PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Crothian]

In some cases this is true, in some, not. I again call to mind my video game example. I'm primarily a PC gamer, but there's little to no modern day games that I enjoy. If a game comes out, I want to know if it's good or bad before I purchase it, but I have no way of knowing without pirating it - demos are almost nonexistant, the gaming media is a bad joke, and developers are more more often lying about their game and making false "playtests" to showcase it. This is especially aggravating when my budget doesn't allow for buying every game that starts to catch my eye. So my choices are to either gamble my money and hope the game doesn't turn out to be a turd (like most do), or grab a torrent and give it a test whirl before shelling out bucks to the game's producer to own an actual copy.

I'm sure there is a video game sites out there like EN World or RPG net where they have mostly civil and honest discussion on games. In fact I know there are as a friend of mine has been involved with some for years. You could fine them and make use of them. You could write letters to the companies or just stop supporting companies that you feel are being dishonest and then blog about it or make your opinion heard. Just because you feel you are not able to get enough information to make a decision on a game doing anything short of pirating does not change things in my mind.

 

[Simon Atavax]

I'm sure there is a video game sites out there like EN World or RPG net where they have mostly civil and honest discussion on games. In fact I know there are as a friend of mine has been involved with some for years. You could fine them and make use of them.

Please forgive a tiny threadjack, but I would *love* to know where these video game discussion sites are where one can have thoughtful, intelligent, civil discussions. Every video game discussion site I've been to (won't mention any by name, of course) the discussion looks like this:

==
OMG your gaystationsuxx!!

yeah you jus tink it sux cuz U sux! LOL!
==

It's depressing, really.

That's why I go to RPGnet and sometimes Enworld for video game discussion. Ahem.

Sorry, back to the piracy/copyright thing.

 

[Crothian]

Please forgive a tiny threadjack, but I would *love* to know where these video game discussion sites are where one can have thoughtful, intelligent, civil discussions. Every video game discussion site I've been to (won't mention any by name, of course) the discussion looks like this:

Looking at some things from him he seems to do stuff with Gaming Nexus and Game On for Columbus dispatch

GameOn! 2.0 - A community for gamers from the Columbus Dispatch and Columbus Alive

I have no idea if either place is what you might be looking for, but my friend Shawn Sines has always had a great feel for video games and is a gamer and EN World member.

 

[N0Man]

I imagine publishers would rather you not pirate their books then to get whatever sales they get from people pirating and then buying their books.

I don't mean to come off as rude here, but this is probably the single most naive statement that I've ever read in regards to copyright infringement.

Publishers want you to buy their books. The notion of a publisher on a high horse who doesn't want to sell a product to someone who has pirated material is beyond absurd.

This is a faulty example, I know, but its the best I can think of. It's a bit like someone stealing a DVD from Best Buy go home and watch it and then the next day go into Best Buy and pay for the DVD they stole.

You're right, that's an extremely faulty example, since stealing a DVD deprives them of the use of it (to actually sell). If you want an analogy, it would be someone downloading a DVD rip of the movie, and then going to Best Buy the next day and buying it.

The problem with that analogy is that it's really hard to see what the negative impact on anyone is if you did this aside from annoying people who just don't like the fact that you did, on principle.

 

[malraux]

It doesn't matter if it causes a lost sale or not, the pirate has something he should not. Something someone worked hard on and deserves to get paid for for you to have.

Constitutionally (ie the basis for why we have laws on copyright), the goal of copyright is not primarily to be sure that everyone gets paid. It is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,". To the extent that piracy doesn't limit the progress of the useful arts, its hard to see the massive deal.

 

[Simon Atavax]

I don't mean to come off as rude here, but this is probably the single most naive statement that I've ever read in regards to copyright infringement.

Publishers want you to buy their books. The notion of a publisher on a high horse who doesn't want to sell a product to someone who has pirated material is beyond absurd.

Exactly. Publishers are like any other business; they operate on a cost/benefit ratio. If a publisher genuinely thought that they, overall *benefitted* from people pirating their stuff (i.e. they thought that there was more profit from pirate-to-sales to be made than sales lost from pirating), then they would have no problem with it.

If publishers are openly critical of pirating it is only because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it COSTS THEM MONEY.

It all comes down to the bottom line.

(BTW, in my post I used the term "piracy" just out of simplicity, although I agree that "copyright infringement" is more accurate.)

 

[Crothian]

I don't mean to come off as rude here, but this is probably the single most naive statement that I've ever read in regards to copyright infringement.

Publishers want you to buy their books. The notion of a publisher on a high horse who doesn't want to sell a product to someone who has pirated material is beyond absurd.

If publishers thought that they would be embracing piracy. But that's not happening. Piracy it is believed by many of them is costing them more sales then it gives them. They do want you to buy their books, but that's not what is happening,. People are illegally downloading them.

The problem with that analogy is that it's really hard to see what the negative impact on anyone is if you did this aside from annoying people who just don't like the fact that you did, on principle.

This isn't about annoying people, it's about breaking the law. Just because you aren't seeing the negative impact doesn't mean there isn't one. By supporting piracy it makes it easier for people that are going to pirate instead of spending money.

 

[Crothian]

Constitutionally (ie the basis for why we have laws on copyright), the goal of copyright is not primarily to be sure that everyone gets paid. It is "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts,". To the extent that piracy doesn't limit the progress of the useful arts, its hard to see the massive deal.

Except that the people doing the science and art want to get paid and I doubt they'd do it for free. I don't believe can't disregard the money factor in a capital society.

 

[malraux]

Except that the people doing the science and art want to get paid and I doubt they'd do it for free. I don't believe can't disregard the money factor in a capital society.

Right. And they are getting paid. When someone violates copyright, that doesn't inherently make the owner poorer.

 

[N0Man]

That's really the crux of my problem with digital piracy.

From a publisher standpoint, it's extremely complex of whether to fight piracy or not, and to what extent - or whether to offer your products digitally for free to encourage physical sales or other income strategies, etc. etc.

But from a customer standpoint, it's really simple for me. Downloading an illegal book is rude and disrespectful to the creators. Sure I can talk for hours of whether free distribution benefits them or not, but ultimately it's their decision and I was raised to not feel entitled to free copies of things just because they are digital, and that if I want to get something I have to earn it. For my own actions, it's that simple.

But that's how I feel personally, and it's up to each of us to decide where they fall on the ethics of that whole thing.

I think it's good that we can have a discussion here with someone with a publishing standpoint, and I'm glad that you gave input here.

Please note that I never once defended piracy as being "good". I also never tried to argue that piracy has a net positive benefit (I think it's impossible to know if it's positive or negative). Rather, I just dismissed the notion that "X Downloads = X Lost Sales", when there are so many factors that go into this equation that it's impossible to really know what the true ratio is. The only thing that I can say with certainty is that it's not a 1:1 relationship.

Dishonest arguments such as that (even if it's out of naivety) has the effect of alienating publishers from some potential customers. Look at the way the music industry's draconian measures have spurred huge amounts of disdain from people who would have been regular customers. They continually alienate themselves from their customers and then turn around and say it's the piracy's fault and just start the cycle over.

One of the things I've brought up (that nobody really seemed to want to comment on) was that the possession of digital copies of the books, in themselves, can very reasonably be argued to be under Fair Use.

You may argue that it's disrespectful or a false sense of entitlement. I on the other hand might argue that it's unreasonable for a publisher to deny customer's their rights under Fair Use. I think we'd both have valid points.

I won't deny that where Fair Use begins and ends is a highly debatable subject, and beyond the scope of us or this thread, so I don't this to derail into an argument of whether these things absolutely *are* Fair Use or not, but rather I would like to present the question, "is it possible that possessing a digital copy of a book that you already own a hard copy of, could at the very least be reasonably interpreted to be under Fair Use"?