File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[Henry]

Instead, the producer of the product sets the price and I decide that I either will or will not pay that price for the product offered. Stealing the product because I'm not willing to pay full price does not fit into my moral code.

Here's another issue that, while relatively trivial, falls in the same vein - discount coupon counterfeiting. If I had a bookstore who had limited run of coupons for $10.00 off every purchase, but the coupon was ridiculously easy to counterfeit, and I printed up, say, 50 copies or so, is the store taking a loss from the book purchases I make?

In reality, coupon counterfeiting is actually with the advent of color lasers and high-quality paper stock becoming more common - I heard something in a new report on this about six months ago. While it's not grand theft, it's still something of a concern to vendors, whose retailers (the stores themselves) are getting shafted when the vendors don't honor the bogus coupons. A report on the CIC website estimated somewhere between 300 million to 600 million dollars loss annually. Interesting stuff!

 

[ToddSchumacher]

Here's another issue that, while relatively trivial, falls in the same vein - discount coupon counterfeiting. If I had a bookstore who had limited run of coupons for $10.00 off every purchase, but the coupon was ridiculously easy to counterfeit, and I printed up, say, 50 copies or so, is the store taking a loss from the book purchases I make?

In reality, coupon counterfeiting is actually with the advent of color lasers and high-quality paper stock becoming more common - I heard something in a new report on this about six months ago. While it's not grand theft, it's still something of a concern to vendors, whose retailers (the stores themselves) are getting shafted when the vendors don't honor the bogus coupons. A report on the CIC website estimated somewhere between 300 million to 600 million dollars loss annually. Interesting stuff!

Just a side note.

I work in a grocery store and right now there is a picture posted of a man who counterfiets coupons for baby formula, warning them to get the manager if they see him.

 

[MerakSpielman]

Henry, here's another example of deciding to own something but not wanting to put out the money for it that you might find easier to understand:

Say there's a RPG book you've thumbed through at the store and it's kind of OK. You don't think it's worth $20, though, so you somewhat reluctantly put it back on the shelf and decide not to buy it.

A month later your friend buys you the book for your birthday.

If you really wanted it, you would have bought it at the store, right? So since you didn't really want it you'll return the gift or get rid of it. If you didn't like it well enough to buy, surely it's not worth getting for free.

That's how pirates view their downloads. It wasn't worth purchasing, but if I can get it for free I guess I'll get it. Sometimes the item in question fails to be worth the download time. "It'll take 2 hours to download? Forget it." Even the time it would take to get it for no money is sometimes too much of a cost.

 

[Estlor]

I think that copyright infringement in the RPG industry is a somewhat different creature than it is in the music and movie industries.

Part of what drives modern copyright infringement is the perception of an imbalance between cost and worth. When a commodity (such as a CD or tickets to a movie) becomes prohibitively expensive, individuals who enjoy consuming that commodity will take great pains to find a lower cost alternative that allows them to continue to consume the item. In this case, downloading MP3s with the rationale that, "I only want one or two songs, why should I pay $15-$18 for the whole album?" or downloading movies with the rationale that, "There is no way a movie is worth $9 when it will be free on cable in a year." Connected to this mindset is the idea of enforced quality control. The infringer begins to think, "My downloading this will force the record companies to only book artists that can put out an entire CD of good music at a time." The idea is the current state of an industry promotes a commodity at a price out of line with what it is worth, and that somehow by obtaining that commodity through a 3rd party broker you force the industry to adapt to your demands or suffer.

Now, with the RPG industry, the cost of the product is hardly out of line with its worth. There may be some instances when an individual is hesitant to buy a product (such as Complete Warrior if they dislike proliferation of prestige classes). In those cases, the idea of cost/worth inequity comes into play. But it seems RPG infringement falls into the "try before you buy" camp or the "I steal for fun" camp. In this case, the habitual thieves have no intention of buying the item in question anyway, and there is nothing the RPG company can do to gain their sale. The trial runers are likely to buy the product if they find value in it, and their downloading of a PDF is comparable to leafing through the book in the store.

Now, myself, I'll state some personal views.

I have previously downloaded MP3s through various file sharing programs. The RIAA crackdown forced me to go "legit" (I pay for Rhapsody and am content with streaming audio), but I had no qualms beforehand because I felt the only person I was "hurting" was a record label that was guilty of price fixing in the first place. In truth, many times I bought the CD of a new up-and-coming artist because I listened to MP3s of it and liked what I heard. 90% of the CDs I bought between the years of 1999 and 2002 were the result of file sharing discoveries or the residuals.

I don't download movies. The prices of DVDs have become so reasonable and the availability of movies for rent at Blockbuster and local libraries makes it a waste of time to do that. However, I will not bat an eye at downloading episodes of the current season of the Sopranos. I refuse to pay for digital cable and HBO for one show (a nearly $80 expense in my area) when I plan to buy the season later on DVD (a $60 expense that is permanent). Because I don't want to wait, I download, watch, then delete the episode. I'll own it soon enough, I just hate not being able to discuss the show with people who have HBO and are currently watching it.

I don't download RPG PDFs. I hate the PDF format as a document replacement. Nothing beats the good old dead tree version in my book. As a result, I won't buy a PDF product if that's the only way you can get a book. The only PDF products I own are out of print TSR material and print books of formerly PDF only products (specifically several Malhavoc books). Yes, I may be missing out on some high-quality work, but if they really want my money they'd work out a print deal with another publisher.

 

[Henry]

Henry, here's another example of deciding to own something but not wanting to put out the money for it that you might find easier to understand:

...A month later your friend buys you the book for your birthday.

If you really wanted it, you would have bought it at the store, right? So since you didn't really want it you'll return the gift or get rid of it. If you didn't like it well enough to buy, surely it's not worth getting for free.

To me, it's a different circumstance because it was still purchased under the social contract between consumer and reseller, and the consumer did something that falls under the same contract (giving it away). Then, there's also the issue of not disrespecting a friend who gives you the book, so even if you don't use it, you keep it out of courtesy. If the friend said, "Here's the sales receipt, just in case you find something you like better," (happens all the time in my family and friends circle) then I'd take it back in a heartbeat for something I DID desire, but either couldn't justify or couldn't afford.

In other words, still within the whole seller/buyer paradigm. But then, my view is stubborn that way.

I'm no economist or sociologist by any means, but to me, if you want something, but aren't willing to undertake one of the mechanisms to get it, it's technically theft, or at best loss of a sale under that social and economic contract.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the whole counterfeit coupoon thing?

 

[drnuncheon]

I work in a grocery store and right now there is a picture posted of a man who counterfiets coupons for baby formula, warning them to get the manager if they see him.

Considering that all the new parents I talk to have things to say about how expensive baby formula is (let's put it this way - the wife and I spend less on groceries for two full-grown adults), I'm a little confused why you seem to think that's any worse than counterfeiting coupons for other kinds of food.

Er, to get back on track, I bought Bastion's Alchemy and Herbalists after downloading it. In fact, I had skipped it in the store when it first came out, so in this case at least it was unquestionably a gained sale...

J

 

[Rel]

I think that copyright infringement in the RPG industry is a somewhat different creature than it is in the music and movie industries...

I think that's a pretty good analysis, Estlor.

I'd like to make it clear that I hardly think that "file sharing" (what a polite name for it, eh?) is hardly the largest problem plaguing our times. And I understand why many people think it is ok to do: They think that there is no victim because they would not have paid for the product in the first place and therefore no money is theoritically lost. But I say that money is being lost.

You're over at a friend's house gaming and you've brought your laptop. Friend A and Friend B are chatting and A mentions that he's heard about a new PDF called "The Complete Jester" that has the "Guy in the Silly Hat" prestige class that would be perfect for his PC. He's been thinking about buying it. "Me too," says B, "I've heard that the Weapon Juggling feat is pretty neat, and besides, that PDF only costs $5 and it's put out Chartreuse Samurai and their products are always good."

"Wait just a moment, Gentlemen! No need to go pay for that product. I've got it right here. Now...there and...there. I've burned you each a copy! *hands A and B discs*."

And Chartreuse Samurai loses revenue that would have cost each of the players less than the cost of the Grilled Chicken Combo #6 they picked up on the way to the session. But no harm done, right?

*laments the loss of the rolleyes smiley*

 

[Umbran]

I'm no economist or sociologist by any means, but to me, if you want something, but aren't willing to undertake one of the mechanisms to get it, it's technically theft, or at best loss of a sale under that social and economic contract.

Ah, okay. I think I see the source of the disconnect here...

You're talking about contracts. Under the contract, if you don't undertake one of the allowed mechanisms for acquiring the product, yes, you are committing theft.

But "loss of sale" has nothing to do with the contract. It has to do with bookkeeping.

We, as a society, are still trying to figure out how to deal with the issue. So, memebers of an industry (like the RIAA), poke around. They get some estimates, and they go to Washington DC...

"We estimate that X songs were copied without a sale. If we had sold all those songs instead we would have made $Y more this year. Therefore, we have lost $Y in sales to this copying. Please pass a bill that will stop us from losing so much money."

However, the "if" in "If we had sold all those.." is a big one. As noted - not all those who copy would have bought if copying were not available. If we could turn back the clock and run the universe without this copying, the companies would get something notably less than $Y more in revenue.

I don't think anyone is saying that no sales are lost to copying. However, equating 1 copy to 1 sale lost is a naive estimate. It is a tool used by industried to over-represent their economic losses.

 

[James Heard]

It is a tool used by industried to over-represent their economic losses.

Yeah, it's like saying that everyone who picked up a book and flipped through it at the store without buying it is lost revenue. I don't know how many times I flip through things at a store and later come back to buy them, in my case a lot of times the major 'lost sale' is in not keeping a product available to catch up with my budget allocation. Worse, when the products go off the shelves and turn up on Ebay at a 500% markup because they're OOP. That's probably the best thing the PDF market has going for it. OOP means a completely different animal in a digital market. How much does 'shelf space' cost as a PDF distributor? Shipping? And you don't have to worry about shoplifting ACTUALLY ripping off your investment, unless someone breaks in and starts stealing you archive disks.*


*If someone has their home broken into for the sole purpose of stealing their pdf disks, let me know. I think the phrase will be, "Gentlemen, we have arrived." Talk about pure gaming gold...

 

[MerakSpielman]

To me, it's a different circumstance because it was still purchased under the social contract between consumer and reseller, and the consumer did something that falls under the same contract (giving it away). Then, there's also the issue of not disrespecting a friend who gives you the book, so even if you don't use it, you keep it out of courtesy. If the friend said, "Here's the sales receipt, just in case you find something you like better," (happens all the time in my family and friends circle) then I'd take it back in a heartbeat for something I DID desire, but either couldn't justify or couldn't afford.

In other words, still within the whole seller/buyer paradigm. But then, my view is stubborn that way.

I suspect you and I are in some ways just different creatures, then. I have tons of things on my "I would never buy it, but if somebody gifted me with it I'd use it and keep it" list.

I'm no economist or sociologist by any means, but to me, if you want something, but aren't willing to undertake one of the mechanisms to get it, it's technically theft, or at best loss of a sale under that social and economic contract.

I hinted at this earlier, but this paradigm breaks down pretty easily. I personally know people who have multiple thousands of dollars worth of pirated material on their computers. This can't all be counted as "loss of sale" because the people in question would never have been able to afford to purchase such an incredible quantity of stuff. At least some percentage of their downloads, then, qualifies as stuff they wouldn't have legally purchased had they been unable to download it.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the whole counterfeit coupoon thing?

This is hard to measure. I can only assume that when a store publishes X number of coupons, they expect to have X number of customers use the coupons to get a discount. The loss of profit due to this discount should be expected.

However, not all coupons are used. The vast majority of coupons published in the Sunday paper are just thrown away, since the person who purchased the paper, even if they are a coupon-clipper, will only find a handful of coupons for products they personally buy.

At this point in my thought process I'm leaning towards counterfeit coupons being no big deal, since they probably don't come close to making up for the number of coupons thrown away.

Then my train of thought continues. Marketing people are pretty savvy. They probably know what to expect from publishing X number of coupons. The know the number of coupons from X that can be expected to be redeemed, and plan their marketing strategies around this. They do not expect or intend for all of the coupons they publish to be redeemed - this might in fact be very bad for business.

Now my thought process is leaning against counterfeiting coupons. I guess I'm undecided, and don't know enough about the industry to make an informed opinion.