D&D 4E Piracy and 4e

[baberg]

Obviously I (and a few others) don't see things the same way as you do. To me, "piracy" is vastly different from stealing because a copyright violator does not diminish the possessions of another when he acquires for himself. If he would have otherwise bought the material, then a sale is lost. If he wasn't going to buy the material, absolutely nothing is lost.

Intellectual Property was lost, and you gained it. You are acquiring the thoughts, efforts, and hard work of the people who made the item without compensating them for it. Thus you are a thief.

I use a simple test:
- Did I get something (including knowledge or enjoyment)?
- Did I get it for free (and do not bicker about "I pay for internet access")?
- Is the only normal way to get it paying for it?

If you answer "yes" to all three questions, you stole it.

 

[Lord Nat]

Intellectual Property was lost, and you gained it. You are acquiring the thoughts, efforts, and hard work of the people who made the item without compensating them for it. Thus you are a thief.

I use a simple test:
- Did I get something (including knowledge or enjoyment)?
- Did I get it for free (and do not bicker about "I pay for internet access")?
- Is the only normal way to get it paying for it?

If you answer "yes" to all three questions, you stole it.

He was not saying it is not stealing, he was asking if it is wrong.
If you never planed to pay for it anyway then they are not losing anything and you are gaining.
Ya it is stealing, but the over all point of this argument is if it is wrong or not.

 

[xechnao]

Intellectual Property was lost, and you gained it. You are acquiring the thoughts, efforts, and hard work of the people who made the item without compensating them for it. Thus you are a thief.

I use a simple test:
- Did I get something (including knowledge or enjoyment)?
- Did I get it for free (and do not bicker about "I pay for internet access")?
- Is the only normal way to get it paying for it?

If you answer "yes" to all three questions, you stole it.

Intellectual property should have nothing to do with the consumer. The consumer does not benefit commercially from any IP. Knowledge should be free you know. If you say no, then your ethics are questioned, not his.

 

[Will]

In my case, I'd say something was even gained. You mentioned other RPGs. Yeah, they are out there. Since I pirated D&D, I'm interested in the system, and now that I can afford it, have bought the products. If I had only played free RPGs, then the sale of 4e to me would have been lost.

Oh cool! Can I borrow your magical 'what if' machine and see what life would be like if I had married Angelina Jolie??

 

[interwyrm]

Intellectual Property was lost, and you gained it.

How is it lost? They still have it, own the rights to it, and can sell it to other people.

 

[interwyrm]

Oh cool! Can I borrow your magical 'what if' machine and see what life would be like if I had married Angelina Jolie??

Look, I'm trying to be respectful of other people here, and I've put myself out on a limb by disagreeing with the widely accepted viewpoint.

My point was that regardless of whether or not it was ethical to pirate the material, the piracy acted as advertising that later paid off, and thus, in the end, financially benefited wizards of the coast.

 

[Makaze]

Intellectual Property was lost, and you gained it.

You can't lose something immaterial that can be infinitely copied.

Explain to me how if someone was never ever going to buy a product how that person pirating a product in any way shape or form harms the producer?

If you steal something physical then you actively cause a loss as that physical object had at minimum a manufacturing cost associated with it. However the only thing lost when information is stolen is a potential sale. If the potential was 0% then nothing at all has been lost. Every downloaded copy is not a lost sale, at worst it's tiny fraction of a percent of a lost sale. And the argument can and has been made that for certain mediums and products it can actually mean increased sales.

Not that I'm one of those hippy dippy types that thinks all information wants be free and it's the man just trying to keep us down blah blah blah...

But from a realistic perspective DRM doesn't work since the client is in the hands of the enemy be it video game, PDF, or hardbound book. Enforcement of copyright laws on individuals doesn't work due to difficulties in detection, prosecution, and sheer scale. You and the RIAA et al. can stand in front of the train if you want but the reality of the situation isn't going to change. It's far better to find ways to be profitable given the world we live in than be run over.

 

[baberg]

He was not saying it is not stealing, he was asking if it is wrong.

So it is stealing, but stealing isn't wrong?

There sure are a lot of people in this thread who can justify stealing intellectual property though, so maybe I should just pack it in before this becomes a flamewar.

 

[baberg]

Intellectual property should have nothing to do with the consumer. The consumer does not benefit commercially from any IP. Knowledge should be free you know. If you say no, then your ethics are questioned, not his.

You're playing a game that by all rights you should have paid for. Thus you got something for nothing. I'd say that benefits you commercially.

Knowledge should be free, yes. But a set of rules for an RPG is not knowledge, it is intellectual property. And you, by downloading and reading said rules, are gaining that intellectual property. The only other way you could have acquired that IP legally is to buy the product. You didn't buy it.

You're a thief, period.

(And before anybody takes the "library defense" on me, tax dollars have paid for that IP).

 

[Makaze]

So it is stealing, but stealing isn't wrong?

If you define stealing as taking something without legal right then yes it's stealing.

If you define stealing as taking something away from another without right then no it's not stealing.

As for wrong? It's a moral judgment call and everyone makes those based on their own subjective opinions.