File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[Kalanyr]

While I'm sure that Dannyalcatraz can/will answer this more completely and precisely than I can, Your post explicitely invoked the problems that I think that your poet and James Heard's both had.

Equal protection is not equal opportunity. IP that you create has the same legal protections that IP created by Disney or Hasbro has. Invoking those protections might well be more difficult if you cannot afford the initial financial costs to act in the same way that large corporations do, but in the eyes of the law, both forms of IP have the same rights, regardless of their source.

The word "monopoly" is a highly charged word, loaded with such negative connotations that when it is not used properly it makes the argument appear to be demagogery. It may be difficult to break into book publishing, music, movies, TV, but it is certainly not a monopoly.

It also occurs to me that it would be funny if the Parker Brothers subdivision of Hasbro attempted to copyright the word "monopoly".

I their point is that the law regards the two as having equal protection but they don't, the corporation gets more protection out of the same law, becaue they can afford to. If the law says 4 apples = 8 apples, it doesn't change the fact that that's objectively false. The perception of equal protection doesn't change the reality that its not, because one side has more resources to use more of the protection.

 

[WayneLigon]

Global Economy Yes but not Global law as the gentleman from Finland has stated. He can download Shrek 2 in Finland and he is a Okay guy but if he does in LA Califor I A he is a thief....IF your country aka FINLAND and other don't match the U.S.A. laws but you have copies of U.S.A product your are a legal user but unethical thief.

Not sure just what the conventions say, but Finland is a signatory state to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Universal Copyright Conventions, they have bilateral copyright relations with the United States by virtue of treaty with us, and they're a member of the World Trade Organization. So I assume that there is some protection there; the extent depends on Finnish law and what that treaty is we have with them.

 

[scott-fs]

Not sure just what the conventions say, but Finland is a signatory state to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, the Universal Copyright Conventions, they have bilateral copyright relations with the United States by virtue of treaty with us, and they're a member of the World Trade Organization. So I assume that there is some protection there; the extent depends on Finnish law and what that treaty is we have with them.

Canada likewise is a signatory to the Berne Convention. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that in Canada it is quite legal to download (it's always been legal to download since copyright infringement (which this is) is all about distribution, and not theft (as in taking something which isn't yours)). Recently the court's have decided that placing something in a folder that happens to be accessible to the outside world is not infringement as long as you do not promote that it is there. Once you start advertising that it is there (through a downloads website, for instance), you are infringing on the copyright.

If it matters, we in Canada (as well as atleast 24 other countries including most G-7 and European Union countries) pay for piracy indirectly by having a levy charged on recordable media and non-removable memory in digital audio recorders that goes to an organization which then distributes it to music copyright holders. The only problem with this is that it doesn't take into account the many other copyright holders that should receive these levies. Software (video games, etc) and movies, most notably, since in my experience cds are used more often to make copies of games, programs, and movies, rather than as music cds.

I guess all these writers are also missing out on a revenue stream, since putting illegal copies of products to give to someone else has also been one use of blank cds.

Currently the levy in Canada is $0.21 per cdr. You can get blank cdrs for about $30/100, which means that over two-thirds the cost to purchase blank cds is going to copyright holders. For non-removable memory, it's $25/device.

Below is a good article that I think everyone should read.

Canadian Copyright Levy Info


There is also something very interesting as well. Apparently it is legal to borrow a copy of a cd from a friend, make a copy for yourself, and use that for personal uses, giving the original back to your friend. You can't copy his cd for his use, even if he owns the original, but you don't need to have an original for it to be legal.

On the other hand, don't consider this site to be legal advice.

One other interesting note, the CPCC (organization in charge of collecting levies), had proposed a levy of $21/GB for mp3 players. The site gives an example of Apple's 40BG Ipod, which sells for $754 CDN. If the levy had gone through $840 would be added to the Ipods price. The CPCC later revised their proposed levy, but you'd still be paying a levy of $150. In a final revision in December 2003, they decided that the levy would be $25 for a device that can record more than 10GB of data.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Hmm, I see I'm not the only one that is unsure of what jasper is saying, since Dr Harry things jasper seems to be for downloading and I think he's against.

At least we have both possibilities covered.

 

[Dr. Harry]

I their point is that the law regards the two as having equal protection but they don't, the corporation gets more protection out of the same law, becaue they can afford to. The perception of equal protection doesn't change the reality that its not, because one side has more resources to use more of the protection.

I would not say the "percetion" of equal protection, because while an individual or smaller corporation is less likely to have the resources to actively defend their copyright in the sense of instituting lawsuits, there is no legal difference between the two copyrights in theory or in court if the infringed party pursues a complaint or risks a lawsuit. In other words, any flaw has to do with the fact that rich people have it easier, *not* with the law itself. Without going into political proposals on what should be changed (cue up Aerosmith's "Eat the Rich"), the best non-political way to make all copyrights be created equal is to rigorously and actively defend copyright; this would have the result of triggering action on the sites distributing illegal copies of works of small companies, which would dry up the sites where people are downloading game products.

Before we spend a great deal of energy on this, and before we trigger posts of "since copyright laws aren't perfect I have the right to break them when it is convenient for me", does anyone have any actual examples of smaller companies/individuals getting shafted by having their copyright encrouched upon?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

the corporation gets more protection out of the same law, becaue they can afford to. If the law says 4 apples = 8 apples, it doesn't change the fact that that's objectively false. The perception of equal protection doesn't change the reality that its not, because one side has more resources to use more of the protection.

So your complaint is that IP protection is unfair because Disney can pay to enforce its copyright with a wall of attorneys and you can't? That's not the law's fault- that's life.

You, the underdog, have the same bundle of rights in your IP as any powerful IP holder has in its IP, and those rights arise at the moment of creation. The original movie you make is just as protected as Disney's. Your novel is just as protected as Stephen King's. Your song is just as protected as Metallica's.

The difference is that you might not be able to afford a lawyer to defend your rights, and every other IP holder above can. The only time you're entitled to free legal councel is when you're destitute and charged with a crime, and trust me, the attorney you get for free may be high quality, but he has less time to work on your case than a hired gun.

That is not something the law can readily address. That is where the private citizen must step up to the plate. For the record, you're starting to see more attorneys take on copyright infringement cases on a contingent fee basis- if they don't win, they don't get paid. And, much like Barry Sheck has his Innocence Project, which tries to get DNA tests done for indigent persons on death row (pro bono), perhaps someone will eventually form an analogous organization for low-income IP holders, prosecuting their cases for nominal fees. Heck, perhaps Ralph Nader's crowd is already doing this.

Until then, you can always learn your copyright law well enough to proceed pro se and protect your own rights. Yes, its a scary process, but the courts generally grant pro se plaintiffs a lot more leeway in a courtroom since they are amateurs. The essentials of an infringement case are 1) proving you created the IP, 2) the accused subsequently violated your copyright by using your IP without permission and in a fashion not protected by the fair use doctrine, 3) a reasonably certain number of times or with a reasonably certain dollar amount of harm.

Plus, if you get enough publicity (perhaps due to an anonymous call to your local media watchdog?), you might just become the proverbial ambulance getting chased.

There is also something very interesting as well. Apparently it is legal to borrow a copy of a cd from a friend, make a copy for yourself, and use that for personal uses, giving the original back to your friend. You can't copy his cd for his use, even if he owns the original, but you don't need to have an original for it to be legal.

Actually, that's still piracy, but it is on so small a scale it is what an economist and the law would call "optimal-level piracy." That is, it would cost the company more money to go after you for 1 infringement than to ignore it or let you go with a warning. To enforce the law perfectly would be so prohibitively expensive, its the economic equivalent of trying to accelerate a given mass to the speed of light. The only way you'll get in trouble for a solo copy scenario like this is by doing it in a blatantly stupid way- like burning the whole CD at Sony Music's headquarters in front of the artist and the company president.

Do really need to give people a crimmanl record for copyright infringement?

What has the music and movie industry (as well as other IP holders) quivering is the ability of one person to upload a copy, and have millions of people download it all over the world, especially since it is obvious that the technology of electronic IP distribution will only become faster (I'm peripherally involved in one such project). Past pirates needed to make physical copies, which required a lot of time, a factory and all kinds of machinery (all the same kinds of overhead as a legitimate producer). In fact, many piracy busts happened in factories doing legitimate production- they just ran off an extra 125k copies of the IP in question during off-peak hours, and they had to sell physical product just like the normal retailers. Modern potential pirates only need a computer- insignificant overhead and a negligible time investment- and due to anonymous P2P filesharing, its MUCH harder to track the infringement. If you look at the people the RIAA has gone after so far, they all stockpiled illegally downloaded IP- not a one was a first-time offender. Note also that the settlements have so far averaged around $3000, probably about the value of the stolen merch, + some nominal penalties, including, I think, probation.

 

[scott-fs]

Actually, that's still piracy, but it is on so small a scale it is what an economist and the law would call "optimal-level piracy."

Well, while I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the source, in the disclaimer section he says that while he isn't a lawyer, he has discussed a number of points with a lawyer.

As well, if I didn't make it clear before, this is from Canada, so if you are from the US, this won't apply to you, though it would be good to be aware of it.

I posted my previous message, and another one sometime around page 13-14 for informational purposes only, to provide some perspective on this issue, so that everyone comes away from this discussion knowing that there are some countries where it is legal to do some of the activities, others disagree with. Content creators/copyright owners might not like it, but it is legal to download and share files in Canada (as long as you're not making a positive action to distribute). It might not be considered morally or ethically right to download something for free, without paying the creator, but legally it is ok. As I've said in the past, if I download something that I use and like very much, I will pay the creator, as my financial situation will allow.

Regarding copying a cd borrowed from a friend:

Can I legally copy music CDs for my friends?

The simple answer is NO, but you can legally copy your friend's music CD for YOUR OWN use.

To paraphrase the introduction to an early Copyright Board ruling:

On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act came into force. Until then, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright. Part VIII legalizes one such activity: copying of sound recordings of musical works onto recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy.

It does not matter whether you own the original sound recording (on any medium), you can legally make a copy for your own private use.

To emphasize this point, endnote 4 of an early Copyright Board ruling says:

Section 80 does not legalize (a) copies made for the use of someone other than the person making the copy; and (b) copies of anything else than sound recordings of musical works. It does legalize making a personal copy of a recording owned by someone else.

Note that the Copyright Act ONLY allows for copies to be made of "sound recordings of musical works". Nonmusical works, such as audio books or books-on-tape are NOT covered.