File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[Kalanyr]

Originally posted by Dr Harry:
The information contained within the book which was the source of the inherent value of the book has been removed from the store. The thief removed what the store had for sale without paying for it. The punishment might be changed in context, but the action seems straightforward.

How has he removed the idea from the store ? The idea is still very much there, its still inside the book, the idea hasn't been removed at all, its been copied.

This is like saying that if I read a book from the library I'm stealing it (from whatever bookstore I normally go to) because I should have gone and bought the book to get the idea. Or saying that reading bits of a book in a store are theft (you're removing parts of the idea), god forbid you have a photographic memory and flip through an entire book because you've just stolen the entire thing. I'm not really sure I want to start holding people with photographic memories flipping through books as being guilty of a crime the average person doing the same thing isn't, and thats where that line of thought taken to extremes leads.

Edit: Corrected an Italics tag.

Edit: And if you want to say a library won't have the book during release how about I borrow the book from a friend and read it ?

Edit3: Last is changed to an isn't so it makes sense now.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I completely disagree that the theft can represent no loss, unless you posit a case where the material is downloaded and immediately erased.

The idea of "no theft occuring", as I seem to be reading it, is that filesharing results in an act more akin to counterfitting. For instance, if I buy a copy of Lord of the Rings at the store and then set up a printing press to crank out 50000 copies, I haven't stolen anything because I haven't physically taken anything. However, the act is copyright infringement; I have reproduced an item that I'm not permitted to reproduce and distributed it in a manner that will likely impact sales to some degree. Now, how much of an impact would have to be determined by an expert ("Forensic Accountants" being the actual name of that particular specialty, and yes, they do exist), but I would be liable for that crime.

Now, morally, we could call it theft (I stole their material, I stole the priviliage, and thus stole their profits). However, if we are going to talk about the topic, how we view it (theft) is irrelevant next to the actual law that the crime pertains to (copyright infringement).

Granted, IANAL; This is just how I'm comprehending the posts being made. However, it definately seems to make sense to the extent that I understand the law (as my profession involves a measure of proprietary software and thus some knowledge of what I was getting into was desirable at the time).

 

[FraserRonald]

Wow. A lot of reading. This has drifted from a thread about how piracy has/will effect the RPG industry into a discussion of piracy itself. I don't want to add too much, but I will say this. A lot of theories are floating around about what constitutes piracy, what should be public domain and ideas about copyright. That is fine in a theoretical sense. I--personally--do not live in a theoretical world.

The fact is simple: IP is important if we want art and literature. As a writer, my IP is as important to me as the Ford assembly line is to it. If you took away Ford's assembly line or even borrowed it for a weekend, is that acceptable? I get paid for writing most of the time--when I do it for pay. A doctor works for pay also. Should he work for free?

Honestly, if copyright expires within the creator's lifetime, is that fair? Should the investments made by private companies become public property after ten years?

I know it is difficult to get our heads around IP, but it as much property to those of us who rely on it as your home is to you. I won't steal your home if you don't steal my IP.

I hope this hasn't sounded too terse, confrontational or rude. My dinner is on the table, my wife is staring at me and the cat is eying up my french fries, so I'm a little bit rushed. Please assume anything offensive was untintentional. Likely anything inspired was as well.

Thanks and take care all.

 

[Acid_crash]

I get paid for writing most of the time--when I do it for pay. A doctor works for pay also. Should he work for free?
.

To be honest, I think that everything should be free but due to the greedy nature of the world we live in, everything costs money, and more money than it's truly worth.

We are a greedy bunch of human beings in the world.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Actually if Ralts had permission to do this experiment then the copies are all legitimate. If Ralts did not have permission, then before anyone else could be charged Ralts would have to be for every copy he made available. (Presuming US law) Also as I indicated earlier there is no mention on the entire Crimson Contract's PDF of a retail price. Anyone downloading that would have no way of knowing without further research whether the book was a commercial enterprise. Effectively now, Ralts actions have given a situation that all the books he distributed are either public domain or that Ralts must be officially stated as not having permission for his actions. Copyrights must be defended to be maintained.

Let me rephrase. The copy Ralts put out was not authorized for resale, rather like how you can buy snack size potato chips at lunch with all the nutritional info, but if you buy a bulk pack at the grocery store, the individual packs are labelled "not for resale". Even if authorized, Ralt's experiment used what was effective a copy considered "not for resale".

Second, copyrights do not have to be defended to be maintained. You're confusing copyright with trademark.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

No, the download record is not sufficient proof in and of itself that you have 3 copies in your posssession, nor is even sufficient proof WHO downloaded it ( If more then one person has acccess to the computer you have). How about all those IP addresses the RIAA served warrants are...some of those people didn't even have computers or were not used by them? IP Addresses are far, far from being a smoking gun, despite what you seem to believe.

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.

 

[FraserRonald]

To be honest, I think that everything should be free but due to the greedy nature of the world we live in, everything costs money, and more money than it's truly worth.

We are a greedy bunch of human beings in the world.

Hi Acid Crash.

You know what? I agree. I wish everything were free, that no one needed money. Unfortunately, that's not the case. We are a greedy bunch of human beings for the most part, some greedier than others.

Ah well, until the day of the United Federation of Planets and a moneyless society, I'll be pimpin' my wares for the Benjamins.

Take care all.

 

[Umbran]

I completely disagree that the theft can represent no loss, unless you posit a case where the material is downloaded and immediately erased.

Well, as I shall say again, you cannot lose what you can never have gotten.

As an extreme example - I can write down 17 words in a pdf, call them the best joke in the world, and chage $50 for you to download them. The likelyhood that anyone would buy a 17 word joke from me, sight unseen, for that much is extremely small. I am not going to make any sales. This pdf will earn me no money whatsoever. So, if people steal it, what sales am I losing? None whatsoever. So I suffer no actual loss. My rights were violated, yes. But I didn't lose any income in that violation.

But, I'll do you one better. There are cases in which the theft leads to financial gain. Specifically in the case of the music industry, with artists who don't have big contracts with major labels. Occasionally, an mp3 of theirs gets loose on the net. Definite ilegal copying. Theft. However, it also acts as advertising, leading to sales of albums and concert tickets. This certainly happens for some artists. Depending on which numbers you believe, it may be happening to a great many artists.

Same thing can happen with a pdf. Geek steals a copy of one, decides it is really cools stuff, and decides to support the company by buying others.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

The people who spend the time engaging in intellectual debate over the pros & cons of IP aren't the ones who are using filesharing. It's the regular joe who really doesn't care about the "morality" of the issue.

We're living in a brave new world. People better learn to adapt or the times will pass them by...

 

[Dr. Harry]

How has he removed the idea from the store ? The idea is still very much there, its still inside the book, the idea hasn't been removed at all, its been copied.

Yes, the material has been copied. Material that was in the store for the purpose of sale was removed from the store without the sale occuring. The difference between this case and one where the book itself is shoplifted is immaterial as far as whether stealing has occured. Sure, someone could claim that no "material" has been stolen, similar to someone claiming that nothing was lost if a thief shoplifted a book and there were a lot of other copies, but I don't find this meaningful. The thief removed the material offered for sale as he now has a copy outside the door that he can use that he didn't pay for.

This is like saying that if I read a book from the library I'm stealing it (from whatever bookstore I normally go to) because I should have gone and bought the book to get the idea.

No, it is not like saying that. The material was purchased by the library for the purpose of being used in the way you are using it. Photocopying the book when you got it home from the library would be stealing it, though.

Or saying that reading bits of a book in a store are theft (you're removing parts of the idea), god forbid you have a photographic memory and flip through an entire book because you've just stolen the entire thing. I'm not really sure I want to start holding people with photographic memories flipping through books as being guilty of a crime the average person doing the same thing isn't, and thats where that line of thought taken to extremes leads.

No, it doesn't lead there at all, unless you posit the idea of people who can read minds who can then read the material . A ridiculous fantasy, to be sure, but no more than your reductio ab absurdio. This accusation of yours depends on bouncing between two different descriptions of the "idea". One the one case is anything gained from a casual reading of the material, and the material in a form in which it can be casually accessed whenever. As I said in another post, this cannot be divorced from the context.

Edit: And if you want to say a library won't have the book during release how about I borrow the book from a friend and read it ?

I didn't say that, so my response does not change.