Is piracy a serious issue for game developers?

[Yair]

You mean rights like copyrights, which are enshrined by the Constitution?

It may shock you, but I don't think the US Constitution is the authrotiy on moral rights.
Perhaps it has to do with me not being an American.
BTW, I fully agree the US Constitution is the authority on legal rights, and I have no dispute over the legalities of the matter.... well, except for some foggy OGL declarations issues.

The problem with your analysis is that without copyright, you don't have the initial product to copy in many cases, so you wouldn't have the "free speech" to copy them.

I hold this truth to be self-evident, that free speech is a human right, was always a human right [even before copyright laws were instituted], and will always be a human right.
I can't argue about that, if you don't accept this premise than we must part ways. It's... an axiom.

Also, given your statement concerning "future possible ideas" I don't think you understand copyright (or IP laws in general) at all. Copyright protects a certain expression of an idea once it has been fixed in a perceivable form. Until you actually fix it in that form, you don't own it, and you don't own any other ideas.

I am not a lawyer. However, I find the seperation of ideas from their expression artificial. Ideas are not abstract things, they must be expressed to have meaning and they have the meaning expressed.
This is somewhat tangential; my point is that the right of free speech (and other rights) tramples your rights to crutail my actions for your personal gain whether as an individual or as the state. Such laws are a "dictatoroship of the majority", rather than "liberal democracy".

I would like to add that I am not at all in favor of people downloading and using pdfs instead of buying books. I just think it's their right. There is a difference between what you may do and what you should do, and I think such piracy falls in this border. This has nothing to do with copyrights, it has to do with serving as a patron to things you like and their makers.
I think piracy as a means of browsing, which is how I use it, is perfectly fine [duh, I wouldn't be doing it otherwise].

 

[Yair]

People have the right to the idea they develop, be it a work of art like a book or a technological advance....
The right to free speech is the government cannot pass a law to hinder your right to express an opinion. ....

I disagree on both counts.
People don't have a (moral) right for a monopoly over a technological advance, or any other idea. You can try keeping things a secret, but once it's out you can't keep another person from thinking of and using some idea simply because you had it first. I think the drafters of IP laws realized this too, this is why after a time rights revert to the public. I believe copyright laws were seen at their inception as a necessary evil in the short term to bolster a greater good in the long term (I could be wrong, and would love to be proven wrong with some actual history; I love history).
And free speech isn't any law the government passes or not passes. Free speech is an inherent (moral) right.

 

[Jacen]

We see a some people who claim they do. But those people are whiny pro-pirate thieves to begin with, so they don't have much credibility on the subject.

Hmmm... I have said that couple of times already. In Finland there is levy in blank medias due to fact that it is LEGAL to D/L from net. So acording to local law I am not a thief but namecaling me one is a libel - even US law there is a libel suit. Besides US law is not a global law. So would you just stop namecalling people here.

And as said before too. I have quite a few copied pdf's, but still my account at RPGnow says Total Cost: $545.66. Well that is for 3 years so not that much annually, but still that is more than 0. And if you think that I am not a DM and play in a campaign that allows only WotC basic products that is quite a lot. And I have bought some pdf's that I have as D/L, but who cares because acording to some ppl I am just a "pro-pirate thief". Hell I even have a bought version of windows and office on my computer. More than 350 DVD's and about 250 CD's. I have ordered new BSG series season 1 DVD and why? I d/l it and loved it. But still didn't break any law when d/l it. So now I have few CDs with burned BSG on them, but still I ordered it. Has my CD sale dropped? Yes and big time, because I stopped buying them after those plastic disks that resambles CD came to sell. Have I d/l mp3s after that... just a few and they all were from mp3 shop. So companies have lost more due to their own actions trying to limit my rights to use bought products than from d/l.

But this is far away from thread topic. There has been studies done how much p2p hurts. Just can't be sure can one trust to them because they can be biased to the payers viewpoint. I can just tell my own opinion that is based on my own acts and ppl who I know. Acording to that I would say that it helps to promote products and thus causes more sales than is lost. When markets saturates then it might hurt individual produts sales because if you don't know what you are paying for it might be crap but you know t after you have paid for it. It is almost like one greatly advertised movie that producers excepted to get certain amount of ppl watching it at theathers. Well ppl who saw it send sms's to friend saying "this sucks big time - it is not worth seing". And what happened? Suddenly movie piracy caused that one to lose viewers. Piracy is easy to claim when rumors start going and causing losses.
And if we talk about real piracy - the one where one makes copies of CD's, jeans etc and sells them cheaper than original and has organized criminals behind it - then it hurts. Ppl pay for products thus feeling they own them and creatiors doesn't get a cent.

 

[Jacen]

I disagree on both counts.
People don't have a (moral) right for a monopoly over a technological advance, or any other idea. You can try keeping things a secret, but once it's out you can't keep another person from thinking of and using some idea simply because you had it first. I think the drafters of IP laws realized this too, this is why after a time rights revert to the public. I believe copyright laws were seen at their inception as a necessary evil in the short term to bolster a greater good in the long term (I could be wrong, and would love to be proven wrong with some actual history; I love history).
And free speech isn't any law the government passes or not passes. Free speech is an inherent (moral) right.

Well this reminds me about new Harry Potter. Few books were accidentaly released before schelude. And what happens? Those who bought them were told not to read them. They bought them and own tha books and then they were told not to read. http://www.stallman.org/harry-potter.html.

 

[S'mon]

You mean rights like copyrights, which are enshrined by the Constitution?

(Limited) copyright is permitted, not enshrined.

 

[feriblan]

Actually it seems like this sort of reasoning muddles the issue still further. An example to illustrate - imagine that an rpg book is available for purchase in a bookstore; an rpg player comes along and browses through this book, finding several ideas/mechanics that they like. Here is the twist - the rpg player has a very very good memory (eidetic for the purposes of discussion), Instead of buying the book, they simply memorize everything that they wish to use, and leave the book in the store. The player goes home, types out the relevant rules in a short .txt for his players, and starts using them.

Has theft occured?

If a publisher is trying to get you to pay for using their idea it seems they're on very shaky ground.

The above situation is also directly analagous to the debate over whether pdf sharing is theft, since what is being distributed is not a product, but an idea.

My kneejerk reaction to this is that it seems like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole - you have a system which actively encourages distribution of ideas to as many people as possible(making them non-scarce), but you're at the same time trying to fit it with an economic system based around scarcity. I can't think of any quick and easy answers to this issue.

I would agree with you that your example is a tricky situation, and I don't have a fast answer to it, but I try.
I would say memorising the whole text and then typing it down is in no way different from, let´s say, borrowing the book from a friend and copying it by hand. If he uses only part off it, you could argue fair use (seems it would depend on the country), but I think copying the whole book is in no different than downloading it as pdf (ok, in one way, it takes a lot more time )
And my above argument about downloading wasn't about the issue, if it is legal or illegal to do. That is different depending on the country you are living in. I'm only saying it isn't right to take ideas other persons have thought up with the purpose on mind to make a living from selling those ideas to others.
And it really doesn't matter if they are hurt by it or not. You could otherwise justify a lot of other things with the same argument. For example you'd like to visit the next town, but don't have the money to pay the bus. So you take the bus and hope you're not checked for your ticket. You could argue it isn't wrong, because if you would have had to pay you would have walked and the bus would have driven to your destination anyhow.
This whole argument seems flawed to me. By downloading you have gained something you were not intended to have by its creator. If everyone would do it this way, there would be no incentive for him to work anymore, because he wouldn't gain anything from his work.
And no professional author works only for the joy of creating something new. That's surely one of his reasons, but another one is making a living (or a part) of it.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No, they have no credibility on whether or not they buy stuff after they download it as a justification for their piracy. You see, when you engage in illegal behaviour, but then come up with an post hoc and unprovable justification for your actions, you don't get any kind of credibility on the subject. It's a lame justification, and clearly a rationalization by people trying to cover their behinds and persuade themselves that their improper actions are actually proper.

Nah, I realized long, long ago that me downloading stuff to see if its worth buying is no big deal, if I like it I buy it, if I don't like it I delete it since its a waste of space at that point. And most of the stuff I download is music from bands that sell 5-10k copies of an album and make 99.9% of thier money from live shows and t-shirts. Most of the bands at that level aren't worried about downloads since they hope people hearing thier stuff from any source will get them to come to the show next time they are in town and hopefully buy a shirt while they are at the show. I mean its not like they get any radio play on the corporate radio networks with the need for payola they can't afford if they did have an outlet. But then again I'm the guy who is at the midnight release of CD's by my favorite bands and loves to study album art and read the lyrics sheet along with the music the first time I listen.

I don't really download any new D&D stuff or crap for other games. I don't play 3e I want the books for the one game I do buy. I did download the OD&D books though to flip through them though.

Yar!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fight fire with fire: I surely won't pay full price for an already overpriced cd with one good song on it, especially not with album lengths being as pathetic as they are lately. If you want me to buy your cd stop price-fixing, intentionally padding it with crappy filler, etc. Or are corporations the only ones allowed to break the law?

Orrrrrr instead of pirating the ENTIRE CD, you could legally download the ONE song you like for under a buck. Hmmmmmm.

...the rpg player has a very very good memory (eidetic for the purposes of discussion), Instead of buying the book, they simply memorize everything that they wish to use, and leave the book in the store...

IMHO, if he fully intends to use the product he has memorized and doesn't pay the creator in some way, he is using the creator's ideas without compensating him for the labor. It is a form of theft, but one that current law cannot reach, and future law is unlikely to.

As for piracy, I can't see it as morally wrong - ideas just aren't property.

Its taking someone's work without compensation. Even if you don't consider IP as property, respect the right of the worker to compensation for his labor- give him his wages earned.

If its morally wrong for me to walk on a check at a restaraunt, or to stiff the guy who cuts my lawn, its wrong to pirate even the crappiest IP.

Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. So guy A has the patent rights under the law and guy B is denied the fruits of his labor. That's certainly not right and for me demolishes the notion that ideas should be considered property.

Yes- that's problematic, and this situation does crop up from time to time: Issac Newton and Gottfried Leibniz both invented Calculus independently of one another, but most only remember or credit Newton. There have been lots of discussions on how to handle it, none has accumulated any real consensus.

However, it still doesn't help those who are pro piracy. Let's make a slight addition to your scenario by adding the pirate:

Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. Guy C pirates the idea on day 3 and, because of a technological advantage he has over A & B, C gets rich while they watch helplessly. Both Guy A and B are denied the fruits of their labor, and only C prospers.

Under the current "ideas as property" regime, at least ONE of the legitimate creators gets compensated for his labors or can take legal action against those who try to use IP without compensating the creator.

 

[Psionicist]

Guy A thinks up an invention. Guy B thinks up the same thing independently a day later. Guy C pirates the idea on day 3 and, because of a technological advantage he has over A & B, C gets rich while they watch helplessly. Both Guy A and B are denied the fruits of their labor, and only C prospers.

This is one of the dumbest things yet in this thread. When was the last time you found a pirate who claimed he himself had actually come up with "Lord of the Rings"? Not even those who manufacture bootlegged copies claim they created the movie/book/CD or whatever it is.

But hey, what do I know, I'm not a lawyer who belive good memory is a kind of theft.

 

[Falkus]

This is one of the dumbest things yet in this thread. When was the last time you found a pirate who claimed he himself had actually come up with "Lord of the Rings"? Not even those who manufacture bootlegged copies claim they created the movie/book/CD or whatever it is.

That's because current IP laws make this impossible. The situation that was described is exactly what would happen if there were no IP laws.