D&D 4E Piracy and 4e

[Dannyalcatraz]

No. They cost effort and time. Today money is thought out as an equivalent of effort and time but this is not politically correct.

The companies providing the equipment on which the experiments are performed expect to be paid for their machines. Equally important, if not moreso, the people performing the experiments expect to be compensated for their time.

Because of entropy, there is wear and tear on machinery, which must be repaired or replaced, and raw materials like fuel and chemical reagents get used up. Radioactive isotopes decay into inert and useless lumps.

So, yes, experiments do cost millions of dollars.

Again production costs money: that's a fact. Knowledge does not and should not.

Tell me, did your teachers teach you all you know gratis, or did they expect to be paid?

Did you study in a building that had to be maintained, repaired, cooled and heated?

Eschewing a full time job in favor of having time to go to class is a measurable economic opportunity cost.

Those elements and more are where tuition bills come from, and tuition represents the economic costs of gaining knowledge.

Sergio Aragones was once asked why he charged $40 for a quick sketch at a convention. He replied that the $40 wasn't for the 5 minutes it took him to do the drawing, it was for the years and years it took for him to learn how to draw in his distinctive style, and quickly and accurately enough to do so in 5 minutes without error.

But this knowledge was not always free. It was uconceivable to question some things in the past you know. Is it better know or then?

True.

OTOH, before IP laws, all creators had going for them was self-help. If you didn't have the money to safeguard your secrets, a competitor could simply take your ideas and make money on it himself, without incurring all the investment costs you had.

In every aspect, the advent of true IP laws means the difference between potential wealth and lifelong toil. A modern music performer can depend on the law to help him enforce his rights and thus his ability to make money from the songs it took him years of practice and 6 months of writing to create. His counterpart in previous centuries was simply out of luck if someone stole his song and performed it before the Prince before he did.

So, yes, it is generally better now.

 

[xechnao]

I'm saying that by individual beer recipes being secret this forces others that wish to make beer to create their own recipes both increasing the variety and they total beer industry sales and the total amount of knowledge in the world. If all beer recipes ever invented were instantly public knowledge there would be no monetary drive to create new recipes and therefore while it would still happen it would happen at a far slower rate.

You do not understand how the beer production works then. There are different flavors linked to different production processes. It is about experimenting new flavors and tastes. Beer is made for thousands of years. It is not about secret recipes. Yet it is still works as a market. Yeah, how so?

Gameplay agreed. Hardware on the other hand... Any technological progression made by Nvidia for example is a direct result of videogames and some these advancements have been used in many other industries.

You did not get my point. What technological applicable innovation did Nvidia make?

And if production of knowledge costs money then knowledge costs money. I notice that you say should a lot. You can argue all you want the way things "should" be. That's your opinion. But the way things actually are our current society is that knowledge costs money to create and without reimbursement in excess of its production costs the creation of knowledge slows.

Do people today have the right to make money? Do you find it a stupid question? Well it is the one that your comments on this thread are begging for.

 

[Spatula]

But the desire and ability to do it for free is fairly new.

If by fairly new you mean within the last 30 years, okay. The RIAA managed to get an "unauthorized copying" fee slapped on blank cassette tapes back in the 80's for a reason.

Well, you're wrong. Sorry. And I shudder to think of a world where IP isn't protected under law. For one we wouldn't be getting a D&D 4th edition, because all of the work done by WotC would be immediately published on the Internet for free for everybody to use.

http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/home.html

Anyway, all of the work done by WotC is immeadiately published on the internet for free for everyone to use, right now, in a world where IP is protected under law. So I'm not sure what your point is there.

 

[xechnao]

The companies providing the equipment on which the experiments are performed expect to be paid for their machines. Equally important, if not moreso, the people performing the experiments expect to be compensated for their time.

Because of entropy, there is wear and tear on machinery, which must be repaired or replaced, and raw materials like fuel and chemical reagents get used up. Radioactive isotopes decay into inert and useless lumps.

So, yes, experiments do cost millions of dollars.



Tell me, did your teachers teach you all you know gratis, or did they expect to be paid?

Did you study in a building that had to be maintained, repaired, cooled and heated?

Eschewing a full time job in favor of having time to go to class is a measurable economic opportunity cost.

Those elements and more are where tuition bills come from, and tuition represents the economic costs of gaining knowledge.

Sergio Aragones was once asked why he charged $40 for a quick sketch at a convention. He replied that the $40 wasn't for the 5 minutes it took him to do the drawing, it was for the years and years it took for him to learn how to draw in his distinctive style, and quickly and accurately enough to do so in 5 minutes without error.

I agree with your examples. But these are a result of the public's direction.People are paying taxes for education and whatever benefits the public. It should be on the public. Not a god-send group of people.

True.

OTOH, before IP laws, all creators had going for them was self-help. If you didn't have the money to safeguard your secrets, a competitor could simply take your ideas and make money on it himself, without incurring all the investment costs you had.

In every aspect, the advent of true IP laws means the difference between potential wealth and lifelong toil. A modern music performer can depend on the law to help him enforce his rights and thus his ability to make money from the songs it took him years of practice and 6 months of writing to create. His counterpart in previous centuries was simply out of luck if someone stole his song and performed it before the Prince before he did.

So, yes, it is generally better now.

Yeap, of course it is better now than the time of inquisition and theocracy (unless if you believe different meanings of what is politically correct). And in the future people will be saying that they will be better in their evolved social system than the one we are having right now.

 

[Makaze]

You do not understand how the beer production works then. There are different flavors linked to different production processes. It is about experimenting new flavors and tastes. Beer is made for thousands of years. It is not about secret recipes. Yet it is still works as a market. Yeah, how so?

Quite the contrary, I'm making a batch of mead on Sunday. Green tea, cinnamon, and vanilla It's about experimenting and trying new things for the hell of it for the individual like me. However for a company (and remember Coca-Cola was you example that sparked this line of debate) it's about making money. And to make money they need a unique product that is differentiated from their competitors products. Coke or Guinness (who have a closely guarded yeast) are so wildly successful that other companies would perfectly copy their products if they were able. Instead they're forced to design their own product, which is a good thing.

You did not get my point. What technological applicable innovation did Nvidia make?

I got your point, I just thought you could look it up yourself. But as examples they have made many advancements in parallel processing, parallel programming techniques, bus speed, and die shrinking to name a few. These are applicable to nearly any facet of computing. The most powerful GPUs at times contain more transistors than the most powerful CPUs and they serve little other purpose than to play games.

Do people today have the right to make money? Do you find it a stupid question? Well it is the one that your comments on this thread are begging for.

People have no rights other than those they can enforce either personally or through social contract such as government. Our current social contract says yes they do have the right to make money so yes they do. I find it too confusing to decide if it's stupid or not.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I have no problem if you apply your theories only to the entertainment industry. But there is a problem if you step further from that.

The law is the law, and economics is economics. Neither distinguishes between the markets being analyzed.

The only difference between an entertainment company and another corporate IP holder is that the former is likely to be more fun to hang around.

No copyright laws.

Not as we know them today, no.

But definitely better protected than mere self-help, because innovators had the exclusive right to produce the results of their IP by right and under protection of the government- in this case, the Czar.

Those found to be producing without that exclusive right were subject to severe penalties- moreso if you were found to have counterfeited the documents or seals granted to the original innovator.

A big fine today is a far cry from exile, life imprisonment or severe corporal punishment (including possible mutilation or even death) under the old regime protecting IP.

You do not understand how the beer production works then. There are different flavors linked to different production processes. It is about experimenting new flavors and tastes. Beer is made for thousands of years. It is not about secret recipes.

Sure it is!

Go to a brewery- any commercial brewery you like (most of them give tours)- and ask for the recipe for their least successful product.

While they may tell you what temperature they cook at, or how long they age their brew, I can virtually guarantee you that they guard the recipe to their worst beer as jealously as Coke protects its recipes.

Heck, I'd imagine even a home brewer wouldn't share his favorite recipe even if he makes it a pony keg at a time.

What technological applicable innovation did Nvidia make?

Personally, I don't know, but I can guarantee you that part of their costs of production include either licenses to use other people's technologies or the economic "rents" on established tech.

And if they did make a technological innovation, they have the right to charge people to use it, keep anyone else from using it (for a limited period of time, @ 20 years, currently), or even give it away.

Do people today have the right to make money?

Sure, but they don't have a right to make money using my IP if they haven't paid me.

 

[Makaze]

If by fairly new you mean within the last 30 years, okay. The RIAA managed to get an "unauthorized copying" fee slapped on blank cassette tapes back in the 80's for a reason.

Actually I meant far more recent than that. Blank cassettes still cost someone money to design, manufacture, and ship. Which make large scale free distribution something that simply didn't occur before digital transmission through the internet. It's easy to target and prosecute a company or even an individual making any substantial amount of money by violating copyrights as they are limited in number and require infrastructure to operate. It's damn near impossible to do the same to a globally distributed and nearly limitless group of people doing it for free on what is basically public infrastructure.

 

[xechnao]

and remember Coca-Cola was you example that sparked this line of debate

No, not me.

differentiated from their competitors products. Coke or Guinness (who have a closely guarded yeast) are so wildly successful that other companies would perfectly copy their products if they were able. Instead they're forced to design their own product, which is a good thing.

Guinness is one of the most commercially successful beer companies and one with the most capital and infrastructure around. They protect their product identity for marketing purposes. It has nothing to do with beer quality and innovation so why is it a good thing is beyond me.

People have no rights other than those they can enforce either personally or through social contract such as government. Our current social contract says yes they do have the right to make money so yes they do. I find it too confusing to decide if it's stupid or not.

Ok, there is welfare in some countries - I had forgotten about this. But is it good enough? And then if it is, why are we talking about piracy -why would piracy exist.

 

[xechnao]

The law is the law, and economics is economics. Neither distinguishes between the markets being analyzed.

Nope. People are the law and economics. Law does not come from mount Sinai or whatever. People make laws. It is not self or god-made. This is what we are debating over here.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Guinness is one of the most commercially successful beer companies and one with the most capital and infrastructure around. They protect their product identity for marketing purposes. It has nothing to do with beer quality and innovation so why is it a good thing is beyond me.

The recipe is the heart of their business.

Without protecting their recipe, they never get to be "one of the most commercially successful beer companies and one with the most capital and infrastructure around."

Without protecting their recipe, they have no meaningful product identity.

Without protecting their recipe, they can't make enough money to innovate anything...and they have several varieties, each with a unique recipe.

And without quality, there is no reason to protect the recipe.