Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[eyebeams]

The small scale and margins of RPG publishing mean that piracy has the potential to be much more damaging than for music and film. One lost sale out of 1000 or 100 is a lot bigger problem than 1 out of 100,000 or 1 million.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I could say all the same things about the "self-superior, entitlement-minded, pseudo-intellectual, anti-social" arguments being put forth by people that are trying to stop the sharing of copyrighted materials-- after all, it's awfully hard to make any claims of rational thinking when you can't tell the difference between online copyright infringement and shoplifting.

Well if you can explain to me the ethical/moral difference between shoplifting what you should be paying for and downloading that which you should be paying for.....I may be more amenable to your position.

What right do you or anyone else have to take for free what another asks fair compensation for? You don't like the pricing, don't buy the book. There is no industry in the world where if you disagree with the pricing you get to take what you want. This isn't like there is a cure for cancer in game books that desperate role-players NEED to survive and evil developers are charging too much. No, you want, not need, the book you take. There is no need, no right or entitlement to it so therefore you have no intrinsic right to the information contained therein if the item's creator asks for a certain sum for use of said information.

If we were discussing food, clothing, medicine, I would see an argument here. To think that somehow a pirate has any ethical standing is indicative of an attitude of entitlement to take whatever you want even without paying for it. Please tell me where you or any other human being is entitled to take what is desired as opposed to what is desperately needed to survive.

Not to mention, of course, that their arguments are motivated chiefly by their desire for us to give them money, and their claims that they deserve that money.

Yeah and those nasty computer makers want you to pay for your laptop, the car companies want you to pay for your car...bad, bad, bad, The wicked, wicked bookstores want you to pay for the books you are going to read...evil. How do you expect folks to keep creating things if they can't earn a decent wage via their efforts. The price they ask is theirs to set and if you don't like it wait to get it second hand or don't get it at all.

Jesus you can't possibly believe that there is no ethical problem with this. I think a course in ethics or an understanding of the Golden Rule is in order for those that believe that theft is justifiable simply because its digital as opposed to physical.


Chris

 

[S'mon]

Well if you can explain to me the ethical/moral difference between shoplifting what you should be paying for and downloading that which you should be paying for.....I may be more amenable to your position.

Taking an item off a shelf transfers the item from one person to another. Downloading creates a new good. All else being equal, the first is econoically neutral - nothing is created or destroyed - while the second is economically good, a new thing is created. Thus the transfer of information actually involves creation, whereas the transfer of a physical item does not. Copying/downloading is thus in economic & utility terms a good thing in itself whereas acquiring of a physical good is not necessarily. Thus unauthorised taking of physical property is much more unequivocally wrong than is unauthorised access to information or unauthorised reproduction of information. NB the USA did not fully protect other countries' copyrights until the late 1980s (Berne Convention), and not at all before the 1950s (Universal Copyright Convention). Prior to the 1950s the view in the USA was that it was preferable to allow free reproduction of other countries' copyright works, what is now called piracy. Only when the US became a net exporter of copyright works did the view change.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Well if you can explain to me the ethical/moral difference between shoplifting what you should be paying for and downloading that which you should be paying for.....I may be more amenable to your position.

No, you won't-- because I've already explained the difference and you've already made up your mind.

What right do you or anyone else have to take for free what another asks fair compensation for? You don't like the pricing, don't buy the book.

Do you still not understand the difference between taking an object and copying the information contained within that object?

If a copy of, say, Plato's Republic magically vanished every time I downloaded a copy, you might have a point. However, as long as filesharing involves copying material, neither I nor anyone else is taking anything from anyone else.

This isn't like there is a cure for cancer in game books that desperate role-players NEED to survive and evil developers are charging too much.

So... at the same time you're telling me that it's wrong for me to not steal from the gaming industry, you're telling me that it's perfectly acceptable for me to actually steal from the pharmaceutical industry, as long as I "need" whatever they're selling?

Now, if you want your analogy to actually work, you could argue with me whether or not it is ethical for me to copy the formulae of patented pharmaceuticals and make them available to all comers for free. Pharmaceuticals, after all, are even more expensive than roleplaying books, people actually need them... and they're generally cheaper to produce.

Don't those hard-working researchers deserve to be compensated for their work, too, though? Or does that only apply to industries you're planning on making money off of?

You don't have any moral authority to lecture me on ethics.

There is no need, no right or entitlement to it so therefore you have no intrinsic right to the information contained therein if the item's creator asks for a certain sum for use of said information.

At least you're finally acknowledging the difference between a book and the information contained within that book.

Now, if you could explain to me how it is possible to "own" something that can be freely reproduced, we can start to debate this intelligently.

To think that somehow a pirate has any ethical standing is indicative of an attitude of entitlement to take whatever you want even without paying for it. Please tell me where you or any other human being is entitled to take what is desired as opposed to what is desperately needed to survive.

I'm not going to keep reminding you that I'm not taking anything-- you'll either get it or you won't.

But I am curious as to what makes you think that human beings have a right to take food, medicine, and clothing from the people who worked hard to produce them-- especially since, unlike when you download a copy of a book, you've actually deprived them of something. You've stolen something from them.

The wicked, wicked bookstores want you to pay for the books you are going to read...evil.

Actually, most of the bookstores I frequent are perfectly happy to let me read any book I please without paying for it. They don't make me pay for them unless I damage them or try to leave with them-- you know, if what I'm doing is going to remove a copy from their possession.

Oh my god! Your local public library is nothing but a den of pirates! People go in and read books all the time without paying for them and the staff encourages it! They even have copy machines installed for the pirates' convenience!

How do you expect folks to keep creating things if they can't earn a decent wage via their efforts. The price they ask is theirs to set and if you don't like it wait to get it second hand or don't get it at all.

So... if we're talking about the designers getting a decent wage for their work, why is buying things secondhand okay? If I buy a $30 book in a store, I can be assured that the designers, the publisher, the artists et al are going to see some of that money.

If I buy it off eBay, they don't see another dime. They get the same amount of money as if I'd just downloaded it in the first place.

So... uh... what's your point, again?

Jesus you can't possibly believe that there is no ethical problem with this. I think a course in ethics or an understanding of the Golden Rule is in order for those that believe that theft is justifiable simply because its digital as opposed to physical

I can and I do. I'm still struggling with how you can justify real theft in one breath, and then condemn copying because it's somehow "theft"-- and so far, my ethics are looking a lot more logically sound than yours.

I've already addressed your hypocrisy in trying to lecture me on ethics-- and if I remember it right, the Golden Rule states "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

I've never had anything published for money, but I sure have made a lot of my work available for others to download-- right here, as a matter of fact. And if I ever was published for money, I would expect and approve of other people making it available for free download-- though I'd most likely be contractually obligated not to do so myself.

I'm not going to convince you that copying books is right-- or even that it is acceptable-- but you should really consider taking a deep breath and regaining a sense of perspective before attempting to argue about it. You can argue that filesharing is wrong without mislabelling it "theft" and without adopting a disrespectful tone.

You'd probably be a lot more convincing if you did so.

 

[philreed]

And if I ever was published for money, I would expect and approve of other people making it available for free download-- though I'd most likely be contractually obligated not to do so myself.

Are you willing to work at your job for free for the rest of your life?

 

[Storm Raven]

NB the USA did not fully protect other countries' copyrights until the late 1980s (Berne Convention), and not at all before the 1950s (Universal Copyright Convention). Prior to the 1950s the view in the USA was that it was preferable to allow free reproduction of other countries' copyright works, what is now called piracy. Only when the US became a net exporter of copyright works did the view change.

Actually, the problem in the U.S. was that there were serious Constitutional questions concerning whather Congress had the power to extend copyright protection to foreign made works (due to the language of the copyright clause of the Constitution). The U.S. was a net exporter of copyrighted material long before the laws were changed.

 

[silvermane]

It is wrong if you intend on making use of the materials your download ie. if you couldn't download it you would be a customer.

What if you don't make use of the materials you download? Is that wrong also? Someone wants to defend the "hoarders" on that issue?

 

[Storm Raven]

Now, if you could explain to me how it is possible to "own" something that can be freely reproduced, we can start to debate this intelligently.

Because "ownership" is a legally defined state of being. "Property" is a legally defined bundle of rights with respect to something. In the case of intellectual property, it is the legally defined right to (among other things) control the reproduction of a certain expression of authorship for a set period of time. That is how it is possible to own something that can be reproduced (although not "freely" as you claim). It is a legally defined relationship, as are all property rights, of any kind.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Are you willing to work at your job for free for the rest of your life?

I'd be happy just to have a job I could do for free. And yes, if I knew my bills were going to be covered, I would work for free. And happily.

I know that, for a lot of you guys, this is how you pay your bills-- you don't have the option of working for free, even if you wanted to.

I don't expect you to work for free. I buy books-- as much as I can. I encourage other people to buy books, and I've talked a couple of people into buying PDFs from RPGNow. Unlike most people who buy their books in the store, I actually give a damn whether or not you guys get paid; I don't run around, like pirate and non-pirate alike, bitching about how "evil" the industry is and how you're all a bunch of money-grubbing, blood-sucking corporate whores.

And don't tell me the only people with that attitude are pirates; we both know better.

Like I said in my first post in this thread, I'm torn between my belief that spreading information freely is a moral good and the fact that you guys do good work and deserve to be paid for it. So far, the best solution I've found is to buy what I can and to avoid sharing anything that's only available online-- since they need every sale they can get.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Because "ownership" is a legally defined state of being. "Property" is a legally defined bundle of rights with respect to something.

I am not arguing the legal definition of "property" or "ownership"; I know that, in this country at least, both downloading and uploading copyrighted materials is illegal, and I am making no attempt to dispute that.

"Property" and "ownership" have moral definitions as well-- and that is all I am addressing in this argument.

That is how it is possible to own something that can be reproduced (although not "freely" as you claim).

What do you mean by "not freely"? I'm curious.

It is a legally defined relationship, as are all property rights, of any kind.

This is somewhat disingenuous on your part-- if ownership and property were purely legal concepts, noone would complain when deprived of either lawfully. There is enough outrage at taxation and property forfeiture to indicate that there are clearly moral definitions of these concepts as well.