Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Storm Raven]

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.

And I'm not talking about that.

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

What is the moral definition of "property" and "ownership"?

You might think your car is property. It is not. Property is the legal relationship between you and your car. You have legal rights with respect to the car - you have the right to use it, you have the right to prevent others from using it, you have limitations on your use imposed by law, you have the right to destroy it, and so on. Without that bundle of rights, the car is just a thing, and not property.

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

I mean that the copying is either (a) illegal, or (b) either bought from or permitted by the owner of the property. Hence, it isn't "freely available to reproduce".

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.

People would still complain when their property rights are altered lawfully, but that doesn't change the fact that property is a legally defined bundle of rights with respect to a thing. In the case of intellectual property the "thing" in question is a particular expression of authorship.

You asked how one could own something that could be "freely downloaded". That's not different than people asking how one could own land, or a car, or any physical object. How could one own land that you had never seen? How could one own a tree? The answer is simple in most cases - you can because the law defines a legal relationship between you and the thing.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

Even accounting for works that were effectively legally pirated as a result of the odd legal framework, the U.S. was a net exporter of copyrighted material long before the laws were changed.

It was pretty sweet & I understand why it lasted a long time.

Unless you've analyzed the Constitutional issues, you probably don't understand.

 

[S'mon]

Unless you've analyzed the Constitutional issues, you probably don't understand.

I understand the Constitutional issue, which seems quite simple - the Constitution grants Congress the ability to grant copyright only for specific purposes, and it's questionable whether granting copyright to foreign works furthers those purposes. One thing the Constitution doesn't do is say that State legislatures can't grant copyright protection, but state legislatures can't sign international treaties. Sweet.

NB I did my PhD on the history & philosophy of Anglo and Continental copyright law.

 

[Sundragon2012]

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.

It really is this simple and I find it hard to believe that anyone can rationally make it out to be more complicated than this. I believe that some believe that they are digital Robin Hoods, the vanguard of a new and liberated order of society that will cast down antiquated notions of property.......mostly I doubt it.

Most want something for nothing and want to still feel good about their own character, such as it is, and therefore create convoluted, positively hairsplitting, arguments to rationalize their behavior. Then they couch their rationalizations in college level words and pseudo-philosophical reflections on the nature of good/evil, right/wrong, freedom/structure and whatnot as a marvelous smokescreen to justify what is nothing more than sophisticated theft.


Chris

 

[S'mon]

Then they couch their rationalizations in college level words...

The fiends.

I get the impression a lot of people object strongly to any attempt to think about what things are good, what things are bad, and why. I've always thought this was a very important thing to do, using college level words or not. Unreflected-upon easy certainties are not preferable to positions that have been thought through, IMO. Which isn't to say that gut instincts aren't right, they often are, but thinking about why they might be right (or wrong) can only be a good thing IMO.

 

[Sundragon2012]

The fiends.

I get the impression a lot of people object strongly to any attempt to think about what things are good, what things are bad, and why. I've always thought this was a very important thing to do, using college level words or not. Unreflected-upon easy certainties are not preferable to positions that have been thought through, IMO. Which isn't to say that gut instincts aren't right, they often are, but thinking about why they might be right (or wrong) can only be a good thing IMO.

I am all for the exactness of legitimately used college level words. What I am getting at is that BS artists with a little education can weave spells with words that, through their eldritch glamour, hypnotize the less informed reader into believing that his point is valid based upon the number of syllables he used in his words. "Er, he uses them big college level words, him must know what he's talkin bout."

If you can't fascinate em' with facts, bedazzle them with bull .

This is what in some instances has been going on here and that is what I am referring to.


Chris

 

[Teflon Billy]

The fiends.

I get the impression a lot of people object strongly to any attempt to think about what things are good, what things are bad, and why. I've always thought this was a very important thing to do, using college level words or not. Unreflected-upon easy certainties are not preferable to positions that have been thought through, IMO. Which isn't to say that gut instincts aren't right, they often are, but thinking about why they might be right (or wrong) can only be a good thing IMO.

Nice

 

[S'mon]

This is what in some instances has been going on here and that is what I am referring to.

Do you have an example? I may be biased but it seemed to me like the arguments here eg against equating copyright infringement with theft were generally well-argued and not obfuscatory.

 

[S'mon]

Nice

Thank you.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I do, and there is none for all practical purposes when the item in question only exists digitally.

When the item in question only exists digitally, it is impossible to take it unless you take the physical media it exists within-- which would, actually, be theft.

If I make a copy of something you own, you still have as many copies as you had before.

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.

You know, until I so foolishly posted into this thread, noone knew I had ever downloaded anything.

And, quite simply, you're attaching your cart to the wrong horse; the creator is not harmed by the act of downloading, they are harmed by the non-act of not buying. Not even you can argue that we're obligated to buy everything produced-- and if I'm already not-buying, then it makes absolutely no difference whether or not I am downloading.

Your argument also doesn't hold up to the fact that I still buy things-- and a fair portion of things I share, I also own legal copies of.

But, you say, I'm benefitting from something without paying for it! Yes, I am. I also benefit from open source software and from advertising-supported radio without paying for them. I don't pay for my use of fresh air and sunshine, either.

Then again... my usage of open source, radio programming, and sunshine also don't prevent anyone else from using and benefitting from them. Guess I must not be stealing those, either.

There is no no net loss in data when something is downloaded in fact, there is gain, however the gain for you the taker ...

Still not taking anything-- from here on, just assume I'm reminding you of this everytime you claim I'm taking something. I'm getting tired of typing it over and over again.

And... are you really trying to tell me that if I'm gaining something, without depriving anyone else of it, it's wrong? See... that's what economists, games theorists, and ethicists all refer to as a "positive sum game"-- the very essence of beneficial activity.

... 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.

Yes, by most (not all) rational standards, they do indeed deserve to be paid for the work created; that's why I buy things. I'm also inclined to point out that they do, in fact, get paid for their efforts-- and they're not getting paid any less on account of mine.

More pirate BS here. Anyone who can conflate these two issues has real problems.

Er, okay... Need I point out that you're the one who brought necessities into it?

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.

Sure, they can. But if you disagreed with it, you'd call that sound argument "pirate BS" and accuse the person making it of "rationalization".

And if your livelihood were attached to the pharmaceutical industry, you'd be a damn sight less cavalier about what people can take because they need it to survive.

Don't spin this into something that it isn't.

I'm tempted to suggest that you stop first.

... 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.

There's also a vast difference between stealing and copying-- whether you are willing to acknowledge it or not.

I value your judgement of my intelligence about as much as I value your judgement of my ethics-- and I'll ask you to maintain a more civil tone, please. For what it's worth, I don't want this thread closed.

I have every right because you are presenting yourself as someone who confuses rationalization and entitlement with ethical behavior.

No, I am presenting myself as a person with a clear and rational system of ethics that you disagree with-- and as a person who is rapidly tiring of your inability to disagree with someone without insulting them.

If you 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.[/.quote]

Weren't you accusing me of being self-righteous earlier?

In any case, you mistake my intent. Your judgements don't hurt my feelings-- I'm simply pointing out that, with your seemingly murky view of ethics, you're not qualified to make those judgements.

For the record, I'm not referring to your disagreement with me on this issue; I'm referring to the way you confuse necessity with justification.

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.

Nothing I've said removes the concept of ownership from hardcopy books-- only the ideas within. If I own a book, I have no obligation to let someone copy it; I'm not even obligated to let someone else copy my computer files-- and as I've noted before, I'm somewhat picky about what I allow other people to copy.

My argument is, if someone owns the physical media upon which information is stored, then it is morally acceptable-- and even beneficial-- to make copies of that information for others to use.

People can own books, computers, and clay tablets; what they can't own is the information on them.

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.

I'm still benefitting from it without paying for it; by your standards, that is morally unacceptable. While this is less applicable for roleplaying books, I don't need to own a copy of a book to benefit from having read it.

Someone bought the book in the first place thereby benefitting the creator of said book.

Someone bought the book they scanned and let people download.

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 ...

The person buying the book off eBay is benefitting from the book without the creator receiving any money for it; unless they're a sucker, they're also benefitting from the book without paying the full price set by the author.

Either way, by your reasoning, they're depriving the "owner" of the money he deserves for the sale of that book.

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.

So... you admit that the creator of a book has no right to control what people do with it after they've purchased it? You admit that the creator and publisher no longer own it?

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'm not condoning that kind of behavior, either, and you know it.

As much as I believe that everyone has the right (morally) to make free copies of books and music, I do think the creator (or publisher) should be able to dictate who is and who is not allowed to make retail copies.

Wow, you can corrupt any ethical position can't you?

I haven't corrupted anything, any more than you've proved any of your muddled and irrational arguments.

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?"

Only if you were talking about people actually taking anything-- which you still aren't, despite your claims to the contrary.

As for people copying something they didn't pay for, and sharing it with hundreds or thousands of others... someone had to pay for that first copy. And I'd be thrilled to know that hundreds or thousands of people have read my work.

As for relying on the income from my creativity... you do have a point there. It's why I avoid sharing anything from small publishers; you've already insulted me enough today, so please give me at least enough credit to believe that my ethics would survive a couple miles in the other guy's shoes.

No Robin Hood....you would not.

Actually, Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. I copy things from the middle-class and give them to whoever asks for them. I also don't think the people I'm copying things from are corrupt tyrants and I'm not trying to overthrow them.

The golden rule doesn't mean I shouldn't point out the rationalizations for theft that you are offering up as sound ethical arguments.

If you were applying the Golden Rule to this argument at all, you'd stop trying to win this argument through insults and labelling my personal ethical convictions "rationalizations". Otherwise, I don't really see how the Golden Rule would stop you from arguing with me at all, and I'm not asking you to agree with me or concede, or even to shut up.

We're arguing; that's what civilized people do when they disagree. It was my choice to get involved in this argument, so I obviously expected to be argued with.

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

I'm not expecting them to make that choice-- regardless of which of us is right or wrong, I'm sure we can both agree that they simply do not have a choice in the matter. Even if I agreed with you 100% and believed that copying books was immoral and unethical, the choice would still be made for them tomorrow when people did it anyway.

Even if everyone in the world believed that copyright infringement was theft, there are enough people who don't mind stealing that the p2p networks would still be full of copyrighted material.

Please don't confuse these last few paragraphs as an ethical argument-- "it happens anyway" is no basis for any kind of decent human morality, and I'm not trying to use it as an argument in my favor.