Storm Raven
First Post
S'mon said:
Criminal copyright infringement is certainly a crime, and a civil tort, at least in the U.S. I believe that this is covered under the Berne Convention as well, to which the U.K. is a signatory.
Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?
- Thread starter The Persian
- Start date
- Status
Criminal copyright infringement is certainly a crime, and a civil tort, at least in the U.S. I believe that this is covered under the Berne Convention as well, to which the U.K. is a signatory.
Lazybones
Adventurer
I think that making fun of the people who legitimately think that the system of copyright laws is "broken" doesn't help the debate. I will stipulate that copyright infringement of new releases is both wrong and illegal (obviously the former is a matter of opinion, the latter a matter of law). Given that 60+ million Americans engage in music infringement (I'd say that the number who have every DLed a copyrighted file runs into 70-80% of computer users, but that's just a guess), I think that this cannot be dismissed as merely a bunch of folks who just want something for nothing.
My issue is with the corruption of the original intent of the Founders in the Constitution; copyright was seen as a grant of a temporary monopoly by the state to a producer of intellectual content to ensure that said producer of content could benefit from it (thus encouraging more production) before the results of said "intellectual property" were returned to the society via the public domain. IIRC, the original term of copyright was 14 years.
Fastforward to today, where copyright is essentially a two-lifetime term (life +70, or inception +90 for a corporate-produced material). Folks are paying royalties on "happy birthday"; and if Disney and the other content industries keep getting their way, then movies will NEVER go into the public domain. The nature of the industry spawned by these changes is such that most copyrights end up the property of corporations, who would rather lock up their content for 100 years on the off chance of making a nickel off it someday than return it to the commons where others can benefit from it.
If you haven't guessed, I have nothing but contempt for current copyright laws. I think that the current copyright regime is actually hostile to the creation of dynamic creative content and is rather the best regulation that money can buy from industries that are trying to hold onto an outdated production and distribution schema. I do believe that authors/composers/filmmakers should be compensated for their efforts. But I don't think that creating something entitles you to a century plus of "owning" that idea. After all, most of what we create anyway builds off of the ideas and labors of others. If it were up to me, I'd return copyright to its original 14 year term (okay, maybe a single 14 year extension, but you have to actively file for it and pay a small fee). And you know what? I'd bet dollars to donuts that this single action would cut down on 2/3rds of current piracy, as there would be a HUGE body of public work... music, movies, books, etc. that people could enjoy and benefit from. I know the counterargument is that we do have such things (from the 19th century!) now; I do enjoy Project Gutenberg materials and public domain classical recordings, but I think that most such materials are inaccessible (in a cultural rather than physical sense) to folks of today's generation. Not so for music from the 1960s-1990s, for example.
Nor do I think that a 14 year term will serve as a disincentive for the producers of intellectual creative property. Studies (sorry, no links, someone can correct me if they have hard data) have shown that something like 95% of the income derived from intellectual content comes from the first decade of sales, on average. Of course, the content industries will fight for every last damned nickel.
In any case, I think it's moot. Digital content and high-speed internet is here, it isn't going away, and no matter how many people the RIAA and MPAA sue, the old modes are in their death throes.
My issue is with the corruption of the original intent of the Founders in the Constitution; copyright was seen as a grant of a temporary monopoly by the state to a producer of intellectual content to ensure that said producer of content could benefit from it (thus encouraging more production) before the results of said "intellectual property" were returned to the society via the public domain. IIRC, the original term of copyright was 14 years.
Fastforward to today, where copyright is essentially a two-lifetime term (life +70, or inception +90 for a corporate-produced material). Folks are paying royalties on "happy birthday"; and if Disney and the other content industries keep getting their way, then movies will NEVER go into the public domain. The nature of the industry spawned by these changes is such that most copyrights end up the property of corporations, who would rather lock up their content for 100 years on the off chance of making a nickel off it someday than return it to the commons where others can benefit from it.
If you haven't guessed, I have nothing but contempt for current copyright laws. I think that the current copyright regime is actually hostile to the creation of dynamic creative content and is rather the best regulation that money can buy from industries that are trying to hold onto an outdated production and distribution schema. I do believe that authors/composers/filmmakers should be compensated for their efforts. But I don't think that creating something entitles you to a century plus of "owning" that idea. After all, most of what we create anyway builds off of the ideas and labors of others. If it were up to me, I'd return copyright to its original 14 year term (okay, maybe a single 14 year extension, but you have to actively file for it and pay a small fee). And you know what? I'd bet dollars to donuts that this single action would cut down on 2/3rds of current piracy, as there would be a HUGE body of public work... music, movies, books, etc. that people could enjoy and benefit from. I know the counterargument is that we do have such things (from the 19th century!) now; I do enjoy Project Gutenberg materials and public domain classical recordings, but I think that most such materials are inaccessible (in a cultural rather than physical sense) to folks of today's generation. Not so for music from the 1960s-1990s, for example.
Nor do I think that a 14 year term will serve as a disincentive for the producers of intellectual creative property. Studies (sorry, no links, someone can correct me if they have hard data) have shown that something like 95% of the income derived from intellectual content comes from the first decade of sales, on average. Of course, the content industries will fight for every last damned nickel.
In any case, I think it's moot. Digital content and high-speed internet is here, it isn't going away, and no matter how many people the RIAA and MPAA sue, the old modes are in their death throes.
Bloodstone Press said:
Nah, I can't agree with that, I'm afraid. It can be wrong and dangerous, but it's not necessarily so. Even if I accepted that it was wrong, I'd still disagree that it was necessarily dangerous. There are far too many factors involved - traffic speed, driving ability, the performance of the car itself, and the assumption that whoeever made the decision as to what the speed limit should be at a particular location had some bizarre way of determining what speed was safe and what was dangerous.
It's quite possible for someone driving over the speed limit ito be far safer than someone driving at or below it. There's no absolute.
Admittedly, I do do it simply because I enjoy it, which is no justification. But I don't accept the premise that it is necessarily dangerous, and would further state that I believe, in some situations, that it is actually safer.
Steel_Wind
Legend
S'mon said:
It is a crime in the USA, Canada and the UK by statute.
The fact that is it also tortious is not surprising; many crimes are also actionable civil wrongs.
.Robert (Barrister & Solicitor - LSUC)
Sledge
First Post
Again I ask, why is it that none of the for pay PDFs look any different from the free ones? The only time you can tell is when you have books that were hardcopy first. If you're being a professional PDF publisher, make them look professional eh?
I have pdfs from RPGNow that look rather like someone tore a few pages out of their word file and uploaded it. Now if I'm looking for homebrew stuff on a P2P network (I've got about 30-40 homebrew files) how am I supposed to even know your product is available for sale?
I have pdfs from RPGNow that look rather like someone tore a few pages out of their word file and uploaded it. Now if I'm looking for homebrew stuff on a P2P network (I've got about 30-40 homebrew files) how am I supposed to even know your product is available for sale?
Bloodstone Press
Explorer
Surprisingly, I tend to agree with you. I think copyright laws tend to inhibit creativity. However, I still think downloading something without paying for it is wrong.
Morrus said:
Fair enough. Maybe my analogy was a little off.
Morrus said:
Sure, I can agree with that, I would just refer you to Simon's post above about posted speed limits
Sledge said:
None of? You're kidding, right?
There are PDF publishers out there who produce extremely high quality documents, with better layout, editing, graphic design, etc. than many print publishers. Plus the added bonus of hyperlinks, bookmarks and so forth.
That's a broad brush you're waving around there!
The Persian
First Post
To add here, the Iron Heroes PDF looks remarkably alike to the original pdf.
Bloodstone Press
Explorer
Thanee said:
As I mentioned recently in the private publisher forms over on RPGnow, the only real way to stop pirates is with a low-tech solution. DRM, passwords, and watermarks are NOT the answer.
The only thing that will work is people (agents, snoops, narks, whatever you want to call them) who troll around P2P sites looking for pirated material, then busting anyone who provides it to them. Using the same method of apprehension as law enforcement currently uses to catch child pornographers.
Any sort of techno-savvy method will not work because there are computer hacks out there who live to break code and "beat" security programs.
The only thing that will stop pirates is the fear that the person downloading their pirated material might be a cop who is eager to charge them with a crime.
- Status
Similar Threads
