File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[ph0rk]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there are ways to address a ludricrously overstated price. In the case of example #1, this does not give one the "right" to steal an apple from you,

No, overpriced merchandise doesn't give anyone the -right- to take it, but if the general perchasing group has the perception that an item is overpriced, it is sure is more likely to be stolen.

if gaming book X costs $100, sure i'd pirate a copy well before i bought one. Likewise a movie, or an album. No guilt, no shame, thats just how it is. Ideally with music I prefer to try before I buy, and I enjoy being able to listen on a whim - I dislike services like iTunes music store because I prefer to have the music on disc, in case some hot new encoding scheme comes along.

Movies I've snagged copies of, by chance flicks I've already seen more than once in the theatre, and I've bought copies of each when they became available.

If versions of these things existed cheaply enough, then those who wished would buy them (as was evidenced by the amazing sales iTunes Music Store had when it opened.) A $3-4 pdf file floating around on a sharing network is like music to me; were I so inclined I'd read through it then decide if I wished to purchase. I doubt I would though, I hate pdf files.

Piracy, be it with music, movies, or books, is just the free market system at work; though not the way the sellers intend.

People can rationalize it how they wish, and other people can discredit any rationalizations, but it doesn't matter in the end. Some people want X. X costs more than they're willing to pay. There is an easy way to snag X for free. Bam.

A lot of people feel that there's no sense buying the cow when they can get the milk for free.

 

[Dr. Harry]

No, overpriced merchandise doesn't give anyone the -right- to take it, but if the general perchasing group has the perception that an item is overpriced, it is sure is more likely to be stolen.

That might be how one rationalizes it as one steals it (as you boast that you have), but I think that the bigger effect is the ease involved in stealing a copy and the perception of limited risk. An item perceived of as overpriced might have a higher apparent theft threshold as it has a lower number of copies sold, and perhaps as having a higher cost, it is seen as a bigger prize to steal. It is quite easy to steal material on-line, and I propose that one of the reasons that the record industry's action engendered such a large reaction is that it reached out and grabbed individuals in the perceived anonymity of the net. The shock that the risk is not zero sent quite a jolt.

Movies I've snagged copies of, by chance flicks I've already seen more than once in the theatre, and I've bought copies of each when they became available.

And y'know what? If you were pegged for doing this, all that wouldn't matter - even if it's true - nor do I think that it should.

Piracy, be it with music, movies, or books, is just the free market system at work; though not the way the sellers intend.

Saying that piracy happens is not to say that it should happen, that it should be encouraged, that it should be accepted, or that it does no harm.

To enforce the law does not require that the criminal show guilt or shame.

 

[Numion]

I didn't bother to read the whole thread but I'll still chime in about filesharing. I've used it massively for two years now, for movies, games, music .. to the point I've not bought any of those for the time. Luckily here in Finland the law backs me up - I've not done anything illegal as long as I don't upload them. Downloading is ok. For once the law profits the small guy, so sure as hell I'll take advantage.

RPGs are different. I like to have a real book to use it. PDFs aren't that handy. I stopped buying books because of 3.5e, not piracy. My 3.0e game is doing pretty good, so I'll not bother buying more books. I've DLed some books, but haven't used them in game, so I would've not bought them otherwise.

 

[Kalanyr]

And y'know what? If you were pegged for doing this, all that wouldn't matter - even if it's true - nor do I think that it should.

And that is the most ridiculous part of copyright enforcement, in this case the author's lost absolutely nothing but they are still trying to get someone for their null loss. Does that make any sense at all ? If they potentially lost something even if only a sale to that customer, yes its a crime, sure, but in the case where they've lost nothing the fact it can still be treated as a crime seems silly to me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Noob to the board- found this thread and had to weigh in. For the record, I'm an attorney who deals with copyright issues, largely in the entertainment (music) industry, currently working on an MBA in Sports & Entertainment Marketing issues.

So, here is my $0.02 on the matter.

Just because the form of the product is different doesn't mean the rules about what theft is should differ. If it is a good, then it has a price.

1) Apply Kant's Universality principle- before you act, ask if it would it be good for society if you would want everyone else to act similarly in the same or an analagous situation. So, if YOUR work were available in electronic form for anyone to take without paying you, would you want them to be able to do so without legal recourse? Of course not-that is money out of your pocket. And if everyone downloaded the products, sales would decline precipitously, and the companies die off, unable to pay to produce the product.

Lets examine that further: You write a report on gizmos for your company, but go to lunch before printing it. While you're away, someone downloads your report and submits it as his own work, have you been harmed? The original is still on your hard drive.

Perhaps you did print it before lunch, and your boss likes it. He submits the work to a client, but the client has already recieved the info from the person who downloaded your work. Is the client going to pay?

You're already seeing some of this in the music industry. The RIAA has shown that while sales are down (according to a variety of indices) in general due to the economy, sales are down much more at retailers located around institutions that have high-speed internet access and a large number of online users (certain kinds of businesses, but especially universities).

The problem is that the form of property at issue is intangible. The property isn't the book, but the ideas the book contains. To reiterate, the book is not the property, it is the method of transmitting the property (namely, the ideas) to end users.

2) To the argument that you can't "try it before you buy it" so you'll download anyway just to see what the product is- BUNK.

Look at the copy in the store. Decide there if there is something in the book worth buying. Name another product you coud potentially get the FULL VALUE from before purchase and not be required to pay.

Or read a review of the product.

3) Whoever it was who bought the multiple copies of the Metallica albums (all destroyed or lost) and felt entitled to download a freebie-BULL.

If I bought a Volvo and it was destroyed, and I bought a similar one from the same manufacturer, and IT was destroyed, and so forth, at what point in this cycle am I allowed to just simply walk onto a Volvo lot and just drive off with a new car?

4) "They haven't lost anything."/"Its not worth it to me..."-GARBAGE.

It is obviously worth something to you- you have taken efforts to acquire it. The author has lost the ability to control his intellectual property and the sweat of his labors. Sure, there are still the same number of books on the shelf available for sale, but you have everything in that book available on your computer. His IDEAS are in your posession, and it is only your whim or twinge of conscience that will find him receiving recompense.

By downloading it, you have cost them a sale, even if its in the retailer's extreme markdown bin- "Everything in this bin 70% off!!!" You have cost your game store a little bit of its ability to cover its overhead. You have cost the company and industry a chance to show profitability to future investors.

If you downloaded something without paying for it and found something of use to you ONE TIME, you owe that product's creator something.

5) "Its too expensive" -SO WHAT.

I like prime rib and lobsters, but that doesn't entitle me to steal them when I only have $5 in my pocket. Even if you're a fan of Les Miserables (the book), stealing because you're hungry is excusable only insofar as you are stealing food for survival. Stealing exclusively from 5-star restaraunts is only going to get you negative responses from the jury- there's hunger, and then there's greed.

If the current price is too high, don't pay it. Eventually, if the product is a slow seller, it will wind up in the discount bin. Buy it then.

A product of any kind has its price set, at least in part, by considerations of raw materials breakeven points, shipping costs, storage costs, promotions costs, paying the talent (authors, artists, and design teams), layout costs, proofreaders (for press copy or actual product), markups along the supply chain, and shrinkage. If you don't know, shrinkage covers things like damaged product being returned, product returned for lack of sales, and theft or general loss.

If illegal downloaders actually bought the products they stole, that would enable the companies to make more accurate predictions as to all of the above listed costs and set a more accurate initial price because shrinkage would decline on 2 related fronts (lack of sales; theft).

Furthermore, as products sell more, they decline in price over time- simple supply & demand. When CD's were introduced, they cost $800+ for a single-disc player. Now you can buy a changer for under $250, and a portable for under $100.

The books are still too expensive? Then tell your game companies to use cheaper paper, print softcover only, use black ink and white paper (or cardboard for the boxes), and get rid of the interior and cover art. Then all of the game books can look alike and be extremely cheap, like they were printed at Kinko's, not unlike the old Metagames rulesbooks or the current Cheapass Games rulesbooks.

However, since there has been a nearly universal flow towards more attractive and better packaging in our hobby- better art, hardcovers for durability, etc., we have to pay for that improved quality.

Still not cheap enough? Have your game group pool your money and buy the books co-op style.

6) "It destroys the concept of competition"- UNTRUE.

The core of capitalism is competition. If you can come up with a better way to do something, you can compete better and make more money than your competition.

At no stage in the history of capitalism has competition included the right to use someone else's ideas without paying them-industrial espionage has always been a crime. Why?

Because the legalized theft of intellectual property is a very real deterrent to creativity. If I come up with the proverbial "better mousetrap" and it cost me 1Mill to do my research and initial production run, I had better have the right to be able to recoup my money before some guy can buy one of my mousetraps, retroengineer it, and be in competition with me within a week with startup costs of, essentially, ZERO. If not, I'll be out of business and broke while the second guy gets rich.

Now, if that same guy came up with substantially the same idea, he's free to compete, as long as he doesn't use any of the unique ideas or processes I used for my product.

The seller CANNOT just arbitrarily set a price. If he does, he will either underprice his product, and thus, not cover expenses and go out of business, or overprice his product which will not sell and could be undercut by a competitor who will set a lower price. The free market will drive the price to a level that people are willing to pay.

That is why in the transportation industry, there are Kias and there are Bentleys, there are trains and planes, but the only free transportation is your own feet.

 

[Planesdragon]

And that is the most ridiculous part of copyright enforcement, in this case the author's lost absolutely nothing but they are still trying to get someone for their null loss. Does that make any sense at all ?

Yes, because it isn't "absolutely nothing." It's a nonmonetary loss--exactly the same as if I tresspassed upon your lawn, or used your image to make money without your permission (when your image attributed nothing to my work).

 

[Henry]

Noob to the board- found this thread and had to weigh in. For the record, I'm an attorney who deals with copyright issues, largely in the entertainment (music) industry, currently working on an MBA in Sports & Entertainment Marketing issues.

So, here is my $0.02 on the matter.

Danny,

First of all, welcome to the boards!

Secondly, thanks for your thoughts on the matter. It's interesting to me to see arguments from someone directly involved in the matters at hand.

 

[ph0rk]

That might be how one rationalizes it as one steals it (as you boast that you have),

It was an anecdote, not a boast. I don't need to rationalize a thing; any media I have copied I did because there is virtually no penalty for doing so - I have yet to hear of someone getting nailed for downloading media who was not stockpiling or archiving or distributing it.

It is quite easy to steal material on-line, and I propose that one of the reasons that the record industry's action engendered such a large reaction is that it reached out and grabbed individuals in the perceived anonymity of the net.

I don't agree: it was the fact that people were able to download music long enough to get used to the idea that caused the reaction. They had done it long enough that they felt entitled.

And y'know what? If you were pegged for doing this, all that wouldn't matter - even if it's true - nor do I think that it should.

True enough. But it hasn't yet, and they're still a far ways away from nailing those that download the rare bit of media. I'm not particularly worried. Technically I should get a ticket for traveling 3mph over the speed limit, but I do not. Like speeding, it would be nearly impossible to enforce the current copyright laws EVERYWHERE and with EVERYONE without a monumental expense.

Saying that piracy happens is not to say that it should happen, that it should be encouraged, that it should be accepted, or that it does no harm.

I did not say any such thing. I didn't put words in your mouth to argue against, so please don't do the same to me.

It happens, and will continue until the items actual cost is more in line with their perceived cost. Theft will probably never go away completely, but will be aggravated when the discrepency between actual cost and perceived cost is great.

In other words, we are very near the point at which discussing whether or not piracy of electronic media -should- happen will be academic; if we aren't already.

To enforce the law does not require that the criminal show guilt or shame.

And your point? Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase. The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads.

There are several more serious hurdles to be overcome than the public showing guilt, not the least of which is DRM that doesn't muck with fair use, or penalize persons whose physical hardware was stolen and then used for distribution.

To proclaim it is illegal won't fix the issue; in fact I would argue it is probably too late to fix the issue: too many people consider electronic copies of media have no actual value.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase. The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads.

There are several more serious hurdles to be overcome than the public showing guilt, not the least of which DRM that doesn't much with fair use, or penalize persons whose physical hardware was stolen and then used for distribution.

To proclaim it is illegal won't fix the issue; in fact I would argue it is probably too late to fix the issue: too many people consider electronic copies of media have no actual value.

1) You could be right. If everyone gets into illegal file swapping, Hasbro may kill off D&D as being unprofitable, sticking to board games that don't have as much of problem (there are still pirate knockoffs of boardgames, but its still a minor problem). Then there will be nothing AT ALL to purchase.

While we may yet move to a 100% electronic distribution process, that does not equate with non-payment. There is no economic model for a competitive business that must compete with its product having mass free availability.

Sure, Gygax and Cook and all the others would probably still have done what they did for fun, but if they weren't paid for their efforts, the RPG hobby would either be limited to a couple of houses in Wisconsin or having a different game system in every block as each club creates their own-we as a hobby would have no common ground or history.

2) Fair use is for teaching, that is, academic purposes. If you are using D&D as a teaching tool, you can use portions (NOT the whole product) free of charge beyond the cost of making the copies.

3) All we can do is educate people that electronic products are still somebody's work, and thus, worthy of pay. THAT is a question of upbringing, personal morality, and civic duty.

I have cousins who USED to download music all the time- heck, even I have an old bootleg tape or two. But when I pointed out that the past success (sales) of a particular artist's product affects both how much royalties he'll get (now and on subsequent releases) and whether the company will keep him on or fire him, they realized that downloading was a factor in whether their favorite artist of today was going to release an album ever again.

The game industry is no different. The percieved lack of impact may just be because of the size of the industry. I daresay that even at $0.15/album (typical for a rookie artist), a single successful album nets the artist who recorded it more money than a second tier RPG release does for its author. Thus there is no economic interest in there being an agency to accurately track in-store sales or losses due to downloading in the RPG industry. All we have is anecdotal evidence.

4) Lack of guilt and anonymity are probably equal partners in this problem. There are some famous psychology studies that show that anonymity increases the likelyhood of violence. Most study participants who were assured of anonymity followed orders to inflict pain (no pain was actually inflicted, just actors writhing around and screaming on the other side of the one-way glass) either without question or with "minimal" delay, even after the actors seemed to pass out from pain. Similar results came from studies with masked participants, or even those wearing mirrored sunglasses and uniforms. The same can be said of mass/mob action studies in which people act differently (less inhibited by law or social mores) when acting in large groups-like the massive number of downloaders out there. And who of us is not aware that people online are more likely to use inappropriate language online relative to face-to-face communication. Anonymity in any form relaxes the grip of civilization's taboos upon our behavior- when our identities are concealed, we are more likely to act inappropriately.

And the taboo against violence is much stronger than the taboo against theft.

 

[Yair]

I haven't read the whole thread, but from the ending it seems the consensus is that file sharing does indeed hurt the industry; I am sorry to hear that.

For myself, I download many books but purchase the ones I use (sometimes just ones I like). I consider it a "right" way to act, and though I'll have to agree that it is illegal - I don't at all think it is immoral, and no amout of law will make me think otherwise.
I am sorry that it seems most people will not pay for work they can download freely (if I read the thread's conclusion correctly). Some of my friends are like that - I try to show them the error of their ways...

BTW I don't download songs much, but I don't pay for the few songs I do donwload. I figure the artists who made them make enough, far more money then I'll see in my lifetime, and don't feel like giving money to huge corporations. I *purchase* only from small artists, ones that aren't millioners so could actually use the income.
I don't subscribe to the point of view that I should make these guys richer just because they own stuff I want and can charge me for its use by law. I judge they were given more than a fair pay for their work already.
I know it isn't legal, and probably won't be acceptable to most, but that's me...