Forked from DDI account sharing

[Cor_Malek]

I don't see anything immoral about lending a friend a book or CD, it is in fact something I do regularly (I don't see any problem with donating books to local library or using it, for that matter). The only problem I have with it - is keeping track of people who have something mine, but I use 2-fold plan:
a) Ex Libris in every book, so that they don't have to ask each and every friend who owns particular book if they forget.
b) Tellico library program to keep track of which book/CD I lended to who.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Outcome matters as much as intent

I don't think any of these are immoral. I know that burning a copy for him is technically illegal. But I feel it's illegality in this case is stupid. If I had a bank of CD burners, and I was burning them to sell...Yeah, there's a problem with that. And before anyone jumps on this and says that's just a matter of magnitude, I don't feel it is...it's a matter of intent. Unfortunately, it's impossible for laws to accurately control, monitor, or criminalize based on intent. So, in order to stop the gross violations (mass burning and selling), the law can only be written in a way that criminalizes all violations.

I truly believe that burning a CD, or even file sharing, does not adversely impact the revenue of the copyright holder. I actually believe the opposite is true, and that it enhances sales by bringing in new customers that otherwise may have not even given the product (music, book, etc.) any thought.

Before anyone jumps down my throat, I want to say first that I do believe many copy protection schemes are flawed and unenforceable. But as with any issue, analogies can only work up to a point before you have to consider the objective facts of the situation at hand.

The law might not measure intent, but it outcome does matter. If intent was the only thing that mattered, than drunk driving would not be a crime. No one, sober or not, really plans on getting involved in a multiple fatality accident when they get behind the wheel. That is why there are laws that exist which have nothing to do with intent.

Of course, sharing some mp3 files or access to DDI is not the same as causing a fatality through reckless endangerment. And not all people who download content illegally were going to actually buy the product. But the simple fact is that digital copies are functionally perfect and cost nothing to make. If exactly 1 person buys a legit copy, and then makes one illegal copy, and everyone else he shares it with only makes 1 illegal copy, then you will eventually have 1 copy for every person who could have bought the item. And while not everyone who downloads illegally was going to purchase it, you must also admit that there are some people who might have purchased the item but did not because they were able to use a free copy.

Filesharing can make a given digital work more popular and it can increase sales. However, it will only do this for the top tier products. If you think in terms of videogames, then digital Piracy would not really have as big an effect on something like Assassins Creed as it would on Rayman Raving Rabbids. If it is top tier and top quality, it will do well no matter what. The piracy of the title will hurt the final sales numbers, but not enough to make it unprofitable. But something that is merely a 'good' game, but not great? That will go from being profitiable to being unprofitable.

The solution is to provide demo access that allows just enough access to be useful or to test it, but to withhold enough to make buying the full product worth while. For DDI, this might be letting the user access PHB1 classes and races up to level 4 or so and access to MM1 monsters within the same level.

For the matter at hand, I think that sharing a DDI account for character builder access is not entirely unreasonable. But I would be very hesitant to share access to the full online compendium.

I think wizards could work around the problem by letting people with a DDI account create and share a few 'demo' accounts attached to their subscription.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

In fact, according to several big deal world religions, business is rather inherently evil to begin with, concerned as it is with the root of all evil. There's circles of Hell for those with suits and ties, and for and bean-counters, and for both the greedy and the wasteful. Camels don't frequently pass through the eyes of needles, and prophets were known to hang out with bupkiss in the desert pretty much all the time, and to say that we should all live like that.

I grok the whole Protestant Ethic idea (I'm a student of religion and culture, after all -- and if you don't quite grok it, it's a really enlightening read), but I can't bring myself to consider anything I give to my bank and wrest from the iron grip of my employers as anything having to do in even the littlest bit with whether I am a Good Person or a Bad Person.

So, no, I don't think it's my moral responsibility, or anyone else's, to pay. Indeed, if it would alleviate suffering or cause joy, I think it would be my moral responsibility to give, as much as humanly possible.

But, being a student of culture and religion, with an eye toward economics, it's really fascinating to see how deeply the idea that the difference between and is $ has become.

Though I can't help but think certain moral figures would go all moneylenders in the temple on it.

But a lot of this is beyond the scope of ENWorld.

How it relates to WotC, piracy, and the DDI? No, I really don't think it is immoral to engage in piracy, or to share a DDI account. And I think it's really sad when people confuse legality with morality.

And, just in case the thread exceeds its scope...IB4TL.

 

[Witty Comeback]

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.

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.)

And, just in case the thread exceeds its scope...IB4TL.

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

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

 

[Witty Comeback]

All of these, IMHO, are immoral. Yet they are fairly common behaviours AFAICT. Certainly, most infringe the same "rights" as are infringed by "piracy".

RC

Sorry, I missed this the first time through.

"You must spread XP yadda yadda."

Yes, I think all that is very much related to all this. You are getting a service that has value to you, and are returning nothing to the agencies that provide you that value.

 

[Witty Comeback]

DDI only lets you update up to 5 individual IPs each month

I am sorry, I don't know what this means. Are you saying you can only log into the DDI from 5 computers? Or are you talking about the CB? Isn't there a lot more to the DDI than the CB? Or am I missing something? (This could be the case; I don't have or know anyone that has a DDI account.)

 

[mudbunny]

I am sorry, I don't know what this means. Are you saying you can only log into the DDI from 5 computers? Or are you talking about the CB? Isn't there a lot more to the DDI than the CB? Or am I missing something? (This could be the case; I don't have or know anyone that has a DDI account.)

Here are the various parts of DDI as it currently stands:

1 - Dungeon/Dragon Magazines
2 - Compendium
3 - Monster Builder
4 - Character Builder

3 and 4 get updated every month with the items/powers/feats/etc that were released the previous month in the books and magazines. Every month, each DDI subscriber gets 5 updates for each program. They are not carried over, and are reset back to 5 after the next update.

 

[Witty Comeback]

Print off the page with the feat and give it to your DM. Legal (fair use)

Give him an electronic copy of the book so that he can read it thoroughly; he deletes the copy after he reviews the feat. Illegal

I am interested in your personal opinion: is there a difference in the morality of these two approaches to getting you DM to approve the feat?

 

[Nagol]

I am interested in your personal opinion: is there a difference in the morality of these two approaches to getting you DM to approve the feat?

I generally avoid morality -- it's a poor system to base interactions between people and person to society in general. I know I require different treatment than others seem to expect themselves to be treated (death before dishonour is not my cup of tea, for example). Ethical and legal interaction is a better basis for consistent expectation across different people.

Yes there is a difference in morality in these cases under the copyright reservations normally seen on professionally published work. Copyleft, Creative Commons, and other alternative licensing can have different answers.

In the case of providing a single page to the other party, the providing copy is adhering to the wishes of the creator of the work as expressed in the rights granted by the creator. By creating/procuring a electronic copy, the providing party is specifically going against the wishes of the creator and breaking the expectations under which the creator made his work available.

Why might a creator want this restriction?

In printing off a single page or part thereof, the other party is given a taste as to the content and quality found in the work in question. If the other party were to agree that the work was worth using, he can go and acquire a copy of his own. Additionally, the providing party is exercising due care that the receiving party cannot misuse the work (i.e. keep without payment or provide further distribution against the creator's wishes) as can happen in the full copy were presented.

 

[Beginning of the End]

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.