File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?

[Lazybones]

It seems that this thread has schismed into a divide between those that view copyright infringement as simple theft, unjustified in all circumstances, and those who view that it is justified for various reasons (rationalizations, perhaps). Yet I think that one of the original points raised by this issue is how various industries, including RPGs, are going to deal with the changing realities of digital media distribution as time goes on. Some of the posters above assume that a tamper-proof DRM schema will come into play that will preserve the power of the current media producer/distributor monopolies. I hope that this does not happen, for reasons that I and others have discussed above.

I think that the direct-distribution model from producer of content to consumer of content will be a better alternative. The media conglomerates will fight this tooth and nail, of course. Ironically ENWorld, I think, serves as a prototype of the new model; here we have gamers exchanging content on a daily basis, and a community that includes numerous small companies that produce specialized content directly to a fan base and who are closely engaged with that base through this site.

OGL (and IANAL, so I'll dispense with the discussion of terminology inherent in this "license" scheme) is another example of this. By freeing up content, you have a greater exchange of ideas (and The Sigil has already offered a rebuttal to the point about OGL constricting the diversity of game content, so I'll let that be). I view the strangehold of intellectual property inherent in the assault upon copyright by the media industry as a last-ditch effort by these conglomerates to resist the changes brought by the new century and new techologies enabling this direct distribution model. I view file-sharing as an expression of resistance by consumers to the restrictions that inhibit their ability to exploit this new distribution model (i-Tunes's success, even in a format-limited and heavily controlled structure, is an example of the demand for this new way of distribution in the music industry). Others will see p2p as a bunch of hooligans stealing stuff because they know they probably won't get caught.

I suspect we're both right, actually.

 

[Dr. Harry]

A topic on which we agree to disagree, and can do so amiably. Still, the exploration is fascinating. I have found that in order to truly understand your own point of view, you must be able to effectively argue the opposite point of view. In other words, you understand the argument, while rejecting one or more of the assumptions/principles on which it is founded. I think Dr. Harry and I do that with each other's arguments... and this makes for a discussion which is both civil and stimulating. Thanks, Harry.

--The Sigil

You're welcome, and thank you. I am also quite grateful to ENWorld for the opportunities to engage in stimulating discussions of this nature.

I think that the basic ability to discuss different points of views, even (perhaps especially) those that differ at a fundamental, philosophical level depends upon two criteria: basic civility during the course of the discussion and the conviction that while the other person may disagree with you, that person's outlook is based upon a responsible attempt to construct a worldview based on some principles that you can respect, even if the final result is different due to choices of emphasis.
Posting replies that are rude or dismissive clearly turns people off at point one, and posts that say "what I do is OK, but anyone who does more than I do is going too far and should stop" are just so far off by themselves that they're almost impossible to respond to.

 

[Kalanyr]

You have not made the case that the author has lost nothing. There are quite a number of posts arguing exactly the opposite, and to ignore all of those - and the rest of the post that you are quoting - to revert to simply a proclamation that nothing is stolen if no paper leaves the store it not reasonable.

Sigh. Fine then if the Author has lost something by a hypothetical person looking at something via download and then buying it later, then he's also lost something from said hypothetical person looking at it in the store and then buying it later. The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ? Heck come to that isn't it by this a worse crime to preview something in a store and then NEVER buy it, compared to download it at home, look at it and buy it ? How do you reconcile these things ? My view may be overly simplistic to you but to me your's is precisely as lacking.

The location of the looking at things, really shouldn't make a difference and even if it does legally, whoopdy the relationship between moral and legal is often pretty much coincidental.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Once upon a time, works published with an improper copyright notice (that is, the ©), went into the public domain upon publication. Many works now in the public domain are there because of inadvertent publication without notice. However, since March, 1, 1989, copyright notice is no longer required. Be aware, that if notice was omitted in error on copies distributed between January 1, 1978 and March 1, 1989, copyright was not automatically lost, if certain preventive measures were taken to cure the oversight.
Copyright CAN in fact be retroactively extended and take works out of the public domain.

That is not retroactive extension or removal of something from public domain. That is recognition that copyright arises at the moment of creation, and does not depend on your (or your packaging department's) ability to remember to put that little © on your product, and that works were ERRONEOUSLY placed in public domain. This is law, not "Simon Says."

Originally Posted by Mary Bono

Actually, Sonny wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. I invite all of you to work with me to strengthen our copyright laws in all of the ways available to us. As you know, there is also Jack Valenti's proposal for term to last forever less one day. Perhaps the Committee may look at that next Congress.

That is not the law anywhere in the world, that is a proposal.

I find it hard to believe that anyone thinks under the current regime that ANYTHING will ever fall out of copyright again, since the current methodology is simply:

IF Copyright Term of Steamboat Willie MINUS Today's Date is less than 2 years
THEN Extend Copyright Term.

Just because it nowhere states infinity doesn't mean it de facto IS infinity.

Amusingly put. All you have to do to find out if you are right is challenge this in Court. A court cannot, on its own motion, decide a case. Once someone sues, then the Court can rule on the facts.

You've hit on the essence of copyright. The problem is, current media companies would adjust your statement to:

"The ability to make any use of IP is the essence of copyright."

The media companies had nothing to do with it. First use, under the law, is already considered to be any use as long as it is within the term of copyright. That is what they mean in the statutes when they say "exclusive" rights. But they also spell this out with a list of extant uses and a catchall at the end of the statutes worded something like- "and other such forms as may be developed."

If all I want to do is publish an adventure, why should I have to re-invent the wheel (a new game system) to do it? The OGL allows companies to create small "add-ons" rather than re-design the whole game system from scratch. This lowers the "intellectual" barrier of entry considerably. That means people can more easily support the d20 system. Because of all that extra support, "other systems" are headed for the discount bins, because they lack it...

I'm not sure which is the cause of the other, but I am relatively certain that the reason other systems aren't seeing the same level of support as d20 is that they CAN'T (due to copyright nastiness). If GURPS or Palladium or other systems opened up their rules under an OGL or similar agreement, I'm sure you would see them getting support as well.

It may be that those who are so desperate to hold on to "their precious" will wind up losing everything in the long run.

There were other publishers of D&D modules dating back to 1st Ed- Judges Guild springs immediately to mind. THAT was perfectly legal. What they could NOT do is republish the entire set of rules with additonal material to create a different campaign or new game. Under the D20/OGL regime, licensees can republish the entirety of the PHB with the changes that make the game different. Look at Dragonstar, Call of Cthuhu, Wheel of Time, etc.

There is a DEFINITE loss of creativity. Look at the contemporary games to 1st Ed- ideas from those other competing games helped shape 2Ed. Games contemporary to 2Ed shaped 3Ed. GURPS, HERO, Palladium and Storyteller survived because they were strong sellers before D20. They offered an alternative, not just in campaigns, but in overall gaming experience.

By way of comparison, look at the 2 major forms of home computers, Apple and IBM. In the beginning, IBM controlled 88+% of the market, Apple 5-12%, largely because IBM PCs used the same software that people used at work, wheras Apple offered something different. But IBM didn't control its IP, whereas Apple did. Result-Apple still clicks along at 5-12%, but IBM has no more market share than any other PC maker- IBM lost, not to Apple, but to Dell, HP, Gateway, etc.

Quote:
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.
Again, lack of support is due to "closed content."

That isn't lack of support-that is a wholesale change in the character of the game of Traveller by changing it INTO D20. Transforming the game via OGL took a game that was very different and made it into...just another D20 sci-fi game.

Don't get me wrong, I thing D20 is awesome (my second favorite RPG system of all time). But it isn't the ONLY way, or the BEST way to run an RPG. With game designers of today not flexing their intellects to try something completely different, we are losing the ability to think about RPGs in a non-D20 way. Why is this happening? Because under OGL, it is next to impossible to sell a non-D20 game. That homogenization is definitely NOT good for the creative side of game design.

There IS economic incentive to disseminate IP... but it's a much tougher incentive. You absolutely, positively must "get it right" the first time. This is because there is always going to be some time lag between the time your product hits the shelves, and a "mass-produced copied substitute" is available. If you do it right the first time, by the time the copied substitute is available, it's "too late" to put much of a dent in your sales.

Exhibit A: The first Freeport adventure. It's 100% OGC (I believe including maps and all - I'm not sure, as it was sold out at my FLGS and I never got a copy); legally, therefore, it can be copied under the OGL. But it hasn't been. Why not? Because Green Ronin did it right the first time. Anyone who wants one has already paid for one; if I were to put out a copy, I wouldn't get any sales.

If a hacker had gotten a copy of Freeport before release and put it on the web in full text form, at $1.00/copy or free, the Green Ronin Freeport release could have been a financial flop.

Can't happen?

There were copies of the Incredible Hulk movie circulating on the net before its theatrical release. Yes, the big green guy hadn't been CGI'd into the scenes, but anyone who wanted would have been able to watch the entire storyline from start to finish.

Similarly, Prince and other artists have had album masters stolen and released as bootlegs before the bands could release their legitimate versions. In many cases, 100K's of those albums were sold, and the subsequent legitimate releases don't sell well.

It is SO much easier to steal and disseminate IP these days that some bootleggers can pump out 100K copies of an album they got a week before release. That could be the difference between a copyright holder going Gold or going home.

PS-that is why some of those infringement fines can be so high- they are aimed at the bootlegger making money from pirated IP. The casual IP thief will not likely face that kind of fine or prison time, but it is still within the court's range of punishments. Each case is fact sensitive, and intent and amount of infringement matter.

===
Spell wrote:

You see, I could give away all of my CDs for free, if I get the radio play that Metallica are getting. I could sent it to your homes (expenses on me!) if I could get the crow that Britney generates. The amount of money that I could generate for myself _just by selling records_ is minimal. Gigs. that's where real money is. And not just for me, a struggling youngster, but for metallica, and britney, too. Gigs, publicity, merchandising. That's where money is.

It is true that a professional recording costs a lot of money. In my experience, just the recording and the manifacture of the 1000 CD is $15,000 - $20,000.
You might be wondering how on earth I could have a professional recording with that amount of money. I tell you: my band mates and I are real musician. We record live in studio and make some overdubs.
If Michael Jackson or whoever has to play his parts 20 times to get it right, than it's his business. If he wants to hire an entire orchestra to do a 2 notes background to one song, then it's his business.

I can respect that, but I can also add a different perspective.

Metallica gets airplay because their records sell, and partly because of an illegal practice called payola. Payola is the practice of paying DJs or higher-ups to play a particular artist's music-and it even gets down to college and internet radio stations. Metallica probably doesn't need payola now-any station that would play their music would be crucified by fans if they DIDN'T play the latest single- but in their early days, somebody probably paid somebody something to get their first single played.

MC Hammer, in his early days, sold many $100K of his work out of the trunk of his car before getting signed- it gave him leverage in his negotiations.

Gigs and Merchandise are indeed where the money is for any performer- sometimes as much as $0.65 out of every dollar for some acts.

But if someone just took your CDs and sold them, leaving you with a $20k bill and no way to recoup, what kind of economic state would you be in? (Assuming you're not getting Metallica-level airplay.)

PS-Michael Jackson gets $1.20/copy sold, so he can afford to spend forever in the studio.

Edited to put something in quote box.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ?

2 possible differences.

Difference 1) If you download and do not buy but also do not get rid of the download. You still have the property as surely as if it sat on your bookshelf.

If you do delete the copy, you're just a browser. It is extremely unlikely a court would find you guilty of a crime.

Difference 2) If the copy you download is not a legally posted pdf, you are in possession of a stolen copy. This would be (very roughly) analogous to either looking at a copy someon had shoplifted just as the cops roll up on you, or looking at a physical pirated copy in a store. In the latter one, though, the store would be in trouble.

 

[Dr. Harry]

Sigh. Fine then if the Author has lost something by a hypothetical person looking at something via download and then buying it later, then he's also lost something from said hypothetical person looking at it in the store and then buying it later. The act of preview->buy later is still identical, only the location changes. So why if this is so clear cut isn't preview something in a store illegal ? Heck come to that isn't it by this a worse crime to preview something in a store and then NEVER buy it, compared to download it at home, look at it and buy it ? How do you reconcile these things ? My view may be overly simplistic to you but to me your's is precisely as lacking.

The location of the looking at things, really shouldn't make a difference and even if it does legally, whoopdy the relationship between moral and legal is often pretty much coincidental.

What this comes down to is the action, not the intention. (Although the intention might have an effect on the penalty, if you can convince a judge that you are telling the truth.) If you shoplift a book with the full intention of simply browsing through it that night to sneak it back in the morning, you are still going to be arrested if you are caught with it that night, or if you are found with a photocopy that you made that night in order to "browse through it some more". The difference would only be between which form of theft you would be charged for, shoplifting or copyright infringement.

Yes, your view does look overly simplistic. You might be able to see my view in a more realistic light by moving away from the idea that it is feasible to set up a legal system in which it is what you planned to do that is more important than what, actually, you did. Yes, when previewing material it does matter if it is in the store or not, as in the store the "previewing" is still with the implied consent of the merchant. ("Hey you! This isn't a library, y'know!")

Additionally, if the person in question is downloading the material from someone commiting copyright infringement by posting it in the first place, then your scenario should be changed to someone taking an illegal copy of the material from a person in the parking lot with the assumption that you will throw the copy away if you don't want to buy the product. If you were found with the material that night, good luck convincing a judge that you stole it for purely altruistic reasons to help the company involved!

 

[Kalanyr]

1) Yup, this I can agree entirely on, but judging by many posts in this thread from Dana for example, they'd be entirely happy for said court to find me guilty, and would do everything in their power to influence public perception so that it would. After all Dana was all about multiple charges for multiple downloads whether or not said downloads is still in my possession, and they would do so under the guise that what they are doing is moral and striking back at the evil immoral people.

2) I was going to respond to this but it involves the whole possession of stolen goods thing which would drag this off into a huge tangent. Suffice to say yup I can understand your point.

 

[Kalanyr]

Re: Dr Harry's reply:

Ah, right so this is coming down to practical legality now, NOW I fully sympathize with and understand your point. As long as its clear its from a practical and LEGAL perspective I can fully understand it. Its impossible to decide anything on intention without mind reading equipment. But to say that its IMMORAL is what ticks me off. My disagreement is that its IMMORAL and that it automatically hurts the producer, mainly for a whole bunch of points that the Sigil has already put forward.

Edit: Its Dr Harry not r Harry

 

[Spell]

In response to my post...

But if someone just took your CDs and sold them, leaving you with a $20k bill and no way to recoup, what kind of economic state would you be in? (Assuming you're not getting Metallica-level airplay.)

First of all, you are comparing apples with oranges here. Are you saying that anybody who has downloaded music actually makes profit selling the stuff he downloads? That just doesn't happen!
Those that are actually directly making money with downloads are the minority, by far, as far as I can speculate (and, unless a new research ha come out, my speculation is as good as yours). You might say that _those_ are the immoral guys... but I won't say it: they are behaving badly, but they wouldn't have a market if the prices for CDs, books, whatever were lower, and/ or if their customers had some morality, too.

Second: let's say that I make a record with a label. Everybody get it for free, and I sell nothing. I owe nothing to the record label. Recupable doesn't mean that I have to put any money out of my pocket. It means that I don't get money until the sells pay out the expenses. I can sell nothing, and still make a lot of money making gigs, and selling t-shirts... and with publishing deals.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question: how can you tell that downloading is immoral and unexcusable, when you have the RIAA guys on the other end of the table?
I admit that the RPG industry is way better than the music industry in this aspect. I prefer to think that the reason for this is that we RPG people are "better"

But the companies could do more. I would improve the PDF size of the market, offering out of print stuff at a discount, and lowering the prices even on new PDFs, where possible. I do believe that lower prices generates more buyers and more money, in the long run.

PS-Michael Jackson gets $1.20/copy sold, so he can afford to spend forever in the studio.

I think that Michael can do that because his label thinks that his CDs will sell a lot. The fact that he gets a high royalty figure also reflect that.
My 2 pences.

 

[woodelf]

Do the record companies shaft new artists? Oh yes. However, realize that 90% of all albums released NEVER SHOW A PROFIT. One mega-hit album, Thriller being the best example, enables a company to subsidize a host of new artists. Most bands don't have the money it takes to do a professional sounding recording. Studio time costs hundreds of dollars an hour, some even charge more than most of my colleages do.

So, in stealing the popular stuff, you're keeping those labels from distributing albums, paying the artists they have signed, and from signing other bands. You're hurting the company, yes, but you're hurting the artists too.

Here's the problem: i haven't seen a major label produce *anything* i want in, say, 15yrs. How long do i continue to subsidize them (as opposed to subsidizing the artists directly), while they continue to, as far as i can tell, studiously pass over the artists i want to hear from, because they won't make enough money? So, while i may not steal from them, because they're not producing what i want to hear, i also am not sure i should judge it a loss if others steal from them.

Ani DiFranco rocks, but it is the rare artist who can parley years of work into a successful recording career (note-not musical career- there are plenty of successful professional musicians who never record an album). The advantage of the big company system is its worldwide distribution system.

Is there a better way? Probably, but the transition will take time, and it is still not an excuse for theft. In fact, I know of at least one system in the works that could make the record store (and the videogame store, and the movie store) completely obsolete while still maintaining the goods in their present form- cover art, liner notes, etc. But you'll STILL have to pay for the music.

I'm not advocating free IP. In fact, i'd argue that IP is too cheap in the current market. I'd gladly pay *more* for my IP, if the money were going to the artists rather than middlemen. Even though that'd mean i'd get less IP, because i'm a long way from flush with cash. I routinely pass up $12 CDs in favor of $20 CDs, in part because those are the ones i want to listen to, but also because i'm buying the $20 CD from the artist and they're getting the bulk of the profits, while the $12 CD is in a record store and the bulk of the profits are going to the producer (at least ,based on what i've heard of retailer profits).

Me, i'm one who strongly believes we need to change the distribution system. And i can't completely discount the possibility that the current "downloading wars" may be, either directly or indirectly, an agent in that change. IOW, in the long run, the piracy might do some good.

Destroying companies is anti-capitalistic. Perhaps you're a socialist (I'm not using this as a perjorative, just a descriptor) who thinks Marx had it right that companies screw humans. The problem is that human beings want to be paid for their labor, and destruction of capitalism runs counter to the best way humanity has found (SO FAR) to exchange goods and services with each other with a minimum of transaction costs. Capitalism allows for economies of scale, international distribution, task specialization, and so forth. Every small company "dreams" of being larger, if for no other reasons than the benefits of economies of scale and the ability to weather economic changes.

I'm not sure that i'm anti-capitalistic. I know i'm pro-free market. Problem is, i think that large corporations (and, no, i don't know the exact threshhold) are an anti-free market force. I like the idea of people being rewarded for their labors, and know that pure socialism wouln't do this. Problem is, unfettered capitalism, at least as it has shaped up in the US, doesn't do a very good job of this, either. Look at wage trends in the last 30 yrs.

Without big companies, you (assuming you're an average US citizen) wouldn't be able to afford a car or the gas that goes in it; a TV, a computer; and you DEFINITELY wouldn't have most of your utilities.

Your enemies aren't the big companies, but the people who run them unscrupulously.

I'm not sure about all of that. First, utilities are, IMHO, a very different beast. At least around here, they are heavily regulated gov't-sanctioned oligopolies or monopolies, and, while they may be big in terms of capital or employees, they (1) aren't big by Disney standards and (2) can't behave in the ways that big companies do and that i think are abhorrent. But, you are right, it is unscrupulous behavior that i really have the problem with. Problem is, much of what i consider unscrupulous behavior is mandated for any company, and the bigger it is, the stronger the impetus: putting the stockholders' interests first. My gut reaction is to champion the cooperative model, but someone pointed out to me that it has a different flaw: at least with capitalism, if one company you're invested in fails you don't lose all your money, because you can have stock in other companies; with cooperatism, if the company you're invested in (and most people only work 1 or 2 jobs, so would only be invested in one or two companies) fails, you lose all your money. Still haven't figured out a solution to that dilemma.

Besides, your assertion is internally inconsistent. If Ani DiFranco's label became as big as Bertelsmann, would it then be OK to steal from her?

You got me. It is not a perfectly consistent argument, in the sense that it relies on subjective judgments, often using imperfect information. I do my damnedest to know about the companies that i buy things from, and choose them as much on their ethical record as their quality of product (with price coming in 3rd place, at best). If DiFranco's label started behaving like Sony, i'd probably stop buying from it. And, IME, the simple act of embiggenating has a tendency to change corporations in exactly that way.

And to drag this back to the original point-name an RPG game company that would qualify as big enough to be worthy of your "stealing from them is OK" test.

I don't think there is one--maybe Hasbro. Maybe. I've simply not had to deal with the issue, by choosing not to use pirated PDFs. But i brought it up for a relevant reason: not only to address your "what if everybody did it" argument, but because i think it points up a very relevant difference between RPGs and music. As others in this thread have said in other ways, many arguments that are used to justify pirating music don't apply to RPGs, and, as several in this thread have said, they therefore pirate music but not RPGs.

The above was in response to my example about someone taking a report from your computer and submitting it as their work

Trust me- you try that argument in court, your client is going to jail. To make it more clear, assume that the person who took the report was a "hacker" who worked for another company. That is INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, and that is definitely a theft-style crime.

I don't at all disagree that it is illegal and/or immoral. I only disagree on what flavor of wrong act it is. Again, if the actual producer gets full due credit, than i think no crime has been committed. And part of that credit is appropriate recompense. Clearly, if a rival company takes the material and thus gets the contract, the creator hasn't gotten full due credit, even if their name is left on the report. In this case, it is when the wrong person gets credit that something wrong has been done--whether that is a rival in your company, or a rival company.