File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[Henry]

Sure there is a value of anything someone downloads..but the cost of this is miniscule...compared to what they sell for, so there's no conflict between having it and not buying it anyway...

That I can't agree with, because the conflict is inherent between the existing model (pay what the vendor and consumer agree on), and the model that the downloader is trying to create (pay what the consumer values it as). Taken to its ultimate extension, the creators/vendors will put as much into it as they get out of it - which is to say, nothing.

 

[Kalanyr]

Yeah there's a conflict between it and the economical model society uses but there's no internal conflict between the two I said. I'm basically saying if I have $20, I will not buy a $40 book, this is undeniably true, now however if I can download it for $2, I may do so.

The existing model doesn't work perfectly becaue of this, many sales are lost because customers can't afford to buy the book (even thoug they would for some fraction of the price) so money is potentially lost , the only way to effectively get the maximum out of it would be to do as Sigil suggested and gradually lower the price, but thats not going to work on the long term because eventually even people who can pay $x will wait to pay $x/2 because people don't like spending more than they can, a perfect model just isn't going to happen I guess, since the extrapolation of the customer model results in everyone paying $0 (as you said) and the produced then making nothing.

But back to my original point the book published clearly hasn't lost $40, because he never would have gotten it anyway. While he's still lost some amount of money (potentially $20) if he'd reduced the price later, its not exactly fair to say its equivalent to stealing a $40 book (in which case the author won't get $40 from the thief and he won't get however much he could have legitimantly sold it for either (potentiall $40)).

(Of course since even if I do download it for $2 I may buy it later when it drops to $20, so the end result is that the seller has lost absolutely nothing to me (I couldn't have paid $40, and in the end I paid the $20 I might have paid (I've actually lost $2 for the privellege of seeing it before I could afford it) , gets kinda wierd really, because there's no physical object taken.)

Edit - 3 AM maths.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Situation before theft:
5 books on shelf.
Situation after theft:
4 books on shelf, one book in thief's hands.

Situation before piracy:
5 books on shelf.
Situation after piracy:
5 books on shelf, 1 book in pirate's hands.

They are clearly not identical situations.

But are they different in a meaningful way? What if the bookstore burns down that night, or if the thief is arrested much later, after the bookstore goes out of business with two copies of the book still on the shelf? Is the thief less cupable if no "loss" is incurred by the store?

And that's where this whole dillemma comes from. Our standard theft laws are predicated on the notion that the total quantity of goods is a constant, so if one person gains, another must lose. With IP, this isn't necessarily so.

At the very least this is theft in the sense of "theft of services". If I sneak my garbage into your apartment building's trash bins, what are you "losing"? But it is still considered a form of theft. Additionally, I disagree with the last sentence quoted. The author invested work which was produced for a commercial product, and the source of the commercial material set a price for it. The product was removed without the price being paid.
The seller has the right to assign a cost to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property. If the thief does not provide that amount, the amount is considered the value of the theft, even if the one stealing it does not consider the value of the object as that high. If one were to steal a physical game book from a bookstore, it would not work to say "Well, to me this only has a value of $2.00, because that's all that I was willing to pay for it" for two reasons: the price of the object was not the decision of the thief, and that the crime is only loosely associated with the value of the object. There is a difference between stealing something worth $2,000 and something worth $200, but there is not a legal difference between stealing something worth $200 and $20.

Something has happened, because the pirate has a copy. But something else hasn't happened, because the producer hasn't lost a copy. There is, quite literally, no loss: nothing is missing/gone. So the question then becomes, what does this mean? Is (1) the thief/pirate getting a copy without paying the part that is the crime, and it doesn't matter whether or not the producer has lost a copy? Or is it (2) the loss of the copy that is the real crime, and where that copy went is immaterial? Or is it (3) some combination/balance of the two?

If (1), then piracy is just as bad as theft. And, arson is no crime because the arsonist hasn't gained anything from it.

If (2), then piracy isn't a crime.

If (3) (as i believe), then it's still unclear exactly what the balance is. I have trouble accepting that piracy is as severe of a crime as theft. But, at the same time, i have trouble accepting that it isn't a crime at all.

Let's think of it as two acts, thing (1) and thing (2). The difference with electronic copies is that we have considered (1) and (2) as linked for so long that if thing (2) doesn't come into play, there are plenty of people (some of whom have posted elsewhere on this thread) who see the lack of (2) as permission to do (1) to their heart's content - as long as "they wouldn't have bought it, otherwise". After all, we can have a legal code with more than one crime one it, so we don't have to stop prosecuting for arson, et al.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

Which brings me full circle to my point. While for many centuries, the cost of moving from Step 2 to Step 3 was the biggest part of creating a copyrightable work, that is no longer the case. Now, it is MUCH harder to find someone who can do an eloquent/quality job of using language/music/other media to convey a "raw idea" (i.e., transition from Step 1 to Step 2) than it is to move from Step 2 to Step 3. Because moving from Step 1 to Step 2 is a purely intellectual and creative process, it CANNOT be automated. Now, the greater value is in moving from Step 1 to Step 2, because the skills and expense moving from Step 2 to Step 3 are very low.

It scares me that eliminating the effort of moving from step 2 to step 3 may eventually make moving from step 1 to step 2 obsolete, as I am one of the creative monkeys. Which was probably the point of this quote:

Because one day the infinite number of monkeys will have nothing else to write except the complete works of Shakespeare. And they would probably rather not know that when it happens."

What happens when there are too many creative monkeys? It's a kind of intellectual inflation.

Eight hundred billion creative monkeys + eight hundred billion stairmasters = too many transcribed ideas ----> "idea" subsidies (like farm subsidies but with ideas.)

The government pays people not to be a creative monkey. (It'll probably just be cheaper to let us monkeys starve.)

Egads!





.
.
.
That will probably happen about the same time that DnD v57.09 comes out.

 

[James Heard]

Hmmm. That would be sort of cool. Being paid to not voice opinions and ideas...It's like Heaven and Hell, all mixed up in one....

 

[The Sigil]

What happens when there are too many creative monkeys? It's a kind of intellectual inflation.

You're getting close to the point. The problem is that eventually the monkeys will only be able to type Shakespeare because anything else they type will be infringing upon copyrighted material (and the only reason they're not infringing on Shakespeare was that ol' Willy had the great misfortune to be born too early to benefit from perpetual copyright, thus his works are in the public domain).

As the original story mentions, when the day comes that the human race realizes that there is NOTHING new to create and any attempt at doing so makes them legally liable, they will go into a collective psychic shock, because we all create every day as we communicate with each other. The inability to express our ideas for fear of being sued for infringement (with ever-increasing penalties, it might be noted; at the current rate of escalation, the punishment for infringing in 2025 will probably approach the GNP of the entire world throughout the entire history of the world) -- this will be a tremendous shock to a race that finds great joy sharing its discoveries with other people (c.f., any group of 8 teenage girls) as we suddenly realizes thanks to draconian IP laws, we have to sit in the corner and not talk to anyone. Ever.

--The Sigil

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

The seller has the right to assign a cost to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property.

Example one:
1) I own an apple tree.
2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to an apple.
3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
4) You go buy a competitor's apple for 20 cents.

Example two:
1) I own a copyright to the phrase, "I Eat Cheese at Midnight! (R)"
2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to that phrase.
3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
4) You cannot use that phrase unless you pay me 5 million dollars.



I guess my point is that sellers should not have a perpetual and omnipotent "right" to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property in the case of IP, because it destroys the whole concept of competition.

Since a seller can place whatever price he wants, regardless of market conditions, I, as the consumer feel powerless and angry that I cannot turn to a competing business for the exact same product.

Thus I (the consumer) rebel.
.
.
.
1) This, of course, is besides the fact that sellers only have that "right" if we (the public) allow them to have that power.

2) I do not have a solution to the above dilemma without using a little bit of copyright, as is illustrated in one of The Sigil's previous posts.

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

You're getting close to the point. The problem is that eventually the monkeys will only be able to type Shakespeare because anything else they type will be infringing upon copyrighted material (and the only reason they're not infringing on Shakespeare was that ol' Willy had the great misfortune to be born too early to benefit from perpetual copyright, thus his works are in the public domain).

As the original story mentions, when the day comes that the human race realizes that there is NOTHING new to create and any attempt at doing so makes them legally liable, they will go into a collective psychic shock, because we all create every day as we communicate with each other. The inability to express our ideas for fear of being sued for infringement (with ever-increasing penalties, it might be noted; at the current rate of escalation, the punishment for infringing in 2025 will probably approach the GNP of the entire world throughout the entire history of the world) -- this will be a tremendous shock to a race that finds great joy sharing its discoveries with other people (c.f., any group of 8 teenage girls) as we suddenly realizes thanks to draconian IP laws, we have to sit in the corner and not talk to anyone. Ever.

--The Sigil

I think long before all of that happens, people will rebel and start throwing IP tea in Internet Bay. (Which is the idea you had in a previous thread.)
.
.
.
Moreso, I am afraid of the prediction that one day all of the "good" ideas will already be thought of and retained by the collective memory of the society.

That future, regardless of the state of copyright, scares me because then I (an ideamaker) will not have a function anymore.




But then again, do people have worth without a function? It seems like the future is a place where people must exist without functions (as is the theme in a lot of computer/robot stories.) Do we have a place in our own future?

That is beyond the scope of this thread, of course...

 

[Dr. Harry]

Moreso, I am afraid of the prediction that one day all of the "good" ideas will already be thought of and retained by the collective memory of the society.

I don't think that the pool of ideas is necessarily finite. This pops up every now and then "History is over", "everything has been done". Consider that "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." was written about 2300 years ago.

I think - and this at least reinforced in my philosophy by my training as a scientist - that as we do more and/or discover more, then more of the new will open up to us. I do not think that there will ever a point at which we know everything, or have done everything.

On an different line of thought, I was considering how complicated reasonable copyright laws are. For a single work, setting some period of time - let me just grab the random number of (roll, roll, roll) ten years - seems reasonable, but there are a number of cases where this seems unjust. Consider an ongoing work; the Harry Potter series, or the Batman comic, or the Peanuts strip. By having copyright expire in these cases, then J.K. Rowling loses the income from the first book in the series about the time the last one will come out; anybody can put out a Batman comic, and Charles Schulz would only have been in control of a tiny fraction of his work.

It would seem reasonable to differentiate between the ability to copy material and the ability to use the characters, though I can see some limitation based on a requirement to keep in characters in play to keep the rights protected.

And since I'm talking about Peanuts ...

http://www.fantagraphics.com/peanuts/peanuts.html

 

[Dr. Harry]

Example one:
1) I own an apple tree.
2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to an apple.
3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
4) You go buy a competitor's apple for 20 cents.

Example two:
1) I own a copyright to the phrase, "I Eat Cheese at Midnight! (R)"
2) I assign a price tag of 5 million dollars to that phrase.
3) You (the consumer) balk at that price.
4) You cannot use that phrase unless you pay me 5 million dollars

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, and - in this case- the value of the apple will not be held by a judge to be equivalent to your price. I know of nothing in gaming that is remotely comparible to your example. For example, while I have heard a number of people speak well of Dragonomicon (by WotC), but to me the perceived value is not worth the $35 (or whatever). This means that I haven't bought, not that I have the right to steal it, nor that there is no foul if I steal it, "since it wasn't worth the price to me". That is the choice, not "what should I buy and what should I steal?"

In the case of Example #2, the U.S. courts would only uphold that (though IANAL) if you had established "I eat cheese at midnight" as having some identity value to you that another person/entity was trying to infringe upon.

My example #1:
Tom Servo: "To infinity ..."
Crow: "Disney. Lawsuit."
Tom Servo: " ... and some other places!"

My example #2:
FOX news sued Al Franken to prevent him from using the phrase "fair and balanced" as part of the extended title of his book Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right. This was thrown out of court, and the judge ordered the FOX lawyer to be given a wedgie. (Although I might be mis-remebering that last part.)

I guess my point is that sellers should not have a perpetual and omnipotent "right" to describe what constitutes a lawful exchange of property in the case of IP, because it destroys the whole concept of competition.

What does this have to do with anything? Is there someone in this thread who is arguing for perpetual and omnipotent? In any event, I fail to see how your point holds up. The seller has the right to set the price for his/her work. If you don't want to pay that, don't buy it. This establishes the whole concept of competition. You are not being forced to buy any gamebook, and you or I have no need of the Dragonomicon, or the PHB3.5, or whatever.

Since a seller can place whatever price he wants, regardless of market conditions, I, as the consumer feel powerless and angry that I cannot turn to a competing business for the exact same product.

Thus I (the consumer) rebel.

There is no gaming material that you have a *need* for. You are not powerless - you have the power to express your disapproval by not buying them smegging thing!. You have the right to rebel by choosing what you will spend your money on. Since no one is forcing you to buy the Super book of Fighters, or whatever, saying that you download the book as a rebellion would just be a weak rationalization for stealing the material.