WotC needs to read up on some Techdirt

[Nyronus]

If I wanted to pirate the PDFs that Paizo releases, I could. But I choose not to, because I feel comfortable giving my money to them and feel that their prices for PDFs to be reasonable. I want Paizo to stay in business.

By implication, apparently the only thing keeping you from forcefully, either personally or, most likely, with the help of others, violate another man's intellectual property rights, is how much their actions have pleased you at any given moment. Piracy is a crime for a reason. Not because of the very legitimate financial damages it does cause, but, because it violates the right of the creators and owners to choose how to make use of their property. Your blase view of other people's human rights calls into suspect more or less anything you have to say on the subject of IP. Piracy isn't something you merely choose or choose not to do; it is wrong.

 

[Umbran]

It sounds like YOU like to make straw-man arguments.

Let's not make this personal, please, even with smilies. Thank you.

 

[Oldtimer]

By implication, apparently the only thing keeping you from forcefully, either personally or, most likely, with the help of others, violate another man's intellectual property rights, is how much their actions have pleased you at any given moment. Piracy is a crime for a reason. Not because of the very legitimate financial damages it does cause, but, because it violates the right of the creators and owners to choose how to make use of their property. Your blase view of other people's human rights calls into suspect more or less anything you have to say on the subject of IP. Piracy isn't something you merely choose or choose not to do; it is wrong.

It's actually called copyright infringement or, casually, illegal copying. It has nothing whatsoever to do with human rights. It exists to protect producers and distributors, nothing more.

Trying to make it into a gross violation of human rights is utterly ridiculous. Copying and sharing is a natural thing to do. It's only a crime because it threatens powerful companies.

Your diatribe on other people's morality is just absurd.

 

[Glade Riven]

Well, a few people glossed over a few things I said, but...meh. It happens. I don't feel like repeating myself on those things.

I actually have no personal love or hate towards WotC, and if I was going to be joining a 4e group I'd probably pick up an essentials product. It is nice to see that people have popped up in this thread defending them.

Making a paywall work is about more than just slapping up a paywall and expecting people to pay, and it's hard to tell just how well DDI is working right now without data that only WotC has. But even WotC has admitted that they need to do a better job communicating with the fans. It also looks like WotC is concentrating on adding value to DDI, which is a good thing for current and potential subscribers.

As far as infringment goes, it can't be stopped. But if you can figure out how to turn it into a marketing opportunity instead of wasting money fighting a losing battle (RIAA, anyone?) then a losing situation becomes a winning situation.

 

[Nyronus]

It's actually called copyright infringement or, casually, illegal copying. It has nothing whatsoever to do with human rights. It exists to protect producers and distributors, nothing more.

Trying to make it into a gross violation of human rights is utterly ridiculous. Copying and sharing is a natural thing to do. It's only a crime because it threatens powerful companies.

Your diatribe on other people's morality is just absurd.

Yes. It does exist specifically to protect the producers. That is the point. When a man makes something, it's his. He has the right to control the fruits of his own labor. Your basically saying its o.k. to take something someone made or owns, and do with it as you please. Your literally making them work for you, by taking the product of their effort without a choice and recompense. IP protection and rights make sure that the people who own something have control of it. No more, and no less.

Your dismissal of rights is painful and ignorant.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Their main rules line involved tweaking an already existing system of someone else's design, in reaction to complaints about the changes of 4th edition.

I think that you might need to get your facts straight on this. Paizo was actually waiting for WOTC to get their GSL / OGL situation sorted out to see if they would support the new edition. WOTC was dragging thier heels as third party publishers were not the priority for them. As a result Paizo needed to figure out what they were going to do so, you know they'd still have JOBS.

So instead of going with 4E and being beholden to producing material as a licensee (or is it licensor?) they decided to be masters of their own fate (as the last license they worked under left them in a bit of a situation -- see DUNGEON and DRAGON magazines -- ) and produce a game that would still enable people to use pre-existing 3x & 3.5 material (including Paizo's own AP's...) while changing a few things.

While to you what they did was not innovative, I pretty much see the influences from Euro games in 4E's design as well as the summarization of powers and abilities from WOTC's own Miniature game line. Not very innovative really when you dig a little deeper. Niether of those things make Pathfinder or 4E bad games but lets call it what it is, if Pathfinder isn't innovative then neither is 4E.

 

[Umbran]

Your diatribe on other people's morality is just absurd.

Your dismissal of rights is painful and ignorant.

Such statements are not apt to convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you of your rightness. They are apt to make people angry and thoughtless. If you want to make people thoughtless, you are a troll, and should leave now. If you don't want to make people thoughtless, these were errors, and should not be repeated.

Either way, let us not crank up the rhetoric any further, hm?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not very innovative really when you dig a little deeper. Niether of those things make Pathfinder or 4E bad games but lets call it what it is, if Pathfinder isn't innovative then neither is 4E.

Which is why it's amusing that the rhetoric is always WotC vs. Paizo... when there are dozens of other game companies that make their living not using the basics of the D&D engine at all. World of Darkness, GURPS, the HERO system etc. etc.

When it comes right down to it... 'innovation' and 'roleplaying game' should more often than not, never be used together in the same sentence.

 

[czak]

The 10 dollar pdf core rule book was a big risk that paid off. The compatibility and community licenses and the psrd were also pretty nifty but not as risky.

 

[Oldtimer]

Ok, let's break this down (before the debate breaks down).

Yes. It does exist specifically to protect the producers. That is the point.

With producer, I didn't mean author. I meant the man with the money financing the production of the author's work.

When a man makes something, it's his.

Absolutely. If I build myself a house, it's mine.

He has the right to control the fruits of his own labor.

No, that's something else entirely. If I'm a construction worker and build a house for someone else, I don't get to control what they do in that house.

Your basically saying its o.k. to take something someone made or owns, and do with it as you please.

It's not OK to take something away from someone. But if it's given to me, maybe in exchange for money, it only natural that I can do with it as I please.

Your literally making them work for you, by taking the product of their effort without a choice and recompense.

No, their work is done. That's a sunk cost. Either they got a salary for their work or they're an entrepreneur trying to sell something and make a profit. If a business can't find its customers and make a profit, then it shouldn't be a business. If you're getting a salary, you're getting compensation for your work.

IP protection and rights make sure that the people who own something have control of it. No more, and no less.

This is just circular reasoning. Without IP laws you cannot own IP. The laws create their own reason for existence. The only natural way to control something is to keep it for yourself.

Your dismissal of rights is painful and ignorant.

You're confusing rights with laws. While that may be painful, you can be sure that I'm far from ignorant on these issues.