D&D 4E Piracy and 4e

[baberg]

The legal definition of theft explicitly categorizes it as the removal of personal property from the possession of the rightful owner.

No it doesn't. Read it again:

the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use

Nowhere in that definition does it say that the original owner loses possession of the item. The thief takes the personal property of WotC without permission or consent and with intent to read it and use it in their games. Theft.

But while you've got your legal dictionary open, take a look at the definitions for "Property", specifically "Intellectual Property" if you're hanging on to the idea that if it's not physical it's not property.

 

[CleverNickName]

The problem here is a confusion of economics and ethics.

I think the problem is also a confusion of law vs. ethics. A lot of people in this thread are debating whether or not this sort of theft is right or wrong, and it is totally beside the point.

It doesn't matter if you believe copyright infringement is right or wrong. Lawmakers have answered that question for everyone, a long time ago, and that is all that will matter if you are brought up on charges. The law doesn't care how you feel; it cares whether or not you obey.

Sure, I used to download a lot of stuff that I knew I shouldn't. Then people started getting sued for it and I got angry about it, which got me interested in the legal aspects of online file sharing. I read up on it, had lunch with a friend in law school, and so forth. The more I learned about it, the more I realized it wasn't worth the risk.

Do what you like, but be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions.

That doesn't let the RIAA off the hook for me, though. When they started taking children and grandmothers to court for copyright violation, they were acting well within their legal rights. Though legal, it still wasn't right IMO. So I use my own legal rights, and I boycott them.

It is probably only a matter of time until book publishers start cracking down on file sharing, too. And I hope that when they do, they go about it in a more intelligent manner.

 

[xechnao]

Innovation flourishes most when those who invest their time, resources, money and efforts into creating IP have the right and ability to defend controlling that IP. Not only that, laws that protect IP create jobs by making it possible to make R&D pay off, and that makes more products available to the consumer...not less.* If Coke couldn't protect their recipe, they never would have been able to manufacture & market it on a mass scale- ditto any company with proprietary IP.

If the recipe was known the only difference is that people could perhaps be able to produce it themselves and that coca cola company would have a commercial distribution competition. Is this a bad thing? People know how to make beer and wine. Yet you still can buy them in the market. What's your point again?

It is not an accident that the USA, Japan and other 1st world capitalist societies have succeeded in tech and various IP dominated fields. It is also not an accident that places where enforcement is lax- like China- are having difficulty in actually producing innovation of their own. Just last year, it was reported that Chinese tech firms are having their own discoveries stolen by homegrown pirates who learned how do do so by stealing from the West, leading to a declining investment in R&D. You don't invest in R&D if you can't reap the rewards, and as a result, your company stagnates...unless you do a little theft yourself.

* It is actually the failure or non-enforcement of other aspects of the law, like Anti-trust, that removes products from consumer's grasp, not enforcement of IP laws.

So did USSR have a R&D problem? Do you know about the cold war and weapons competition?

 

[Makaze]

I think the problem is also a confusion of law vs. ethics. A lot of people in this thread are debating whether or not this sort of theft is right or wrong, and it is totally beside the point.

It doesn't matter if you believe copyright infringement is right or wrong. Lawmakers have answered that question for everyone, a long time ago, and that is all that will matter if you are brought up on charges. The law doesn't care how you feel; it cares whether or not you obey.

Agreed, and I absolutely support their enforcement against corporations or individuals attempting to profit from their violations. However there is little way to realistically enforce said laws on individuals. Therefore to a large degree it comes down to a personal question of right and wrong and not one of legal and illegal.

 

[Makaze]

So did USSR have a R&D problem? Do you know about the cold war and weapons competition?

Yes and yes. The USSR had somewhat less sophisticated overall but essentially equivalent military technology with the US throughout the Cold War because it was government sponsored. However their other non-military technology was woefully lagging as a result of a lack of funding and emphasis on civilian consumer technologies.

Dannyalcatraz is absolutely correct in that enforcement of copyright laws against rival commercial interests is vital to continued R&D of new civilian technologies.

 

[xechnao]

Yes and yes. The USSR had somewhat less sophisticated overall but essentially equivalent military technology with the US throughout the Cold War because it was government sponsored. However their other non-military technology was woefully lagging as a result of a lack of funding and emphasis on civilian consumer technologies.

Dannyalcatraz is absolutely correct in that enforcement of copyright laws against rival commercial interests is vital to continued R&D of new civilian technologies.

What is that civilian technology that is a product of Dannyalcatraz's correctness? Is is about medicine? Is it about food? Is it about communications?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

the generic term for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use

I'm hitting some issues with the basic logic used here. Even assuming that it does not require the "loss" or property this still says the property must be "taken." But what was taken? they still possess it, what you possess is not what they possessed it's a duplicate of their property. How can it be taken without leaving their possession?

But while you've got your legal dictionary open, take a look at the definitions for "Property", specifically "Intellectual Property" if you're hanging on to the idea that if it's not physical it's not property.

Which is I think a major issue, where is the property? I'm not sure intellectual property has any validity in and of itself. It's gotten into the law but there are major issues here in defining 'Intellectual Property.' I'm with Richard Stallman in many ways, the very concept is largely nonsensical to me despite the tangible benefits it has. Only a tangible thing can be owned, an intangible doesn't properly exist in the sense required for ownership.

 

[Makaze]

What is that civilian technology that is a product of Dannyalcatraz's correctness? Is is about medicine? Is it about food? Is it about communications?

It's about all of those things and more. There was little to no commercial interest driving investment of time and resources into those types of technologies therefore the USSR tended to lag behind overall (with certain specific exceptions naturally) in those areas. Now that was because of communism not copyright infringement. But if you did away with copyright protection in general or failed to enforce it on the corporate level then you would have the same lack of investment and stagnation of technological progress.

His argument was that 1st world countries that enforce copyrights will privately invest more heavilly in technology and therefore advance faster. And he's correct.

 

[baberg]

Which is I think a major issue, where is the property? I'm not sure intellectual property has any validity in and of itself. It's gotten into the law but there are major issues here in defining 'Intellectual Property.' I'm with Richard Stallman in many ways, the very concept is largely nonsensical to me despite the tangible benefits it has. Only a tangible thing can be owned, an intangible doesn't properly exist in the sense required for ownership.

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. The same goes for books, music, software... and all of the work that is done to produce these items is never compensated, so there is therefore no incentive to create.

But hey, as long as you get your splat books for free from a Torrent, right?

 

[Makaze]

because all of the work done by WotC would be immediately published on the Internet for free for everybody to use.

What makes you think that won't happen? 4e torrents will be up by June 6ths or sooner. I predict Keep on the Shadowfell anytime now if it's not up already since advanced copies have now hit the wild.