File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[woodelf]

Dannyalcatraz I think you are missing the point. If I buy a car and lose it, I can refind it. If it gets broken I can fix it. At the very least after years of usage I can sell it for scrap. If I lose my second copy of a book I own maybe I can find it. If it falls apart, then I have been deprived of my "right to enjoy" it as you said. If that right is something that may last longer than my lifetime, wouldn't a product that falls apart be theft from me? If I have already purchased a book, and the store expects me to buy a second book because the first will fall apart eventually I think I would feel justifiably ripped off. I know that most RPG companies I've dealt with do not expect people to buy a new copy of the same book every X years.

But why? Why are books still considered a durable good (like a house or car), while [just about] everything else is not? I'm not saying i *like* the situation, but it seems a bit inconsistent to simply expect a book to last "forever" (especially the way a lot of gamers treat their books), while not complaining in the least about how often your lightbulbs burn out (especially given that technologies have been developed that could allow longer-lasting lightbulbs, but which aren't used in part because they'd decrease sales too much). Why don't you get to walk into a store and demand a replacement lightbulb when yours burns out? Why must you meet certain standards (less than X old, you didn't hit it with a baseball bat, etc.)?

However the pdf as a replacement does not cost the store any overhead. The store already has my money once. (Or 5 times in your example) I find it hard to believe that any store would actually expect someone buying a book six times.

If the product is poorly made, and thus expires before its time, then, yes, the producer should provide a new one. If it is well made, and the user is abusive or stupid, then, no, the producer should not. Of course, this is partly a judgement call.

As to your argument about non-physical copies of purchased physical products: i'm not sure. I understand what you mean--so long as you only get the digital copy if you have purchased the physical copy. And maybe that's the way it *should* work. But it most definitely isn't the way it *does* work--and maybe it isn't the right solution.

 

[The Sigil]

That is not retroactive extension or removal of something from public domain. That is recognition that copyright arises at the moment of creation, and does not depend on your (or your packaging department's) ability to remember to put that little © on your product, and that works were ERRONEOUSLY placed in public domain. This is law, not "Simon Says."

Let me re-quote, with emphasis... the two paragraphs in question were referring to different sets of works; the first to foreign-published works, the second to domestic works...

Beware! Many foreign works that were previously in the public domain ... were restored to copyright in 1996.

The claim was that nothing can ever be restored to copyright once it hits the public domain. I was refuting that point with a counterexample. It is a point of fact that some foreign works were at one time in the public domain in the United States and were later restored to copyright status. Thus the claim, "nothing in the public domain can ever go back to copyrighted" is necessarily false by counterexample.

Regardless of the justification used in restoring something's "copyrighted status," (even if it is on technicalities), the point is, there IS precedent for returning public domain works to copyrighted status. That was all I was trying to point out. *shrugs*

Amusingly put. All you have to do to find out if you are right is challenge this in Court. A court cannot, on its own motion, decide a case. Once someone sues, then the Court can rule on the facts.

I refer you to Eldred v. Ashcroft, only one of the most high-profile copyright cases of the last decade. The case was a challenge of the validity of the retroactive extension of copyright; i.e., it did not challenge that new works should receive the Sonny Bono Act copyright term of life+70 years, but challenged the validity of adding 20 years to the copyright term of existing works (prior to the Bono act, life+50 years); basically stating that extending copyright term on works already in existence was in effect "changing the rules of the game" ex post facto and specifically pointing out that a 20-year extension every 20 years was effectively the same as "in perpetuity." The Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny Bono act, extending copyright for existing works by an additional 20 years, WAS Constitutional.

Thus, that very point HAS been challenged in court... and the challenge was lost. The ruling means that copyright is for all intents and purposes perpetual, so long as perpetuity is only claimed one finite chunk at a time (say, a 20 year extension every 20 years).

The media companies had nothing to do with it. First use, under the law, is already considered to be any use as long as it is within the term of copyright. That is what they mean in the statutes when they say "exclusive" rights. But they also spell this out with a list of extant uses and a catchall at the end of the statutes worded something like- "and other such forms as may be developed."

The media companies had everything to do with it, as it was the lobbying of Walt Disney Co. that has directly led to the past two copyright extensions. As for the claim that the media companies would like to amend the statement to "any use of material constitutes infringment," I suppose you are unfamiliar with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act... this statute states that it is illegal to break the encryption mechanism that protects a copyrighted work for ANY reason. Even though you may be attempting to use that 3-second cut of "Return of the King" for "Fair Use" purposes, the act of circumventing the encryption on the DVD to get your 3 seconds of footage is illegal. The law is designed and intended to lock out ANY use of material, infringing or not.

I'm not making these statements lightly, do some research on the law. Currently, a bill is in committee (introduced by Rep. Boucher of VA, if I recall correctly) to insert into the DMCA an exception for Fair Use; essentially, a clause that "circumventing encryption for non-infringing use shall not be illegal" (the wording is very close to that) and the media conglomerates are fighting this tooth and nail. That they don't want even NON-INFRINGING use to be allowed tells me that it's not about infringement, it's about complete lockdown of the material.

There were other publishers of D&D modules dating back to 1st Ed- Judges Guild springs immediately to mind. THAT was perfectly legal. What they could NOT do is republish the entire set of rules with additonal material to create a different campaign or new game. Under the D20/OGL regime, licensees can republish the entirety of the PHB with the changes that make the game different. Look at Dragonstar, Call of Cthuhu, Wheel of Time, etc.

I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case. Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine? Did they use THAC0s? I don't know, so I can't address this one.

There is a DEFINITE loss of creativity. Look at the contemporary games to 1st Ed- ideas from those other competing games helped shape 2Ed. Games contemporary to 2Ed shaped 3Ed. GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller survived because they were strong sellers before D20. They offered an alternative, not just in campaigns, but in overall gaming experience.

By way of comparison, look at the 2 major forms of home computers, Apple and IBM. In the beginning, IBM controlled 88+% of the market, Apple 5-12%, largely because IBM PCs used the same software that people used at work, wheras Apple offered something different. But IBM didn't control its IP, whereas Apple did. Result-Apple still clicks along at 5-12%, but IBM has no more market share than any other PC maker- IBM lost, not to Apple, but to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.

I fail to see how the parallel works to illustrate your point. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. are and were all "PC Compatible." It is also of note that IIRC, the "3rd-party platform makers" did not come into their own until Microsoft released MS-DOS and software and hardware were "decoupled." The 3rd-party platform makes did not come up with their own OS.

If anything, Dell, HP, Gateway etc. are the "3rd party" d20 publishers of today, eating share from WotC. In fact, widespread acceptance of PCs did not occur until IBM lost its dominance - when it did, and you got competition for equivalent machines, and thereby lower prices, THAT is when the PC boom hit (at least, if my remembrances are correct).

Maybe I'm interpreting your analogy the wrong way... would you please elaborate?

That isn't lack of support-that is a wholesale change in the character of the game of Traveller by changing it INTO D20. Transforming the game via OGL took a game that was very different and made it into...just another D20 sci-fi game.

Is this a d20 failing? Traveller did not need to transform the game to d20. All they had to do was release the old "Traveller" system under the OGL... which they were unwilling to do. I would wager that had they done so, they would see 3rd party product supporting the "old Traveller System." It's pretty simple, actually... game systems that have a low barrier to entry in order to support them will by definition have more third-party support than those that don't. The barrier to entry to support the d20 System is OGL compliance, and that's it. Right now, I couldn't support the old Traveller System if I wanted to without contacting them, jumping through licensing hoops, and (probably) paying a hefty licensing fee! Given those two options - "follow these free instructions and use our stuff free" versus "contact, negotiate, pay" which will you choose? Most will choose "follow these instructions and use our stuff free."

Don't get me wrong, I thing D20 is awesome (my second favorite RPG system of all time). But it isn't the ONLY way, or the BEST way to run an RPG. With game designers of today not flexing their intellects to try something completely different, we are losing the ability to think about RPGs in a non-D20 way. Why is this happening? Because under OGL, it is next to impossible to sell a non-D20 game. That homogenization is definitely NOT good for the creative side of game design.

*chuckles* You're preaching to the choir as to game systems. I cut my teeth on D&D, but GURPS holds a special place in my heart. Unfortunately, I can't publish products in support of GURPS. I like some aspects of the Palladium system... and I can't publish products in support of Palladium. That's not a failing of game designers' creativity so much as it is a concession to the current litigious IP atmosphere.

Note that I agree with you - homogenization is BAD. But I ask you - if you have to get an RPG product out the door, do you want to have to build up something from scratch, run it by a lawyer (and hire one) to make sure it doesn't infringe on any of a hundred systems out there, and that just to START your product line... or simply use the d20 system as is and make sure to update your Section 15, WHICH WILL YOU CHOOSE? It's the path of least risk and least resistance.

If a hacker had gotten a copy of Freeport before release and put it on the web in full text form, at $1.00/copy or free, the Green Ronin Freeport release could have been a financial flop.

Of course it COULD have been, but you're changing the game here. I said, if you do it right the first time, it will be too late to have an impact. My example assumed the first instance for someone to copy something in a non-copyright world would be the day of publication. Of course it is possible to hack/game the system and get it early, but that falls under plaigarism ethics ("I published first, it's mine") IMO.

There were copies of the Incredible Hulk movie circulating on the net before its theatrical release. Yes, the big green guy hadn't been CGI'd into the scenes, but anyone who wanted would have been able to watch the entire storyline from start to finish.

Similarly, Prince and other artists have had album masters stolen and released as bootlegs before the bands could release their legitimate versions. In many cases, 100K's of those albums were sold, and the subsequent legitimate releases don't sell well.

It is SO much easier to steal and disseminate IP these days that some bootleggers can pump out 100K copies of an album they got a week before release. That could be the difference between a copyright holder going Gold or going home.

I agree with you there... but I have to assume that part of "getting it right the first time" is avoiding leaks. We're talking about a hypothetical non-copyright world anyway, give me a hypothetical "no-leaks" world.

PS-that is why some of those infringement fines can be so high- they are aimed at the bootlegger making money from pirated IP. The casual IP thief will not likely face that kind of fine or prison time, but it is still within the court's range of punishments. Each case is fact sensitive, and intent and amount of infringement matter.

Agreed. (sarcasm) This is of course why the RIAA has lobbied in the person of Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to include a clause that "placing a file in a folder shared on a P2P network shall automatically be assumed to have shared over $10K worth of material and be subject to the maximum fine of $250,000 plus prison time per file" - the fact that the person never actually distributed the file being irrelevant to the fact that the law is now defining possibility instead of proven deed as criminal activity. Now the facts of intent and actual distribution don't have to enter into it anymore - just the potential to distribute (without actual proof of distribution) has to be there for them to sock it to you. Makes it much easier to punish criminals, after all. Similarly, we should fine libraries for copyright infringement because they provide copiers right next to copyrighted materials - clearly their intent is to allow you to infringe and we don't even need to check the counter on the copier to know they've allowed hundreds of millions of copies to be made.(/sarcasm)

I have seen both sides of the issue. Heck, I'm ON both sides of the copyright issue (as both a producer of copyrighted material such as E-books and music CDs an as a consumer of copyrighted material). Learning about and reading up on copyright has convinced me that currently, copyright law is screwed up beyond belief in the U.S. because it violates some of the fundamental principles that I hold about rights, important freedoms, the nature of human beings, and the nature of ideas. But that's neither here nor there. I suggest you look at the areas above, where I have pointed out facts (as opposed to those where I have offered up opinions - which are just as bad or good as your own) such as the Eldred v. Ashcroft case or the ramifications of the DMCA (can you say, "DVDJon" or "Sklyarov") and form your own beliefs based on facts (some of which directly disprove some of your current beliefs).

 

[woodelf]

That Webster's quote is OK, but it still won't fly in a court of law.

You can't support an argument with the conclusion you are trying to prove. Nobody is questioning the current state of the law, they're questioning whether the law should be as it is. Therefore, you need to support your position with something other than the current state of the law, because that's exactly what's being debated. Many of your arguments do this well. This one and some others don't.

And this, of course, is supposedly all about what impact filesharing is, or might be, having on RPGs. Where, again, the current legality is mostly irrelevant. The current filesharing would have exactly the same impact on the RPG industry (good or bad, strong or weak) regardless of its legality. Legality might affect how much people actually do these things, so i certainly see discussing what would happen if it were made legal as relevant. But simply asserting that you shouldn't do it because it's illegal is sorta circular in this context.

 

[The Sigil]

But why? Why are books still considered a durable good (like a house or car), while [just about] everything else is not? I'm not saying i *like* the situation, but it seems a bit inconsistent to simply expect a book to last "forever" (especially the way a lot of gamers treat their books), while not complaining in the least about how often your lightbulbs burn out (especially given that technologies have been developed that could allow longer-lasting lightbulbs, but which aren't used in part because they'd decrease sales too much). Why don't you get to walk into a store and demand a replacement lightbulb when yours burns out? Why must you meet certain standards (less than X old, you didn't hit it with a baseball bat, etc.)?

I see the nature of the situation as being different... when I purchase a book, I am not only purchasing paper and ink... copyright laws say that I am also purchasing the right to the information contained therein. There is no such "two-part purchase" involved in cars or houses. I am purchasing the physical materials in those cases.

The copyright holder gets a "durable good" that cannot wear out and lasts for life + 70 years - it's called copyright. Is it wrong for me to expect that my access to the durable good that is "the work" be made to less exacting specifications?

If the product is poorly made, and thus expires before its time, then, yes, the producer should provide a new one. If it is well made, and the user is abusive or stupid, then, no, the producer should not. Of course, this is partly a judgement call.

How does one abuse the content of a book or CD (not the book or CD itself)?

As to your argument about non-physical copies of purchased physical products: i'm not sure. I understand what you mean--so long as you only get the digital copy if you have purchased the physical copy. And maybe that's the way it *should* work. But it most definitely isn't the way it *does* work--and maybe it isn't the right solution.

I see copyright, in its simplest form, as simply "I pay (or barter or whatever) the copyright holder for the right to access the information to which they hold the copyright." That's what copyright boils down to, right? I pay the copyright holder and they show me the stuff in whatever medium.

As I have said before, IMO, there are two things that you purchase when you purchase a book, CD, etc. You purchase (a) the physical medium that carries the information and (b) a license for you to access the information itself. The copyright holder does not "own" (a) in any interpretation of ownership of which I am aware (the RIAA does not claim ownership of the physical piece of plastic that is your CD, just ownership of access to the song - the information - carried on it). So long as I am the one paying for another physical medium (e.g., a new hard drive, a blank CD, etc) to store the information in, I feel it is within my rights to move - or copy - that information itself, provided I am the only one using that information.

This of course assumes that I am the one accessing the information on the burned CD or hard drive... so (b) is still satisfied (i.e., I bought a license for me to access the information; I am still the one accessing it; the license has not been broken). I am the one who paid for the physical medium, so (a) is satisfied.

--The Sigil

 

[Greyhawk_DM]

Where are you at? I'd pay $20 for the Dragonomicon; please don't tell me it was at the Corpus Christi Half-Price and I missed it! (The Corpus Christi Half-Price does have a surprising amount of 3e.)

Actually it was an example...I havent bought the book yet...a friend of mine did buy the book. I am not sure what he paid for it, but I know he didn't get it at a Half-Price book store. As soon as I get a chance I am going to look over it and see if I like it.

I have bought several of the Core books at half-price books before though. Just have a wait a few months after they have been released and they start showing up.

Later...

 

[Greyhawk_DM]

If the number of copies that exist is greater than the number that have been paid for, copyright infringement has occurred. The copyright holder agreed to give one copy for X dollars, not two copies or ten copies.

Does that help clear up the differences among the scenarios above? Legal scenarios are those that involve transfer of a single, "already-paid-for" copy. Illegal scenarios are those that involve transfer of "not-already-paid-for" copies of a copy.

--The Sigil

IANAL, TINLA

Yes, thank you.

 

[The Sigil]

2 possible differences.

Difference 1) If you download and do not buy but also do not get rid of the download. You still have the property as surely as if it sat on your bookshelf.

If you do delete the copy, you're just a browser. It is extremely unlikely a court would find you guilty of a crime.

Difference 2) If the copy you download is not a legally posted pdf, you are in possession of a stolen copy. This would be (very roughly) analogous to either looking at a copy someon had shoplifted just as the cops roll up on you, or looking at a physical pirated copy in a store. In the latter one, though, the store would be in trouble.

Let me append Difference #3.

When you are browsing through a book in the store, THAT COPY HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID FOR (by the store owner). The control of that particular copy is out of the hands of the copyright owner, because he has been paid (Doctrine of First Sale, remember). If the copyright owner doesn't want you to browse, tough for him - he has no say in what can be done with that copy; rather, the owner of the bookstore now has control of that copy. If the owner of the bookstore doesn't want you to browse, he can take the copy away from you, kick you off the premises, and so forth. The store owner is in control of that copy, and it is at his pleasure and whim that you are legally allowed browse or not.

When you are browsing through a PDF that you downloaded, THAT COPY HAS NOT BEEN PAID FOR. The control of that particular copy is still in the hands of the copyright owner, because he has not been paid. It is at the pleasure and whim of the copyright holder as to whether you are legally allowed to browse or not.

Browsing is NOT a right, it's just a privilege that most bookstore owners provide you, allowing you to make use of their (paid-for) copy.

Geez, now I sound an awful lot like a soulless copyright holder, huh?

Seriously, though... all I'm trying to do is follow the logic and get something that is universally consistent.

--The Sigil

 

[The Sigil]

Yes, thank you.

You're welcome.

It's amazing how hard we can make things that really should be easy. It took me an hour of thinking and typing to just come up with that simple answer LOL.

--The Sigil

 

[woodelf]

Go look at the penalties the Verve had to pay when frontman Richard Ashcroft lifted a portion of an obscure Rolling Stones track for their Bittersweet Symphony. He just infringed a little bit from a Stones song nobody would remember...except when the song shot up the charts, the Stones' legal team swung into action.

Semi-On topic: if it really is "just a little bit", i don't think it should've been ruled infringement. That's one of the problems with long-term copyright combined with very limited fair use: it limits building on ideas. But i haven't heard it, so i don't know how much was stolen.

Off topic: do you know the name of the song? I really like elements of Bittersweet Symphony, and can't stand other elements, so i'd be curious to hear something like it, yet unlike it.

edit: nevermind. a bit of Googling turned it up.

 

[WayneLigon]

I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case. Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine? Did they use THAC0s? I don't know, so I can't address this one.

Judge's Guild used pretty much everything; all stats, equipment, all of it. In fact, I think they might have been the ones to invent the term THACO; that wasn't an AD&D term until 2E as far as I know, well after JG had been driven out of business.