Forked from DDI account sharing

[jbear]

I agree completely that money ought not be the central theme of morality or ethics, but clearly not stealing is important in every major religious system, as well as living in a sane society. (When I go to work, it is assumed that upon my return there won't be squatters claiming my house).

It is my understanding that as part of many religions, following the laws of the nation you are in is important, as long as those laws are just. If a law is unjust, there are usually moral ways to deal with it (i.e. nonviolent resistance; typically not piracy).

Also, looking at the scope of ethics such as it can be discussed on Enworld, the primary way we interact with it is as consumers, so the focus will naturally gravitate towards economics. (The other major aspect is dealing with people in your gaming group, and there are plenty of those threads out there if you have that hankerin.)


I suspect it might head there; we'll see.

(In the pool, I have 21st post . . . will it make it?)

Why would squatters even exist if everyone had houses?

Which is immoral?:
-someone moving into your house who does not have a house, while you are at work.
-having a house while many others do/can not have the same
-perpetuating a system whose design does not include everybody within the system having a house

From where I am standing the line is fine.

I'm not sure I can address your references to religion and law. I was of an understanding that such discussion is frowned upon here at Enworld. I will say that assuming religion as an institution to be moral, or a solid reference point to what acts are or aren't moral, is an error in my opinion. One needs to go no further than watch the Tudors to see how even the slightest difference in theological opinion can lead to the most terrible and immoral acts.

I don't base what I believe to be moral on what the law tells me is right or wrong, nor any other institution. My parents taught me what was right and wrong. I know in my stomach when something is right or wrong. I wouldn't move into your house when you were at work, not because it is illegal, but because I know in my gut that it would be the wrong to do so. I'd prefer to sleep under a bridge. That does not pardon the fact that the current system of debt exchange (money) that runs the world currently is the inherent cause of the vast majority of crimes and injustice perpetrated on a daily basis.

Taxi driver goes loopy in England, kills his brother and drives from town to town killing people from his taxi with a rifle. Crime: Mass Murder. Why: Because his twin brother was given the larger part of the family inheritance.

You don't have to scratch very deep beneath the surface of most crimes in order to find money, or having/not having somewhere involved.

A society based on money exchange is not the only 'sane' model. It is the model we were born into. I think we take for granted that things have to be this way. And therein lies the heart of the problem.

But as Kamakaze Midget says, this seems beyond the scope of an Enworld discussion.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Just noting, past 21, and thread still open. Woot!

 

[Witty Comeback]

A society based on money exchange is not the only 'sane' model. It is the model we were born into. I think we take for granted that things have to be this way. And therein lies the heart of the problem.

I think you've read quite a bit between the lines here. I said :

but clearly not stealing is important in . . . living in a sane society

I cannot imagine living in a place where "Take where you want by force" is the guiding rule of law. That is all that I'm saying.

But as Kamakaze Midget says, this seems beyond the scope of an Enworld discussion.

Then you can report it and move on. I apologise if I have offended anyone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I cannot imagine living in a place where "Take where you want by force" is the guiding rule of law.

Haven't you ever played D&D?

 

[jbear]

I think you've read quite a bit between the lines here. I said : I cannot imagine living in a place where "Take where you want by force" is the guiding rule of law. That is all that I'm saying.
Then you can report it and move on. I apologise if I have offended anyone.

Not at all. I wan't offended, not even in the slightest. I'd say you point of view is fairly common place. Please accept my apology if I came across as offended.

I can imagine a place where the strongest take what they want, but I wouldn't want to live there. I wouldn't want anyone to have to live somewhere like that. Play dungeons and dragons there and right the wrongs I am unable to in real life, that's a different story. Sign me up for sure!

My alternative wouldn't be that, it would be: noone has to take anyones stuff because:
a) pieces of printed paper have no value
and
b) everyone can have the same things.
The Venus Project, which advocates a resource based economy, is an interesting alternative.

 

[Deset Gled]

I'm going to agree with the other guy in saying that none of this approaches "morality" in any way, shape, or form.

Ethics, yes.

Morality? No.

Ignoring the pedantry involved in separating ethics from morals...

There is nothing in your moral code that addresses the concept of inhibiting others from reaping the benefits of the hard work they have done? You have no concern whatsoever with depriving a group of people from that which they are reasonably (ethically, legally, logically) entitled to, simply for your personal gain? Your morality has no problem with intentionally taking away from someone else's livelyhood (and by extension the income, medical benefits, food, or living quarters that it provides), just for your enjoyment?

In your mind, morality does not even approach these things in any way, shape or form?

 

[Lord Zardoz]

It kiiiiiiiiiinda weirds me out to see how many people's idea of morality is influenced by the exchange of little green pieces of paper.

No one died? No one was injured? No one was put under severe emotional duress for purely selfish motives? People were made happy? Life became easier? It didn't break (given religion)'s (given commandment)s? It enabled treat thy neighbor as thyself?

Legality is a different ball of wax entirely. But morality? No, I really don't think that's tied up in an economic transaction in the slightest. I have no moral responsibility to permit or encourage a given business or economic model.

I suppose the subject at hand is more an ethical then moral element. But for now lets put that aside..

The one objective fact is that any product that exists as a digital file is entirely non tangible. Copying a file is not the same as theft because with theft, the original item is no longer in the possession of the person you stole it from. Copyright infringement is its own thing though. The I will disagree with you at least in part based on what I see as a hole in your reasoning. I would say there is a moral component involved (though not an especially large one).

My question for you is this: Do you believe it is morally correct to to use or give away something that is not yours, regardless of any direct harm caused?

Lets stipulate that the work that goes into producing a digital item does have value and that those who created it are deserving of reasonable compensation for their effort. Lets also stipulate for now that the people who create or own the work behind a digital item are entitled to say how it is sold and used and distributed.

Regardless of what you think of the pricing of the product, or how it is distributed, it is not your place to decide how the item is sold or distributed.

If you take a digital product, be it a song, movie, video game, D&D source book, or comic book, or whatever else it is, and make it available as a .torrent file, you are deciding that your opinion of who should have the product is more important than the wishes of those who should make that decision.

Now, I will admit that copyright holders are often a bit screwy in their reasoning. They inflate any claim of harm resulting from copyright infringement. They also deny any reasonable concept of fair use. If you pay for a digital product and let your friends use it, that is hardly wrong. I would also say that many items that can be represented as digital goods are distributed in ways that just deny reality with respect to their value. And many of the DRM schemes adopted by game companies are just self defeating.

Sharing a DDI account would seem to me to be fair use, up to a point. Past that point, it becomes something else. Just because someone happens to think that WotC is made up of a bunch of evil bastards who want to wring every cent from you and are hell bent on ruining your hobby does not give that person the right to distribte WotC products via piracy.

And just because someone things that $5.95 a month is too much to pay for an insider account does not give them the right to share an account just to screw WotC out of some cash.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[I'm A Banana]

So, in addressing some (really good) points, I'll try to keep this focused specifically on D&D/RPGs/WotC/DDI/Piracy/Etc, though I might reach a bit to describe why I think the way I do. Hopefully, we can keep it friendly.

clearly not stealing is important in every major religious system, as well as living in a sane society. (When I go to work, it is assumed that upon my return there won't be squatters claiming my house).

As to your first point: for this discussion, stealing is irrelevant, since piracy and DDI sharing is not stealing. If you're fuzzy on the issue, there's a nice little song about the issue here:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4&feature=related"]...the difference...[/ame]



As to your second: working together for the greater good is, indeed, something that many moral systems think is really awesome. Which is actually evidence that sharing a DDI account or making a torrent of a book you scanned is actually a moral good, since you're essentially sharing your resources, for free, to everyone you can. Which creates a society where people suffer less from not having something.

It is my understanding that as part of many religions, following the laws of the nation you are in is important, as long as those laws are just. If a law is unjust, there are usually moral ways to deal with it (i.e. nonviolent resistance; typically not piracy).

Piracy is a nonviolent resistance. Additionally, a reasonable case can be made in many systems of morality that the laws it breaks are unjust. Worst-case scenario would be that the laws are neutral, in which case, most moral systems don't really care if you follow them or not. The Catholic church doesn't usually care if its people, say, use recreational illegal drugs (as long as that doesn't lead to you doing naughty things like thinking about naked people), and even gives some to its worshipers (a sip of wine...). Mormons from the LDS church, on the other hand, don't even want you taking legal drugs like alcohol and caffeine. And if you're a member of many native american tribes, or perhaps associated with a mesoamerican narcocult, or even part of the Catholic church as I mentioned above, illegal drugs are essential for a sacred experience.

So, morally, legal obedience is a subject that is highly circumstantial, depending on your legal obligation, your moral obligation, and how much one cares about the other.

I cannot imagine living in a place where "Take where you want by force" is the guiding rule of law. That is all that I'm saying.

Well I think you'll be happy to know that ever since Napster discontinued its weapons program, most copyright infringement and ToS violation uses no force whatsoever.

Also, looking at the scope of ethics such as it can be discussed on Enworld, the primary way we interact with it is as consumers, so the focus will naturally gravitate towards economics. (The other major aspect is dealing with people in your gaming group, and there are plenty of those threads out there if you have that hankerin.)

That's true, and it's actually a really fascinating avenue I've been doing some recent research down, which is why I'm interested to see where the thread goes.

Do you believe it is morally correct to to use or give away something that is not yours, regardless of any direct harm caused?

My personal feelings are muddy (which happens with someone who studies morality as much as I do ) , but most moral systems hinge on that description of what is "yours."

For instance, lets take Catholicism, since I know it pretty well.

Catholicism has a concept of personal ownership (which not all moral systems do), but it's subordinate to deific ownership (All Metallica CD's ultimately belong to God, one way or another. Which I'm sure would delight Lars!). There's also a very strong, very present vein of charity. It's emphasized every Sunday that God gave you something (your soul's salvation), and that you need to be as God like as possible and give everyone as much as possible (because that's what Jesus would do!). There's also the do unto others maxim, which states basically that if you would like it, you should do it for everyone else.

So, working from cause and effect, I buy a God Rock CD. My friends on the God Rock Rocks Yer Soul! Facebook group all want to hear it. I should probably give it away. But here's this technology that allows me to keep it, and ALSO let others hear it! That's the Best of All Possible Things! I get to be like Jesus, AND listen to God Rock! And talk about it with all my friends! Everyone is happy! Yay God!

Well, except for some organization called Warner Music Group. But if they wanted to be like Jesus, they should have given me the CD for free in the first place! They're behaving immorally in the first place! And when God Rock asks for donations on their website because they're not making much money from their CD's, I should give as much as I can, because that is what Jesus would do! Yay God!

In a world where I can make bread out of thin air by pressing a button, Catholicism would generally say that it is deeply immoral for me not to just give bread out freely to everyone. It's probably even sinful to charge for it. It's even more likely to be sinful if you try and lock it up, and you put the people who use the technology in jail and into debt and into emotional pain and suffering because you want to be the only person who can charge for it.

So, no, most Catholics (and likely many Catholic spin-off groups) shouldn't have any sort of moral dilemma in piracy or account-sharing.

And this is where that intersection between morality and economics and society gets really fascinating to me. When you stop and realize that the reason China is one of the world's largest sources of pirated goods is, in part, because of a communist-style moral system, you get a little chill down your spine.

Or at least, I do, but I'm a tremendous nerd about this stuff.

 

[Ferghis]

The below is not legal advice. You are responsible for your own actions. Law varies by country, too, so specific instances will vary. And I am not responsible for you if you break the law.

I skimmed the thread, so what I have to say may have been covered elsewhere. I have two main points. Legally, public opinion is moving towards a view that empowers the copyrightholder. This is problematic because this common perception is often mistaken, but it will end up affecting how courts resolve these matters, because courts have to resolve things based, in part, on a common understanding. A copyright is far from absolute. In the United States, the purpose of copyright law is to "promote the progress of science and useful arts." Section 8 of Article 1 of the US Constitution constrains federal copyright law thusly. So, an otherwise legal copyright that is contrary to such purpose is not valid and unenforceable. Further, everyone has broad power to make fair use (a term of art) of copyrighted material. This means that copying copyrighted material is ABSOLUTELY fine for private and personal purposes that are in line with the material itself. For example, no character sheet ever need to grant the right to copy the sheet for personal use, because that right is intrinsically owned by the person that bought a game. The fact that copyright law is outgrowing its original boundaries is a literal loss to all of us, since we lose rights we otherwise have. Please be mindful of this when you discuss copyright.

Morally, the boundaries are more nebulous, but generally favor those that make use of the copyrighted material without owning the copyright if there is a sense of fairness about these actions. Sometimes illegal use is morally sound, where it is done only in spite of the limitations imposed by marketing and media formats. For example, if I buy a movie or a game in Japan, I ought to be able to watch it anywhere I damn please, without having to circumvent the regional limitations built in to the medium. If, due to international deals, I can't legally access the intellectual property that would be otherwise available to the public somewhere else, I'm in morally sound territory to obtain that material illegally because there is more good to circulating information than there is to respecting a deal made by two people you've probably never met.

A friend likes the music you are playing in your car. Then you:

• Let him borrow the CD.
• Burn him a copy of the CD.
• Give him the CD.

Lending or giving the CD should be legal, in most instances, at least if the CD itself is a legal copy. They are also both morally sound actions. Burning a copy may or may not be legal, depending on who owns the right to the music therein. Even if it is not legal, it may be morally sound if you cannot purchase a copy of the music therein, or if you can't obtain the music therein legally. Of course, if it is legal for you to burn a copy of the music, then it is also morally sound.

You read Robert Frost's "Fire and Ice", and enjoy it. Then you:

• Write it down on paper and mail it to a friend.
• Make a copy and mail it to a friend.
• Call up a friend on the phone and recite it for them.
• Call up a friend on the phone and recite it for them slowly, so they can write it down.

Also assuming that the material is public domain, all of the above is both legal and moral.

You read "The Tales of Beedle the Bard", and enjoy it. Then you:

• Write it down on paper and mail it to a friend.
• Make a copy and mail it to a friend.
• Call up a friend on the phone and read it to them.
• Call up a friend on the phone and read it to them slowly, so they can write it down.

Assuming someone else owns the copyright for the book, in the United States, the above actions are legal if they fall within the somewhat confusing boundaries fair use doctrine. Morally, it depends on the intent. If the "publication" was intended to remain private (and reasonable steps were taken to insure that it remained so), you are on sound ground. There are some other improbable situations in which copying the material may be morally sound, such as if the contents detailed the corrpution of a public official, or were copied to avoid a greater harm, but copying such material is otherwise immoral.

You subscribe to a website that allows you to watch videos and gives access to other "Premium Content." Then you:

• Invite friends over and watch the videos together.
• Make DVDs that include the videos and give them to your friends.
• Give out your username and password so that your friends can access the site for free.

This depends on the type of rights obtained with the subscription. Assuming you agreed to a license, there is insufficient detail here to address the legality of these issues. Morally, it depends on the content, and what kind of "extra" use of the material you may be causing. For example, if you give your username and password to a couple of friends who view the content once or twice, but would have never subscribed, you're morally safe. If your friends would have otherwise subscribed, or the make thorough use of the site and could technically subscribe on their own (setting aside issue of whether they can afford it), then you've lost the moral highground.

You subscribe to the DDI. Then you:

• Download the CB onto your friends' laptops so that they can use it.
• Download the CB onto one friend's laptop so that they can use it. You later find out that he hacked your account and has accessed other content through your account.
• Give out your username and password to the other 7 Players in your group so that they can access your DDI account.

Legally, if the EULA says you can't, and you've agreed to the EULA, you can't. There's no fair use doctrine that applies to licenses. The license is like a contract ("is like" does not mean "is") between two or more parties, and it binds only them. But it's more complicated than just that. Morally, it somewhat depends on the same factors I outlined above. If your friends would not have subscribed, and make limited use of it, then you're okay. If they would have subscribed, or if they make copious use of the account, then you're morally wrong.

You get a new pdf of a splatbook, and want to use a feat for a PC. Then you:

• Print off the page with the feat and give it to your DM.
• Print out the splatbook, bind it, and share it around the gaming table.
• Give him an electronic copy of the book so that he can read it thoroughly; he deletes the copy after he reviews the feat.
• Give him an electronic copy of the book so that he can read it thoroughly; you later discover that he doesn't delete the copy and has a large collection of pdfs gathered in this fashion.

Assuming the pdf was legal in the first instance, making a copy of it (be it one page or the whole thing, printed or electronic) for personal use is legal. The last in the list of examples is the most questionable, legally, and may or may not be illegal, depending on the amount of malice (in the general sense of the word: I'm not using malice as a legal term of art) involved. Morally, if it's legal, it's also morally okay. If it's not legal, you have to look at the harm done. If there was NO harm, then it's okay. If there was any harm, then you're not. Establishing exactly whether there was any harm is something that I am not able to fully figure out, so I'm morally obligated to not harm, which makes it immoral where it is not legal. At least for me.

You buy a few pdfs with setting specific info, and you want to run a campaign. Then you:

• Type up a selection of relevant materials, print it, and hand them out to your group.
• Put the pdfs on a website where you gaming group (6 other people) have access to download copies if they know your password.
• Put the pdfs on an open website for anyone to download so that your group has access.

The last one is illegal if you are not allowed to do so by the copyright owner. The second one might be if they make more use of the material than is allowed by the fair use doctrine. The first one probably fits within the fair use doctrine. Morally, the third one is wrong. The first one is morally fine. The morality of the second one depends on the harm done, and the amount of use made. If the pdfs are referred to occasionally, there's no moral difference between 1 and 2, which seems to be the likely scenario. If they refer to them all the time, thank the gods that you have such great players, and purchase another copy the players can share to keep your moral highground and the associated karma.

You're in a desert, walking along in the sand, when all of a sudden you look down and see a tortoise. It's crawling toward you . . . You reach down and you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't. Not without your help. But you're not helping.

• Why is that Leon?

Do you make up these questions, Mr. Comeback? Or do they write 'em down for you?

 

[Jhaelen]

Legally, public opinion is moving towards a view that empowers the copyrightholder.

Well, as you mentioned this isn't necessarily a trend that is the same in every country. E.g. in Germany in a lawsuit against Google's image search, the Federal Court of Justice (the highest level of jurisdiction) recently decided that Google didn't infringe an artist's copyrights by showing thumbnails of her art.

This sets an interesting precedent, since it puts the responsibility to the copyright owners to protect their copyrights by proactively by taking measures to prevent search engines from indexing your site.

And, as you mentioned, copyright laws are different in every country. E.g. in Germany we don't have an equivalent of the U.S. clause about 'fair use'. IIRC, we also have (or at least historically had) quite extensive rights regarding the creation of (multiple) backups.