Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[wedgeski]

I bet most people reading this have similar driving habits. If you know there are cops around, you make sure you don’t speed, right?

At the risk of getting self-righteous myself...

I don't speed in towns or built-up areas, not because of the danger of being caught and fined, but because the thought of running over some 5-year-old who jumps out from behind a parked car scares the crap out of me, and if a little kid ever did decide to do that, I want a reasonable chance of stopping in time. The law has nothing whatsoever to do with it, other than the lawmakers and I agree on exactly why you shouldn't drive like an idiot in a suburban street. The speed limit is there for a reason.

Sense of perspective regarding dead child vs. lost profit aside, I can also see why copyright laws exist. The law is not, I believe, a favour granted to corporate fat-cats by legislative whores. I happen to think that the protection of IP is important, and those who try to make a living by creating it should be protected.

My experience of software pirates and rampant file sharers is a simple one. They cannot be persuaded of the rights and wrongs of what they're doing, and have zero interest in arguing them. They're not interested in changing their ways. They're not scared of being caught, and only a small (very small) percentage of them would actually have purchased the thing they downloaded. In this industry, that small percentage of people can obviously represent a relatively high percentage of total potential sales for a gaming product so logically, piracy must be considered a serious issue.

 

[wedgeski]

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.

That's quite a moral judgement you're making there. Phil's PDF's should not be made freely available because you know he tries to make a living from them... do you apply the same diligence to other 'information' you're propagating? Surely it should be up to the creator of a work to decide whether it should be freely distributed, rather than you?

Edit: I'm inferring that you're a file sharer from your comments in the quoted post.

 

[Sundragon2012]

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

I do, and there is none for all practical purposes when the item in question only exists digitally. The wrong isn't in the taking, but in the negative impact the taking/copying has on the creator of said book ie. they do not benefit from the work they put forth.

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.

You are rather slickly seperating the act of taking with the impact of the act of taking. There is no no net loss in data when something is downloaded in fact, there is gain, however the gain for you the taker, who is not in any way entitled to what you have taken, and the creator, who is entitled by any rational standard to be paid for the work created.

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?

More pirate BS here. Anyone who can conflate these two issues has real problems. I am not saying that it's ok to take anything from the pharmaceutical companies, I am saying that someone can make a sound argument that in the case of the necessities of life that the right to life trumps the right to compensation.

Don't spin this into something that it isn't. Life and death ethical decisions are 1000 magnitudes more ethically grey than someone downloading what he has no actual need for just because they think they can get their hands on some kewl new PrCs or spells. There is a vast moral difference between stealing to preserve live and stealing to buff your PC or assist your campaign.

You know this as well as I do and to claim otherwise is idiotic.

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

I have every right because you are presenting yourself as someone who confuses rationalization and entitlement with ethical behavior. If your wouldn't be judged don't put your thoughts on the internet to be viewed. That way your could keep your limited ethical understanding to yourself and no one would judge you.

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.

Well I guess that removes ownership from anything that anyone can xerox, scan, copy, etc. basically no one can claim ownership even of hard copy books and the ideas therein because one can always scan it or a piece of art or anything at all that would fit on a scanner. More BS.

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.

This is adressed above. Conflating issues of life and death or suffering and non-suffering with the piracy of RPing game PDF is smoke screen for the lack of a sound ethical argument.

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.

I said in my previous post that there is nothing wrong with downloading something to see what its about. If you decide its right for you, you pay for it, if you find its not you don't and you erase the file. This isn't anywhere near as complicated as you make it out to be.

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.

Someone bought the book in the first place thereby benefitting the creator of said book. The owner may no longer have a need for the book and wants to recoup some of the loss on ebay or whatever. There is no ethical dilemma here, its merely an issue of ownership and the right of the individual who bought the book to keep or sell the book as he or she sees fit.

The legitimate buyer has the right to resell whatever they have purchased. There is no moral dilemma here. The rights of ownership in this case trump the original rights of the creator of the product because they no longer own it and have no say as to its final destination. Reproducing the product and selling 2000 of them for 33% of retail value is immoral and unethical because all you have a right to sell is the copy you legitimately purchased.

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".

Wow, you can corrupt any ethical position can't you? The golden rule in regards to this issue is....Would you want someone to take something of yours they didn't pay for and share it with hundreds or thousands of others who also refuse to pay for it when you rely on the income from your creativity to pay your bills? No Robin Hood....you would not. The golden rule doesn't mean I shouldn't point out the rationalizations for theft that you are offering up as sound ethical arguments.

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.

Good for you....this is your choice.....your choice.....you cannot expect others to make the same choices with materials of their creation.


Chris

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

That's quite a moral judgement you're making there. Phil's PDF's should not be made freely available because you know he tries to make a living from them... do you apply the same diligence to other 'information' you're propagating?

The vast majority of what I share is out-of-print and unavailable for first-hand sale. The rest of it is from companies I couldn't hurt if I tried and usually quite comfortably outside of its primary sale cycle-- if it wasn't free and/or public domain in the first place.

I try to give publishers as much room as possible to make their money.

Surely it should be up to the creator of a work to decide whether it should be freely distributed, rather than you?

Since I don't own a scanner, that decision is made before I get anywhere near it. I only decide whether or not I will be complicit. Really, my moral judgement isn't good for much, since everything I've decided not to share is still readily available from others.

And, no, I do not think it should be up to the creator; it rarely is, anyway, since most creators assign those rights to a third party before publishing. People should have the right to protect their private, confidential information; once you sell something for publishing (or publish it yourself), you've placed it into the public sphere.

It's irrational to speak of having the right to prevent the inevitable.

Edit: I'm inferring that you're a file sharer from your comments in the quoted post.

I'd as much as admitted it already, though I probably shouldn't have.

 

[Lazybones]

You might have a point, except that under the current copyright regime, more creative material is being produced and made available to the public than at any previous point in history. Whether that is a result of tighter copyright laws is, of course, a subject of debate, but the emprical evidence is that the current copyright regime is quite friendly to the creation of new content.

Well, I'd suggest that bigger factors are a much larger population, mass education, technology (facilitating the much greater distribution of content... how many hit songs were released prior to the phonograph and radio?), and more leisure time. So I wouldn't agree that the evidence supports the idea that current copyright laws are the key factor. Actually, I think that the current monopolies on distribution by the media companies make it harder to break into the industry. I think when (not if) that monopoly is broken, then there will be fewer "huge hits," but many, many more small-scale producers making less money for their work, but finding audiences they couldn't before. Heck, I think the experience of the RPG industry under the OGL bears this out.

 

[Mercule]

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.

I wouldn't say it's possible to "own" the information contained in a book. IP laws, at their core and origin are set up to encourage people to put information into the public domain. They do that by providing an incentive (a tangible one, rather than simply praise) and that incentive comes in the form of the ability to profit from that information. (I won't argue whether current IP laws are out of hand, just go with the basic premise.)

Whether you're stealing a book from the shelf at Barnes and Noble or downloading a copy of the pdf from a p2p, you actually aren't hurting the author any more or less. B&N has already bought the book and the author has (in most cases) gotten his money. The only additional damage done by stealing the dead tree is done to B&N. In fact, you're probably doing less damage to the author by stealing the book from B&N because he has already gotten paid for that instance of his IP.

Anyway, the point really isn't about whether copying something causes someone else to lose their copy, or whether you really need that book, even if you can't pay for it. The real question is, do you believe that people should get reimbursed for, or be able to profit from the labors of their brain? If so, what's the hang-up?

I'll grant that not everyone makes enough money to have a lot of disposable income for loads of books. That really, really sucks, and I don't want to see anyone in dire financial straits. What's great about gaming is that it doesn't take a lot to actually play it for an unlimited time. Save up $90, and you've literally got everything you need to game 'til the end of your days (the three core books). Hey, even if you don't have $90, you can use the free SRD.

No one needs any of these pdfs to enjoy their games. They are luxury add-ons to a luxury. When you download a pdf to use, what you're doing is placing your recreational want as a higher priority than either that particular author's right to get paid for his labors or the very notion of such a motivation. Seriously. End of story.

I've got to believe that anyone could save up a $30 (or so) for any single book, in a relatively short time -- say, three months. If you're talking about hundreds of dollars worth of books that you want, and can't afford, then you may want to consider the amount of time you're spending on downloading, reading, and using those books and whether said time might be better invested in some endeavor to increase your income to a point it would better suit your appetites for luxury and play. As my grandfather used to say, "Wine and caviar tastes, with a beer and crackers job."

 

[Mercule]

Having given me spiel, I'll say that I do, in fact, use one p2p network to grab D&D books to preview. That's why I've got Sandstorm and Frostburn. Basically, it saves me a trip to B&N to thumb through the books before deciding. And, using that mentality, I've got no problem with p2p downloads. That is, of course, provided the people using that justification actually lived by it -- and I can say that I've not pulled anything from a download that I have not also gone out and purchased. I'm sure it's not legal, but that's where there's a difference between legality and morality.

Ditto to stuff that you just can't buy anymore or has entered the public domain.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Well the USA didn't actually import many copyright works because they didn't need to, they just pirated them! And publishers got around the reciprocity problem by simultaneous protection in Canada, so US works were protected overseas, but foreign works weren't protected in USA. It was pretty sweet & I understand why it lasted a long time.

However as a non-American I feel this historical injustice requires compensation through free downloading of US-created works...

 

[wedgeski]

Since I don't own a scanner, that decision is made before I get anywhere near it. I only decide whether or not I will be complicit. Really, my moral judgement isn't good for much, since everything I've decided not to share is still readily available from others.

It's irrational to speak of having the right to prevent the inevitable.

What you don't seem to appreciate is that it is your very complicity which makes it inevitable.

 

[S'mon]

...a favour granted to corporate fat-cats by legislative whores...

Hm, I'd say that was a pretty good definition of the current state of copyright law.