Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Falkus]

So would I. Unfortunately, I haven't discovered them, either.

You know, Lenin, Castro and all the other great revolutionaries of history all had an idea of what they wanted to do after they tore down the current system. You, you just want to tear down the system and not replace it with anything.

True, but this is the same for anyone paid by according to a time interval instead of per task-- anyone paid by the hour is better off doing as little as they can get away with, so that the work will take longer and they'll be paid more.

For anything not so nebulous as art, it's easy for the employer to fire lazy ones. Art isn't so easy, and the government tends not to fire workers when it can avoid it.

Which is it-- can they not survive the private market, or is the private market utterly and wholly superior to any other model?

Given that you've never been able to demonstrate a model superior to the private market, we're forced to logically conclude that the private market is the superior model.

And many artists of quality would have been grateful for that sum, even if it is a pittance. If I remember correctly, Van Gogh didn't sell a single painting in his lifetime.

And a hell of a lot more artists wouldn't be. That it isn't enough to survive on. It's below the poverty line.

As, I'm sure, are people who decide to purchase their copies used-- because not only are they getting the superior, hardcopy version, they're doing so without compensating the creator. Yes, this is legally protected, and occurs far less often than digital copying, but from the perspective of the creator's pocketbook, it's the exact same thing.

Strawman much? Part of the right of having a license is the right to give that license to someone else.

I really don't think anyone is arguing against this; I'm certainly not. However, the need for creators to be properly rewarded for their work cannot be allowed to prevent the free spread of knowledge.

We had to burn down the village to save it. Sound familiar? Your policy would prevent the creation of new knowledge. There would be no more scientific research, no more movies, no more television, no more computer games, no more computers, for that matter. You aren't advoacting the free spread of knowledge, you're advocating its destruction.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Given that you've never been able to demonstrate a model superior to the private market, we're forced to logically conclude that the private market is the superior model.

You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- and I'm arguing with people who are trying to tell me it isn't broken.

Your policy would prevent the creation of new knowledge. There would be no more scientific research, no more movies, no more television, no more computer games, no more computers, for that matter. You aren't advocating the free spread of knowledge, you're advocating its destruction.

I'm not advocating the destruction of the current system-- the current system is doing that all on its own. I'm advocating taking advantage of the benefits of that system while they last and trying to talk people who I respect and whose work I enjoy out of going down with it.

For that matter... even as our Byzantine system of intellectual property is falling apart-- because it is insustainable given the realities of digital reproduction-- we have more new material being created than ever, for more profit than ever. (Maybe it's not getting to all the places it needs to go, but entertainment and corporate research are at all-time highs.) And we're already beginning to see that people are stepping up to replace that system.

Not because it's desirable, and not because the old system was bad, but because it is necessary because the old system is not adaptable to the new technology.

 

[Storm Raven]

You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- and I'm arguing with people who are trying to tell me it isn't broken.

Yes, you do. You need to give an idea of how a better system could be put in play than the one that is being used. Otherwise you are just engaging in of form of the Nirvanah fallacy.

 

[Storm Raven]

When I researched this (US requiring China impose death penalty for copyright infringement) recently I found it was apparently a requirement imposed in bilateral US-China trade negotiations, in 1994 I think, not a result of multilateral WTO membership negotiations.

Do you have a reference for this? I have searched for information on the U.S. request that China impose the death penalty to copyright violations, but haven't been able to find anything. I'd like to see what is out there on the topic first hand.

 

[Rykion]

Strangely enough, I can't find anything on the Chinese copyright death penalty. I did find the US embassy's explanation of Chinese copyright laws. It doesn't mention the death penalty at all. I would expect it to if the US required it. Here is the site: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/ipr/copy.html

 

[Storm Raven]

Strangely enough, I can't find anything on the Chinese copyright death penalty. I did find the US embassy's explanation of Chinese copyright laws. It doesn't mention the death penalty at all. I would expect it to if the US required it. Here is the site: http://www.usembassy-china.org.cn/ipr/copy.html

I haven't either, which is why I asked. I see the assertion made that China has the death penalty for copyright violations, and that this was the result of a U.S. demand, but I haven't ever been able to find anything supporting this. Having looked at the detailed discussion of Chinese copyright law that you provided, I'm wondering if the whole "China has the death penalty for copyright violators" thing is an internet myth.

 

[Falkus]

You don't have to know how to fix something to know that it's broken-- and I'm arguing with people who are trying to tell me it isn't broken.

There's a difference between auto mechanics and social sciences. You're advocating the destruction of the current system, but you do not know if it is possible for their to be anything to replace the current system. Even if the current system is not perfect, it beats no system at all.

I'm not advocating the destruction of the current system-- the current system is doing that all on its own. I'm advocating taking advantage of the benefits of that system while they last and trying to talk people who I respect and whose work I enjoy out of going down with it.

This sounds exactly like what a looter would say. You're part of the problem, not the solution.

And we're already beginning to see that people are stepping up to replace that system.

Open source software and fan fiction is not a replacement.

Not because it's desirable, and not because the old system was bad, but because it is necessary because the old system is not adaptable to the new technology.

And how do you know that? Maybe in two years there'll be a whole branch of the FBI specializing in tracking down information pirates, with an international authority to do so.

 

[med stud]

Well since this discussion turned into a trench war on the right/wrong about downloading copyrighted materials pretty early I assume that it hasn't changed. I will let that discussion go and I will offer my points on the effects instead.

My bio: I haven't published anything I don't plan to do it. I have downloaded, though, when it was legal to do so.

The effect downloading had on me was that it made me aware of things I wouldn't be aware of otherwise. I have many records with, for example, NIN and Johnny Cash now that I bought after downloading and thought "wow, this is good. These guys deserve to be paid for it." On the other hand, I have more songs made by them than I would ever afford or be willing to buy. I think this is where it turns difficult; on one hand, I have copyrighted material that I haven't payed for. On the other hand, both the property holders of Johnny Cash's work (may he rest in peace) and Trent Raznor (and, of course, the record companies) has gotten money they wouldn't have otherwise. I'm maybe not the most common kind of downloader but I don't think I'm that rare either.

Since I haven't done any research on this subject and I haven't made any deep interviews or analyzes on the people I know that downloaded I can only use my self as a reference for my next argument and that is, how do I react when I find something that I really want? The answer is that I buy it. I might want to check it out first but as a rule of thumb, as a lot of unused things I have proves, I buy it on gut feeling. When I'm curious about something, though, I don't buy it. If, for some reason, I can see what I'm curious about and it makes me change my mind I might buy it instead. With P2P I could check things out; 95% of what I downloaded I only looked at once and then I didn't look at it again but the other 5% I actually bought (I wasn't the kind of guy who downloaded 100s of gigs just because I could, hence the high number). I think this is pretty common, actually. I think it's seldom anyone really, really wants something and then they go: "Hey! Maybe I can get it for free!" and start searching for it. I think the absolute majority of downloaders go "Hmm since it's free I might give it a look." On the other hand, if they turn out to like it they maybe use it without paying for it.

So I think we have three factors here: On one hand, the people who buy something that they wouldn't buy if they hadn't downloaded it and on the other hand the people who doesn't buy something that they would have buyed if they hadn't downloaded it. In between there are all the things that none of them would have bought anyway. I think that the last cathegory is the absolute majority.

I think that, for role playing games, that the first cathegory wins out. A pdf isn't expensive compared to what you get for it, there is an inherent sympathy factor to the guy that struggles to make ends meet when publishing and I think role players as a whole are pretty morally conscious people (I actually think that ). On the other hand the food on my table is not on the line when I guess this so it doesn't matter much to me whatever I'm right or wrong so I can afford to keep it on a purely theoretical level.

In short, I think P2P-networks are either beneficial to pdf publishers or that they doesn't have a big impact at all.

PS: I'm not defending a moral position or anything here. I present what I think is correct and my reasoning behind it.

PSS: Can we please leave Chinese copy right laws out of this? I think this board is pretty clear on political content in threads... :-/

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It should be noted that Nikola Tesla died poor, because he was utterly uninterested in monetary wealth. His only goal was research, and all he needed the money for was continuation of research.

Technically, according to a biography of his, he actually made quite a bit of money. However, he spent it and gave it away almost as fast as he earned it.

In China, copyright infringement is punishable by death. It does not appear to have the effect some have wished.

In Russia, digital goods have no copyright protection; this is why AllOfMp3 could not be shut down. Russians who download, upload, or otherwise manipulate digital works are not breaking the law.

In China and Russia, the pirate organizations fall into 2 main categories: Those with state support (generally pirating the IP of the EU and USA), and those actually operating in the same plants the multinationals are using because of the cheap labor costs. The latter are the ones that are the most amusing to me- essentially, when machinery is offline because of "maintenance" or because the "shift change" or end of day reasons, the pirate employees fire up the machinery to run off illegal copies with the same equipment & packaging as the legit copies.

As for Russia's laws about digital data, EU and USA attorneys are going after those sites by putting pressure on the companies that process the payments. If Visa, MC and the like find out the site has material that is pirated, they'll stop processing the credit card charges. This, of course, shuts the site down...until its re-established as a different site.

I'm not advocating the destruction of the current system-- the current system is doing that all on its own.

No, people who aren't playing by the rules are tearing up the system. A boat works fine as long as there's no hole in the part below the water. IP laws are the boat & copyright violators are puncturing the hull.

This hasn't managed to bring the construction or service industries to a screeching halt yet.

Because (no insult intended) those industries do not depend on the unique abilities of any one person. They are largely staffed by unskilled laborers and skilled laborers who have learned certain tasks- creativity is not an essential job quality. Those in construction WITH creativity are generally architects or master craftsmen...who have invested as much time and energy into their skill-sets as any artist.

As for capitalism not being broken- I'll admit it does a poor job with handling the requirements of human beings who ineficiently insist on being clothed and fed and housed even though they're unemployed because their job got outsourced to a country where labor is cheaper...in the SHORT run. Over time, the global economy will equalize salaries-but it will take generations, and US workers will probably see a decline in standard of living.

But, simply put, no other system does better at compensating workers for their work.

++++++

I have a sneaking suspicion that you would like my views on this issue even less than you like my views on intellectual property. Information isn't the only thing I think people should have free and relatively equal access to.

I believe in responsible gun ownership. That includes being certified in proper care & maintenance, use (fire control, accuracy, etc) and storage of the weapons. Those with mental illnesses or criminal backgrounds should not have access to guns. I also believe in a national database for gun ownership/gun crime data.

Hell, for a while where I live presently (TX), there was a guy who had a military surplus tank and live rounds- all legal- that he rolled out every July 4. I had no problem with that.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

No, people who aren't playing by the rules are tearing up the system. A boat works fine as long as there's no hole in the part below the water. IP laws are the boat & copyright violators are puncturing the hull.

If the system is designed in such a fashion that it's that easy to violate the rules, and that difficult to catch the people who violate the rules-- so that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people are violating those rules on a continual basis-- then the system is broken.

Good boats are designed to stop and contain leaks, and to be able to withstand minor punctures. If the boat's sinking that badly, it either wasn't seaworthy in the first place or you're sailing in the wrong ocean.

Because (no insult intended) those industries do not depend on the unique abilities of any one person. They are largely staffed by unskilled laborers and skilled laborers who have learned certain tasks- creativity is not an essential job quality. Those in construction WITH creativity are generally architects or master craftsmen...who have invested as much time and energy into their skill-sets as any artist.

No offense taken-- and I do see your point. However, I do think you overestimate the uniqueness of artists and writers as well. While they may require more innate talent than construction or service work, they are also learned tasks, and for the hundreds of people (possibly thousands) who make their living in this industry, there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people eager to take their place.

Skill and creativity may be necessary traits for authors, but they're not unique traits. Cost-of-entry may hold a lot of bad products out of the marketplace, but it also denies us the fruits of a number of brilliant minds.

This argument is veering off-topic, however-- unless we want to discuss how other forms of piracy (software piracy in particular) might lower the cost-of-entry for RPG designers.

As for capitalism not being broken- ... Over time, the global economy will equalize salaries-but it will take generations, and US workers will probably see a decline in standard of living.

I would dearly love to engage you in another forum-- one more appropriate for political discourse-- but we cannot continue this line of argument here.

But, simply put, no other system does better at compensating workers for their work.

Some workers. And I would also amend your statement to read "no other system we've tried yet". Remember, as far as economic ideologies go, the concept of intellectual property is still relatively new-- and we saw a major upheaval in economic systems during the Indutrial Revolution, too.