral arguments...
remember drug dealers and drug users are victumless crimes, so is prostitution. I am sure there are other examples...but point blank I am sick of this. I am not trying to get myself booted from this thread (As I have before when these topics come up) but I do feel it is boarder line harressment for you guys to force a topic of it's rails to support your politcal agenda (Piracy is OK)...if you fork I will leave you alone, but right now you are intrudein on an informational thread...please fork it already it is 1 button away from quote...
Crothian
First Post
You're talking micro and I'm talking macro. It doesn't matter what one person or thirty are doing, what matters is the totally aggregate.
Which is why I'm using the language I'm using. I have no idea what assumptions you are talking about and since your not a publisher I doubt you know what if any assumptions they are using.
Unless I'm thinking of another poster (and I apologize if I am) you have said that you pirate gaming material. You are defending it in this discussion. That is supporting piracy.
I beg to differ. It doesn't matter what they believe. What matters is whether or not they are actually being harmed by file sharing. There is evidence to support the argument that they are not, in some cases there is mounting evidence to support that file sharing has had a positive result.
IP laws exist for a very specific reason. They are a bargain between the public and a content creator. The ability to make money is just an incentive to encourage people to produce content which is supposed to eventually make it into the public domain. That is the bargain. The content producer has a time limited ownership of the content after which it goes into the public domain.
If it can be shown that file sharing is not harming a content producer by the most common metric used (monetary gain or loss) then it shouldn't be illegal to do so. If it's in the best interest of both the public and the producer for file sharing to occur then file sharing is also contributing in a positive way to the intent of copyright law to begin with.
That is where the debate lies and is the other side of the argument, and that's why it IS important what the reality is concerning claims of loss over copyright infringement.
Crothian
First Post
If one thinks they are being harmed, whether true or not they are going to react in such a way to lessen that harm. That's why it matters.
If you have evidence that says file sharing is helpful to publishers then I'm sure there are lots of people that would love to see it.
Similar Threads
