File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[woodelf]

I don't recall that I've ever seen you express this opinion before, but having now seen you express it once, I'm unlikely to take any of your future opinions very seriously.

Large corporations are able to achieve things, by economies of scale, that small businesses cannot, and efficiencies that government operations will not, and society is benefitted thereby.

Apparenly you're enamored with some sort of medieval pre-industrial pseudo-socialist fantasy-- which is great, within the context of a game such as Dungeons and Dragons; meanwhile the rest of us live in the real world.

Someone with a grudge against capitalism-- of which incorporation is a cornerstone-- doesn't really have any business in a discussion such as this (or at least should be much more up front about it).

Wulf

The "large" in front of "corporation" in my post wasn't an accident, or redundant emphasis. I honestly see little or nothing that Disney, Time-Warner, Haliburton, Sony, WalMart, or other megacorporations--the sort with the power to push gov'ts around--has done that is a massive good, or necessary to society. Feel free to enlighten me--i could very well be overlooking things, due to ignorance of the accomplishments, or the accomplishers, that would change my POV on the matter. But, currently i am aware of a *lot* of ill that those size corporations have done to society, and very little good. Particularly those built around IP. If large corps used their economies of scale to raise wages, rather than lower prices, i'd be much mor sympathetic, frex. I'm much more sympathetic to the economies of scale argument when it comes to things that clearly benefit society, even if the means are less than desirable--medical research, frex.

So, yes, i'm fully aware that large corporations can achieve things that small ones can not. I'm not fully convinced they are more efficient than gov't organizations--i think they have different sorts of inefficiencies. The drive of profit causes inefficiencies in much the same way that the lack of profit-drive causes inefficiencies in many gov't activities.

Pre-industrial? Not a chance. Pseudo-socialist? Maybe. Canada doesn't seem to work any less well than the US does. To be clear, i'm not saying that we could've gotten where we are without free-market capitalism. But i'm also not convinced that it's the pinnacle of societal development, and no future changes could ever improve on it.

As for capitalism: in the strictest sense (absentee ownership, via investment) i *do* have questions as to its value. But i haven't seen (or come up with) a better solution. The fact that it's the least-evil economic model is not the same as saying it's a good economic model. The biggest flaw in capitalism is that the corporation is beholden, first and foremost, to the stockholders. Not the consumers. Not the producers (the employees). Therefore, there are market forces that can drive a company to do something that is good for neither the employees nor the consumers or, more often, not good for the employees. I'm not against capitalism, per se, i simply don't blindly accept that it's the be-all and end-all of economic structures.

And, in any case, i really don't see what this has to do, one way or the other, with a discussion of the state of the RPG industry as a whole (Hasbro is the only player that *might* fall into the "too big" category by my standards), or the nature of IP vis-a-vis piracy, or with my fitness to have a valid, reasoned, and/or reasonable opinion. Are you really going to now discount any statements i previously made that you thought were reasonable (assuming there were any) just because you consider a different opinion of mine ludicrous or foolish? Should'nt you judge ideas and arguments on their own basis, not the basis of who uttered them?

Oh, and looking back at my post, there is one things that was rather unclear: i don't actually download RPGs from WotC "because they're the bad guys", i have simply tried to reason through the consequences and decided that, if i were to only download from the megacorps, i'd be doing more good than harm, and if everyone followed my standard, likewise. Likewise, if i were to download from small, creator-owned companies, i'd be doing more harm than good. Given that, AFAIK, piracy affects the biggest producers the most, i see it distinctly targeting exactly the right people, for the most part, and thus the "if everyone did it" argument does not clearly argue against it, on consequences alone (it may argue against it, but it does not *clearly and unambiguously* argue against it). There are, however, other legal and moral arguments that do argue against free-for-all downloading. I just don't think that's necesasrily one of them.

 

[Dr. Harry]

It was an anecdote, not a boast. I don't need to rationalize a thing; any media I have copied I did because there is virtually no penalty for doing so - I have yet to hear of someone getting nailed for downloading media who was not stockpiling or archiving or distributing it.

Now, here at least we can possibly clear up one source of confusion. Later in the post that I am responding to, you said "I did not say any such thing. I didn't put words in your mouth to argue against, so please don't do the same to me." Your accusation that I was putting words in your mouth was from my response which could be read to imply that your perceived position was that piracy:

1. should happen
This is what I got from your declaration that piracy was just the free
market system at work.

2. should be encouraged
This one might perhaps be an over-extension of your endorsement of the
practice.

3. should be accepted
Are you not saying this?

4. that you claim that no harm is done by piracy.
I might be inaccurate here; it might as easily be your position that there
is harm done, but that is not enough of a reason for you not to do it. In fact, your moral compass in this matter (from the quote above) seems to be that piracy is acceptable (that you have nothing to rationalize) if you're not likely to be caught.

It's acceptable if you're not likely to be caught.

This represents a fundamental difference in philosphy between us, although this would not be nearly as interesting or fecund as an area for discussion as the difference (if I understand the difference correctly) between The Sigil and myself about where the most basic rights are based in the creator/social relationship.

I don't agree: it was the fact that people were able to download music long enough to get used to the idea that caused the reaction. They had done it long enough that they felt entitled.

I would say that this is an extension of the two incentives I mentioned, as the illegal downloading became so common as to make those involved feel that they were completely safe from prosecution for their crime. I grant that the perceived safety was strongly enhanced by the time that people were able to download without consequences.

... Like speeding, it would be nearly impossible to enforce the current copyright laws EVERYWHERE and with EVERYONE without a monumental expense.

I am not convinced of this, but that does not mean that the effort should not be made.

It happens, and will continue until the items actual cost is more in line with their perceived cost. Theft will probably never go away completely, but will be aggravated when the discrepency between actual cost and perceived cost is great.

The perceived cost difference might be an excuse for the downloader to try and make their stealing "noble" -- Ooh, I'm like Robin Hood -- but I still hold that it is:

1. The ease of the act

2. The perception that there will be no prosecution for the act.

that makes it likely. If game hardcovers cost $1.00, then I predict that the excuse would be "Well, they're not losing very much to me."

And your point? Arguably, if enough people choose file sharing over purchase, the point will be moot because there will no longer be a physical copy to purchase. The more people that do so guilt-free, the more the idea spreads.

My point is that it is already illegal, and that if you don't feel that there is anything wrong with that won't mean a whit if you ever get called on it. If enough people choose file-sharing over purchase, there won't be any new material to steal.

 

[WayneLigon]

As for the invasion of privacy angle: chips that merely track sales of products are not being used in the US right now because of that very concern.

The reason you haven't seen it yet is that the technology is still being tested in real-world field conditions, a set of industry standards has yet to be adopted across the board (some international standards do exist, mainly for such specialized things as tracking animals), and the cost of the chips themselves needs to drop very much lower (for the supplier), as does the cost of the readers (for the retailer), for things to become truly ubiquitous. These are for the passive RFID systems that are the rage; the active ones have been used for the past several years in some larger inventory systems, generally with many different competing software platforms.

Wal-Mart has mandated that its 100 top suppliers incorporate the chips on cartons and pallets by January 2005, but at least some suppliers are talking about problems they're having with that compliance. Most center around the cost, reader confusion, interference from certain goods (usually ones that contain a lot of metal or water), and unreliability - some suppliers are reporting as high as a 20% failure rate when most agree that even a 1% failure rate will put them in a worse position than they are now with barcodes.

So, it'll probably still be some time coming.

 

[Dr. Harry]

For myself, I download many books but purchase the ones I use (sometimes just ones I like). I consider it a "right" way to act, and though I'll have to agree that it is illegal - I don't at all think it is immoral, and no amout of law will make me think otherwise.
I am sorry that it seems most people will not pay for work they can download freely (if I read the thread's conclusion correctly). Some of my friends are like that - I try to show them the error of their ways...

You say that you download material freely, especially music, and you say that your friends are in error by not paying for work they can download freely. How does that track?

 

[James Heard]

James Heard, there is no reason to defend the public domain because there are no rights there. Anything within the public domain is free to be used by anyone, any way they wish. For example, while you couldn't use Jay-Z's Black Album as the soundtrack to a low-rent ripoff version of GGW (without his permission), you could use Beethoven's 5th.

I'm sorry, that's dumb. Every copyright extension ever made has infringed upon the public domain, the potential public domain of the moment and perpetual property rights of IP are a direct assault upon the public domain. Copyright is a GRANTED monopoly, without it you'd only be able to assert the most basic of material property rights upon your ideas. That grant is with the understanding that the ideas would eventually enrich the public, you can't enrich the public and hold their culture hostage at the same time. Let's make it clear, when you create something you're not not making a new thing...ever. You're building upon your background and culture, the public domain of thought that the current trend of legislation seems inclined to diminish. Basically, you're saying it doesn't matter because there's still some public domain without addressing the fact that the public domain is a process and that process is being slowly strangled. It's like saying that since there are endangered species in zoos that it should be ok to hunt them in the wild. I don't buy it. I don't think there's an argument there. Regardless of what the law is right now, it's wrong and counter to the public interests and even the interests of the entities that have lobbied for the laws in the first place.

 

[Dr. Harry]

But copyright law is about the method of transmission, not the idea. Trying to apply it to stop idea transmission is, at best, ineffecient, and at worst misguided.

I suggest using The Sigil's terminology of "processed idea" to avoid the image of a paranoid fantasy of stopping "idea transmission." I.e., if you think that a prestige class using battle-doughnuts would be cool, that's one thing, but if you post or download "The Quintessential Baker" (assuming that you do not own the copyright for it), then that is absolutely something else.

As for looking at a copy in a store: what if you're using the downloaded copy *like* a copy in the store? IOW, you're engaging in the same level of browsing as you do (or would) with a store copy. The only difference becomes where you do it (at home, rather than the store).

This gets into the point I make below, but if you shoplift a copy of a book at the end of the work day, look at it, and have the intention of looking at it and sneaking it back the next morning, and you get caught with it that night, you will get pegged as hard as a more straightforward thief.

Please see below.

Things start to look iffy to me any time identical results through different means produce different legal consequences. Not saying this situation is obviously flawed, or that all such situations are, just that i want to look closer at the rationales...

But the means matter. The means are all we have to go by when constructing laws. The courts cannot look into your heart or mind to legislate based on your motives, but on the action that you take. The rationale does not matter for the determination of whether or not a crime was committed. It might possibly matter in the sentencing phase, possibly, if you can convince the judge that you are being honest about the rationale for your theft.



Actually, I'm not quoting anything, I'd just like to thank Danny for getting involved in the discussion.

 

[James Heard]

If enough people choose file-sharing over purchase, there won't be any new material to steal.

Of course. That's certainly demonstrable, since we have so many centuries of human progress where we created absolutely nothing of redeeming cultural value because we had no centuries long expectations of profit built into the act. Sorry, you're wrong. There might be LESS material available, but none? Puh-leeze. In fact, since the OGL there have been MORE creative works in the RPG industry. There's a direct relationship showing that LESS stringent controls mean MORE creative endeavors. How many creative works are shelved each year because they'd simply cause the creator to be sued? I mean, with a few exceptions I don't know if I'd even want to join the ranks of a RPG publisher just from the taint of association now -after listening to some of the mostly frothing rants that I assume I'd have for company in the field. "Mine! All Mine!" When everything is based off of other people's work in the first place it just seems particularly ironic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The Public domain isn't being strangled. The Public domain is constantly increasing in size, daily. Once something falls into the public domain, it can NEVER be copyrighted again.

Copyright is not perpetual. While extensions are permitted, even the longest extension is still finite. Eventually, the guy who got successfully sued by Disney for trying to do an animated Mickey Mouse ripoff porno movie will be able to do so. Well, probably not THAT guy, but anyone who still wants to do that could.

The ability to make the first economic use of IP is the essense of copyright. Instantly dumping IP into the public domain does no one any good.

OGL (the Open Gaming License) is what it is- a LICENSE- not the wholesale release of IP into the public domain. Licensees are still subject to rules and restrictions- you can't just use something produced under OGL for ANY reason. You violate the license, it can be yanked. It can even be the basis for a lawsuit. In other words, there are still copyright holders with their hands on the wheel controlling what gets used for what.

As for its affect on creativity- like it though I do- the OGL has probably stifled creativity more than it has stimulated it. Sure, there are plenty of D20 based games out there, but they're all D20 games. It used to be that if you bought a new game, you got a new system with it. GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller are still holding their own, but I haven't seen but a couple of completely new game systems actually hit the shelves recently. Looking at my bookshelf, I can see more than 60 different RPGs. All of the ones pre-D20 are different from the ground up- character generation, combat, spell system, etc., even the ones that were trying to rip off D&D. Since D20...lets just say that there are a lot of D20 versions of already extant good games from many companies- Traveller, Deadlands, Call of Cthuhu, Legend of the 5 Rings, The Trinity System, Silver Age Sentinels... When was the last major diceless RPG system released? Quite simply, new non-D20 games are handicapped in the current RPG market. How is the critically acclaimed D6 WWII superhero game GODLIKE doing? Green Ronin's Spaceship Zero? In Nomine? You should be able to find most of them in discount bins.

With that homogenization, we have gained conceptual portability-learn 1 game, learn them all. However, lots of character has been lost. Example, Traveller didn't use a decimal numeric system-it used hexidecimal (those silly math-heads!). It was also the only game system I know of that had the chance of PC death during character generation. Traveller D20 loses all of that.

As for the availability of material in a world with unfettered downloading, my conclusion was not as harsh as that other poster. There will still be material available, possibly even lots. Quality, however, will suffer. Anyone who has a quality game will keep it in house because he knows he won't get any cash for trying to go commercial.

In a world where theft of IP is legal, there is no economic incentive to disseminate IP, only altruistic ones, and very few people are prepared to produce IP exclusively for altruistic reasons. Artists, authors, designers, etc. all have to eat, clothe themselves, house themselves.

 

[Yair]

You say that you download material freely, especially music, and you say that your friends are in error by not paying for work they can download freely. How does that track?

I do not download "freely", only occasionally (my friends download "freely"). But that's immaterial.
The difference is that (with RPG downloads) I do purchase the things I download, if and when I use them. My friends do not (some of them); they seem to think the people who produce these things don't deserve their money. I consider that to be a big difference.

Let me give a real example. Suppose I wanted to purchase a book on dwarves. In an ideal world I would go to a shop, see a horde of appropriate books at various prices, and be able to purchase the ones I want - free competition and all of that.
Now for the real world. My "FLGS" is 2 hours drive away, in the center of the largest city in the country. That's 4 hours + parking + lots of hussle to visit. It also has an appalingly miniscule selection; I am fairly certain NO books on dwarves are available. So I go to read reviews online, and see there are a few books (with their price not so wide spread). I read reviews, but that ain't like browsing. So I download and skim. And in fact, I did - and very much enjoyed Hammer and Helm, so I purchased it (even though I never used it, or got it - it got lost in the mail). I purchased it becuase I liked it, because I wanted to support the people who wrote and produce it; if I knew the book wouldn't reach me I probably would have tried to donate to them directly. It has nothing to do with the fact they legally demanded I purchase the book at set price and never download it; the price, for me, was just a "this is what I would like to get payed for this" sign, so I payed it. As a show of appreciation and support. Not as a purchase of goods. I already had the goods I wanted (I didn't even bother to reorder the book from Amazon, which would have been free - as far as I am concerned, I already got what I wanted).
For another example - there have been many cases where I could have walked away from a store without paying. I didn't, not because I feared the law but because I think I ought to pay for the stuff I took from the store - the shopkeeper has to make a living, and all of that.

As for music - for some brands I am not paying, yes; I do not believe this hurts the artists or producers, as I believe they have made a fair profit of it already. That has nothing to do with "paying for work they can download freely", it has to do with "paying for work that has already been paid for". (For the record: in practice I often do purchase music that I like; it's just that I don't think I really should - I do so because I am lazy, not because I think it is right. I think it is wrong.)
I guess what I am saying is that when a work was rewarded enough, it should be released into the public domain. But I am not proposing a method of doing that, because I can't think of any system to measure this. No system at all.

 

[Yair]

Yair wrote:

(Her actual sales of that album were about 1.3 Million copies- her take-home was $156-260K before agent/attorney costs cut that to $104.5-174.2K.)

I believed it was 50 mil, but it seems you know what you are talking about

She's not your favorite performer (nor mine), but she didn't write that contract-the company did. You didn't give her the money, people who liked her stuff did. I mean, I understand your frustration that SHE got paid while many more talented musicians toil in poverty and obscurity, but what is your solution?

Who would you prefer get that money from the album sales? The record company? Somebody else who didn't earn it at all?

[snip]

Are you going to mandate each child take music appreciation so they don't make bad choices?

Are you going to make a law that only good music is allowed to be sold in amounts over 1 million copies?

Are you going to say its legal to steal from somebody after they make a certain amount of money?

I am not saying I have a solution; I don't. I am not saying I have an economic model to replace supply and demand, I don't.
I am saying that I PERSONALLY consider 150K$ sufficient pay for the amount of effort and talent spent, and do not see it as a moral imperative that I give her more money. (I do not see it as WRONG to give her more money - just not morally required.)
Frankly, if I would get 150K$ worth for the same amount of work, I would be very pleased. Now, I am not as talented (supposedly, or I would MAKE that much money, and setting artistic tastes aside here), so I am willing to give her more than I would expect for the same work. But I think 150K is enough. (For the record, I make approximately 12K a year, pre-taxes, at best.)
Is it "fair" that a poor person like me (relatively to little Ms. Spears) will judge her by his own standards? Actually, I think it is.
(Of course, one also has to take into account producing the album, not just the money the artists gets; but I suggest the with those sales the producers have been adequately reimburced for their efforts and hard work.)

It is certainly not legal to steal from someone if they are rich enough. Moral, now? Well, Robin Hood is not generally thought of as evil. It depends.
In any case, I am not stealing; I am just not paying for something the law says I should. IThat is a different matter, and has different moral standards. Using D&D Alignments, I think it is actually Neutral to download her music without paying - a truly Good person would give the money instead to the needy, perhaps a budding artist; a truly Evil person would refuse to purchase any products and do what he can to subotage her income. I contend myself with feeling OK about not paying some of the time, and purchasing a rare album here and there (even though they are often deriving excessive profits as well).

Perhaps it is my upbringing. My family is exempt from some taxes, for example; my father pays them as charity instead. My parents have a lot of savings (relatively) and some real estate; but we do not have much in the way of products (though lately we did purchase some pretty expensive geriatric equipment - but that's antoher matter altogether). Honestly, living above a certain standard of living is to me a minor sin - it is indulgence. And I am not too keen to support it.
Conviniently, that standard of living is my family's standard of living... perhaps I am just hypocritical.