File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[The Sigil]

I think all this "stick it to the corporate MAN" stuff is total BS and is simply a rationalization. If it works for you, fine, but I've got no respect for it. Besides, the 3rd party publishers of d20 products are about as far away from "The Man" as you can get.
(snip)
They spent time that they could have spent with family or friends or working or gaming and instead they spent it making this product. And what you're saying is that that time is worth nothing.

It's not a matter of d20 publishers being as far away from "the Man" as you can get. I suggest you look at some of the stuff I quoted from Thomas Babington MacAulay again... the guy has a keen insight into human nature.

At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains.
...
On which side indeed should the public sympathy be when the question is whether some book as popular as Robinson Crusoe, or the Pilgrim's Progress, shall be in every cottage, or whether it shall be confined to the libraries of the rich for the advantage of the great-grandson of a bookseller who, a hundred years before, drove a hard bargain for the copyright with the author when in great distress?
...
Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions.
...
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

Look at that carefully. It basically says once you set up "The MAN" against whom someone can rationalize their actions, it's just a quick trip down the slippery slope to screwing the "little guy" - because there's no convenient stopping point (do you stop at a company that has at least 30 employees? how do you know how many employees the company has? etc.) - I'm not saying it's RIGHT, just that it IS.

Agree with the stance of "sticking it to the MAN" or not, I think there can be a legitimate argument made that corporations that have lobbied (and won) copyright extensions have defrauded and stolen from the populace. They entered into an agreement when they created the work in the first place that they would receive a copyright term of X in exchange for creating the work and contributing it to the public consciousness. That they have now lobbied for a copyright term of X+Y, coupled with more onerous DRM laws, without offereing anything in consideration means the deal "smells bad." IANAL, but if I am not mistaken, a contract (which is essentially what copyright is - a contract between the public and the writer/artist/etc.) is considered invalid without "grant and consideration" - meaning that both parties must receive something they did not have in return for what is given for an exchange to be binding. The public, through the government, agreed to give Y years of copyright protection and onerous DRM laws and received nothing in exchange. One could argue that this is a breach of the "Grant and Consideration" principle and therefore the contract is invalid and copyright term extensions are invalid (in the same way that I could have you sign a contract saying that I promise nothing and in return you will give me $100 - the legal system will not look on this as a valid contract because you received nothing in return -- you giving me $100 might be a gift, but it's not a valid contract).

Simply put, there are reasonable, rational arguments out there against current copyright laws... and these taint with "guilt by association" all copyright holders in the eyes of those who subscribe to those arguments. Because the most prominent copyright holders (RIAA, MPAA, Disney) are the ones foisting these "bad deals," the less prominent copyright holders (RPG Publishers) just get lumped in under the "bad" umbrella - in the same way that "some black kid in South Central LA" is automatically presumed to be a gang member - or at least dangerous, or the way that the "white male is the root of all of society's problems" or that "feminists are loud, obnoxious jerks" or that "hispanics aren't interested in learning English" or that "middle easterners are all terrorists" etc. These are horrible, stupid, stereotypes that exist only because the "most newsworthy" members of the group get the press, and so we assign to all members of the group the same attributes.

As a small-fry copyright holder, I am pissed that the RIAA/Disney, et al put me in a bad light and poison the view people hold of the value of my work... in a similar way that I'm pissed that loud obnoxious American tourists have poisoned the view the world in general holds of Americans (and having lived abroad for a couple of years, it's true - you can usually spot the loud, obnoxious, "think-they-own-the-joint" American tourists a mile away - that doesn't mean ALL of us are like that). Because of THEIR actions, I'm on the receiving end of ill will and copyright infringement. Thanks, guys.

--The Sigil

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Therefore I don't see any point in using the same sorts of arguments about gaming PDF's that one would about mp3's and the music industry.

Aside from the "want to see before I buy" stance, I agree with this.

One question I do have for the "preview" file-sharers: Do any of you find yourselves "backed-up" in your planned purchases? How many have found yourselves in possession of so much material that you want to buy that you can't possibly do so in a reasonable amount of time? Or, more possibly in my mind, at such an expense that you can't feasibly afford it all?

I'm not looking to rip on anyone for this; I'm just curious how often the desires of the "previewer" aren't possible due to the facts of the sitaution. This thread does have me considering doing so (I'd most certainly be able to see a lot faster via fileshare than waiting for enough reviews to be written or for someone I know to have gotten the product), but with so much material out there, I'd be worried about this happening to me, and happening quickly.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

There's some ground I want to cover with this response...

1.)JingJang, maps by Rand-McNally and WotC are two very different things. Street maps, world atlases and the like are essentially purely factual historical documents and technically shouldn't be covered under copyright law on that very basis. On the other hand, a map in a game is very often a work of fiction that does not present a historical representation of any place in the real world, so they are covered under copyright law the same as any other work of fiction.

2.) What counts as a lost sale? An individual having the product and not paying for it. That's it, end of discussion. Just because they claim they would not have bought it doesn't mean you've heard the gospel of truth uttered from their lips. The fact is they have it and they didn't pay for it. Thier possession means the publisher lost money.

3.) Justification is nothing but lip service. They say they never would have bought it to begin with? To that I say why is it still sitting on their systems? If it was so worthless to them, I'd think they'd get rid of it to make it easier to manage their illegal collection of "useful things". They can't afford it? Why are they wasting time gaming instead of working a second job if they're that broke? Besides, now is not forever. You steal the book now, which means when you can afford it, you won't be buying it. Downloaded it for a preview? if you didn't like it, you should have deleted it. If you did like it, you should have deleted it until you bought it.

But in the end, none of these justifications explains away putting the files out there to share off your own computer. Once you've done that, you've made yourself an accomplice to the ongoing crimes of copyright infringement and counterfeiting.

I think the real truth is that regardless the justification offered, in the end it is all a matter of greed. In the end, a desire to have the product without spending money on it, for whatever reason, generates a sense of greed that overrides their understanding that we authors have earned the money they would have spent on it.

4.) having a hardcopy of the book in its print edition does not entitle you to the right to produce backups. About 10 years ago, a law firm started "saving" money by photcopying pages of books in their legal library. They were sued by numerous publishers over this action and the publishers won on the ground that there was nothing stopping the law firm from buying multiple copies of the books for decimation down to individual pages to serve the same purpose as the photocopies.

5.) They only thing I see as justifiable is status of a book with a publisher. A book going out of print is like waving a huge flag and screaming "this book isn't worth selling anymore". If copyright were structured more like trademark with the "use it or lose it" model, OOP items wouldn't even be considered pirated. However, moving an OOP product to the PDF market does counter this entire outlook, so publishers should strongly consider moving an OOP product into PDF status ASAP after deciding to not reprint.

6.) As far as the PDF industry is concerned, P2P applications usually do not represent the bulk the piracy. It is usenet and IRC that are the problems.

7.) My own little "report" on piracy over a 13 month period is based on tracking down unique sources from which the files can be downloaded, unlike Warlord Ralts, who put together a means to track end users (his numbers suggest there could be as many as 5 end users for each source). Think about this. the average pdf can expect 100-500 sales in its lifespan. I uncovered over 700 sources for downloading my PDFs for free. Ralts identified 3000 end users who downloaded a pay product for free.

 

[Prest0]

It's not a matter of d20 publishers being as far away from "the Man" as you can get. (snip)

Agree with the stance of "sticking it to the MAN" or not, I think there can be a legitimate argument made that corporations that have lobbied (and won) copyright extensions have defrauded and stolen from the populace. (snip)

Simply put, there are reasonable, rational arguments out there against current copyright laws... and these taint with "guilt by association" all copyright holders in the eyes of those who subscribe to those arguments.(snip)

As a small-fry copyright holder, I am pissed that the RIAA/Disney, et al put me in a bad light and poison the view people hold of the value of my work...

Or maybe people just like free stuff.

I strongly suspect that even if copyright only extended 10 years, people would still download PDFs without paying for them.

 

[The Sigil]

Or maybe people just like free stuff.

I strongly suspect that even if copyright only extended 10 years, people would still download PDFs without paying for them.

The "if it's free, there will be a line" theory is definitely true, however...

My theory, however, goes like this... if copyright only extended 10 years in the first place there would not be scores of people posting files to the web, P2P networks, etc. because the "critical mass" of ill wil and justification needed to launch sufficient piracy in the first place would never emerge.

But because we have essentially unlimited copyrights, we have passed the critical mass of ill will and justification. If copyright were reduced to 10 years starting today, I think we'd still see filesharing for the next 60 years or so until the current generation of people - who grew up with strangling copyright - dies off.

Basically, the damage is already done... shortening copyright now won't undo it... but I think had copyright not been lengthened so much in the first place, we might not be in this spot now.

This is all speculative, but I really think that if people had a reasonable expectation to legally obtain things for free in their own lifetimes, we wouldn't see piracy the way it is today. And of course, if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle.

--The Sigil

 

[Lazybones]

I agree, 10 years is sufficient (I'd have gone with 14 for the sake of symmetry with the original term of copyright, but I'm easily convinced to go down to 10).

Again, no stats ready at hand, but I'd wager that the lion's share of profits on most media are earned in the 1st 10 years following publication. I know there are some exceptions; some authors, for example, aren't "discovered" for a while after their first few books are out.

I don't know why we have this idea that people (or more frequently, companies that absorb the rights of the copyright) are entitled to benefit for 50, 70, or 90 years after the product is made anyway. Sure, writing a book, or a song, takes effort, and it should be renumerated. But why the heck does that entitle your descendants to benefit from that in perpetuity? Or even yourself; hey, here's an idea, if you want more benefits after a decade... write another book. Plus there's a benefit for the author: I would think that your later work, if it's good, would sell more, since your earlier work would be disseminated more among the population, being freely available to all.

This garbage where girl scouts are forced to pay a fee for singing "happy birthday" at their camps is ridiculous and stupid. IMHO and YMMV.

Heck, I'll even recant and allow copyright for life... but with one caveat: that copyrights can only be held by individuals, not by a corporation. And all material immediately goes into the public domain upon the death of the creator. Free Mickey!

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

I'd like to point something out here...

All of the moralistic points of view, and arguing, still ignored one fact, even to the point of suggesting that I was borderline retarded and thought I could be the next Gygax...

THREE THOUSAND DOWNLOADS!

TWELVE HUNDRED OF THEM OPEN THE DOCUMENT MORE THAN FIVE TIMES!

ONE THOUSAND OPENED IT FOR AT LEAST 6 MONTHS, AT LEAST TWICE A MONTH!

SEVEN HUNDRED OPENED IT AT LEAST TWICE A WEEK FOR OVER SIX MONTHS!

That means, that each of the companies, each of the authors, lost $700 because of the few "preview" pages of the document that was attatched to the several pages of advertisements.

Tell me now that money wasn't stolen from the authors and publishers.

Justify that.

I'll be around, I'm currently working on another PDF product for people to rip off and justify with "Stickin' it to the man!" or the ever popular "RPG Products by 3rd party people should be free, man!"

Yeah, this is irritating to me. Those are the numbers, and that probably didn't even TOUCH those that pass them around through the "Six degrees of seperation" theory, the guys who deleted it because of the ads, and wanted the whole book.

And to answer the question: No, I didn't plan on being the next Gary Gygax. Yes, my family does have another source of income.
Could I have used the $1200?
Yup. That's basically a months pay in my household. So I basically had a month's pay stolen from my household.

How would you feel if I walked up to you on Payday, stuck a pistol in your face, took the money out of your wallet, and walked off? All you lost was the money, I even let you keep the wallet. And it's not like you had it.

Did you expect to get paid for your work?

 

[WizarDru]

I agree, 10 years is sufficient (I'd have gone with 14 for the sake of symmetry with the original term of copyright, but I'm easily convinced to go down to 10).

Again, no stats ready at hand, but I'd wager that the lion's share of profits on most media are earned in the 1st 10 years following publication. I know there are some exceptions; some authors, for example, aren't "discovered" for a while after their first few books are out.


Heck, I'll even recant and allow copyright for life... but with one caveat: that copyrights can only be held by individuals, not by a corporation. And all material immediately goes into the public domain upon the death of the creator. Free Mickey!

I'd disagree that the lion's share is in the first 10 years. Clearly, that wasn't the case for Tolkien, for example, and at that rate, authors like J.K. Rowling, Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin would be putting out books in a series whose first editions had already been released to the public domain. I didn't get into Harry Potter until the third book had come out, and just prior to the fourth book.

I'm not sure that I see it as some great evil if the Tolkien family is able to pass their fathers work on as a legacy and a way to take care of his children, or that J.K. Rowling shouldn't be able to benefit from her works.

None of this, of course, deals with works that are 'evergreen'. My early views of "I, Robot" make it look pretty bad...but even if it isn't much good, it will probably still result in some curious readers purchasing some of his work. I'm of two minds as to how long such things should be protected, really.

Should such works be eventually released to the public domain without fail? I can see reasons for either answer.

Why, for example, should Mickey be 'free'? Disney's still making money off of him. On the other hand, more than half of Disney's movies are retelling of public domain tales...so I have no idea.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Just to clarify something:

The Piracy of OD&D didn't go very far. In those same interviews, Gary actually either had volunteers or paid people who would go to the conventions, and would actually find the bootleg copies, wrest them from the people and destroy them.

If the piracy became rampant back then, we wouldn't have the hobby we have today.

 

[Prest0]

This is all speculative, but I really think that if people had a reasonable expectation to legally obtain things for free in their own lifetimes, we wouldn't see piracy the way it is today. And of course, if my aunt had gonads, she'd be my uncle.

Precisely. We can speculate as to the deep societal causes until we're all blue in the face, but in the end it doesn't matter a hill of beans. As Warlord Ralts has demonstrated, people can use whatever justification they want but it still comes down to money out of the pockets of small publishers like us. Period.