PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[Imban]

dude, just like... stop reading this thread. there's not going to be any more information on the case for another month or three because the legal system doesn't move that fast, so when you see it again in december after it's fallen off the front page for a month and a half it'll have new stuff that you care about.

 

[Simon Atavax]

oh trust me I am...but you know what I am asking to stop it...
. . .
more so then most know...this is a BIG hot button topic for me
. . .
but doing everything short of BEGGING for people to fork it might...again fine if you want to talk about, leave those of use who don't in peace...
. . .
in fact is that what this will take begging you to fork or stop this discussion??????????

Oh dear God, I just realized something!

The emotional intensity, the broken English, the irrational pleadings . . .

YOU are the 16-year-old kid from the Philippines!

(cue Alfred Hitchcock music here)

 

[Baron Opal]

I think the problem is, you're assuming:

Person A wants the book
Person A is willing to buy the book
Person A pirates it instead
The book was originally going to have a sale, but did not because of piracy
Piracy caused lost sales

When in truth, there are a fairly large number of cases where this happens instead:

Person B wants the book
Person B is not willing to buy the book
Person B pirates is instead
The book was not originally going to have a sale
Piracy caused no lost sales

But, Person B by pirating did cause a lost sale. He has a copy of the data and he did not pay for it.

If I go into Borders, look at a copy of Ptolus but I'm not willing to pay the price, stuff it under my coat and leave, I have stolen it. I have the book to read or whatever and I haven't compensated the merchant, author, whatever.

If I decide I don't want to buy Ptolus and download the files off of a torrent, I have the data and I haven't compensated RPGNow or Monte Cook.

While this is "copyright infringement" and not theft, the only real difference between the two is that in the second case the data is on my hard drive and not on my shelf.

Why is the latter acceptible but not the former? Does it really matter what my motivation is? Does it really matter what form the data takes?

I'm actually not arguing about N0man's claim about the morality of purchasing a book and acquiring a digital copy too. That, I think, is a separate argument about having data in multiple forms.

And, yes, Simon, I run a moral game. I am a moral and honorable person. My job depends upon it. I'm sorry you find the concept of honor in the real world foolish. your loss.

 

[jgerman]

But that's just the thing...

1. Its not just about whether specific instances of file sharing harm "content producers" (not a fan of this buzzword). Its about whether a specific regime of copyright law enforcement or non enforcement is beneficial overall.

Which is exactly the sort of thing the studies I linked to are doing.

Use any phrase you want, how about copyright holder. I'm not a fan of that one because it pre-supposes a right. "Publisher" probably works.

2. Given that we rarely have perfect knowledge about what copyright options best benefit society, content producers, or really anyone, the real question is who gets to make decisions about what harms who. If the test is whether a content producer is harmed, I think it is going to be quite difficult to argue that the content producer's views aren't the most likely ones to be correct. Its basically standard capitalist reasoning from here on out- a general rule of following the content producer's interests is likely to create outcomes most favorable to the content producer.

It's not difficult to argue that the publisher's views aren't correct and it's never taken as a given. A publisher has to prove damages.

3. And to combine the two points, even if you can conclusively show that a specific content producer made the wrong call in a specific instance, that does NOT justify tossing out the entire rule of allowing content producers to make these decisions. You'd have to show that content producers, collectively, are less likely to make the right decisions than some other set of decision makers. If the metric is the benefit of the content producer, I think that's going to be nigh impossible.

I think you may be off the rails a little here or at least on a different track than me. What decisions? You mean the decision on whether or not to allow file sharing of their content?

I'm arguing that file sharing is not necessarily a harm to publishers.

In which case the publishers have no say in whether or not it should be legal to do so.

Copyright law is about the benefit of the public, not the publisher. That's why it's for a limited time. To encourage publishers (authors, producers, whatever ) to publish more. We aren't protecting a natural right with these laws we are setting up a situation intended to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts".

I'm arguing the general case, not about a specific publisher.

Maybe the confusion is over the bit claiming WotC is acting irrationally? That's a separate issue. Maybe I should have split the post, though it is related to the argument above.

 

[jgerman]

B

While this is "copyright infringement" and not theft, the only real difference between the two is that in the second case the data is on my hard drive and not on my shelf.

No, that's not the 'real' difference. The real difference is that in one you are necessarily depriving someone of the physical object and in the other the object remains where it is, in the same condition.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, that's not the 'real' difference. The real difference is that in one you are necessarily depriving someone of the physical object and in the other the object remains where it is, in the same condition.

I really shouldn't get involved in this again. But this is the key, and the reason why there is so much problem with Copyright and IP these days. Information is becoming more important to society, people are attempting to charge for information but it's a virtual impossibility to control information.

The simplest example of this is if I make up something...let's say the sentence: "The sky is blue." and I say "This sentence is mine, no one else can use it. You must buy it from me if you want to say it, use it in your writing or anything else."

There is no way for me to control the spread of that information. People can tell each other that sentence without every contacting me, for free, easily. The only way I can stop people from saying that sentence is by creating laws to stop people from using it and suing them if they do.

Unfortunately(or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), technology has allowed books, movies, schematics, music, and many, many other things that used to be physical object into information in the same way that sentence is information. And it's just as easy to copy a book as it is to say the sentence.

I still think that the entire economy will have to change to be in line with technology and that right now it is simply a matter of time. At some point in the future, I believe that all of these things will no longer be charged for and will be entirely free. Companies whose business involves producing this type of content will instead find alternate revenue streams.

 

[Baron Opal]

While this is "copyright infringement" and not theft, the only real difference between the two is that in the second case the data is on my hard drive and not on my shelf.

No, that's not the 'real' difference. The real difference is that in one you are necessarily depriving someone of the physical object and in the other the object remains where it is, in the same condition.

But that is not a meaningful difference. That copy of Ptolus is indeed still sitting in Borders, unpurchased. I still have all of the data because I down loaded it from a torrent. You're right that I haven't deprived someone of compensation for a physical object. I have deprived them of compensation for the data I now possess.

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

 

[Piratecat]

Oh dear God, I just realized something!

The emotional intensity, the broken English, the irrational pleadings . . .

YOU are the 16-year-old kid from the Philippines!

(cue Alfred Hitchcock music here)

I've left a warning in the original problematic post a few pages back, but just to be clear: stop the snark, people, and stop the histrionics. Jumping up on your high horse and attacking other people isn't any better than making snide comments. You know what's okay here, and I expect you to follow those guidelines.

 

[JohnRTroy]

While the debates have started again, I wanted to see if I could ask the following, especially those with legal backgrounds.

It was mentioned that we have one person who knows one of the defendants who is ignoring the suit--and I assume that person lives in the US. Does that mean the person could be jailed for contempt of court? Does it mean they will make a judgment in his absence and then send Sheriffs after him?

Also, I am also curious as to the following.

The award for one guilty party was $100,000.00. Does WoTC have to collect it all, is it handled by the court system, or can they at their own discretion reduce the amount?

 

[Nifft]

But that is not a meaningful difference. That copy of Ptolus is indeed still sitting in Borders, unpurchased. I still have all of the data because I down loaded it from a torrent. You're right that I haven't deprived someone of compensation for a physical object. I have deprived them of compensation for the data I now possess.

Why is it acceptible to deprive someone of compensation for creating data, a story, adventure, receipe or whatever, when there is no physical object accompaning it?

I think his point was not that there is a moral justification for unauthorized copying, but rather that there is a difference between unauthorized copying and theft of a physical object.

Condoning one of these acts does not require condoning the other.

Cheers, -- N