Piracy of "The Valley of Frozen Tears"

[mroberon1972]

I have the perfect solution to combat piracy:

[deadpan]
Everyone who isn't pirating the book, should buy copies of the book, to show their support. I mean, I know a few E.N. Publishing books are being pirated, but if a few hundred people each bought $15 of our pdfs, it would go a long way to stopping those nasty pirates from ruining our industry.

Really, everyone should just buy more gaming products. I mean, that $15 would be, what, three lunches at McDonald's? Buy some lunchmeat and bread, make your own sandwich to taste, and support your friendly local online gaming companies.

It's the only way to reveal the pirates for the terrorists they are. You cannot destroy our way of life!
[/deadpan]

<swoon>
MY HERO!!!
</swoon>

 

[Fast Learner]

PS. Anyone, who supports blind enforcement of copyright laws is strongly advised to visit this page The EuroLinux File on Software Patents, containing examples of software patent abuse.

You are confusing copyright with patent, lumping all IP protection together. Copyright protect the expression of an idea, while patent protects an idea (effectively -- technically a design or a process, but the result is the same).

Protection of ideas absolutely needs to be handled with much more care than it currently is, and the current patent process is incredibly flawed. Protection of the expression of an idea, though, can indeed be "blind[ly] enforce[d]" quite safely.

Understanding the underlying concepts is essential before logic can be applied.

 

[BryonD]

By your own admission, they can "account for some piece". That means they can identify a definite financial loss. Just because they can't identify the entire loss doesn't mean they're not entitled to go after you for what they can identify.

The RIAA's figures may be silly, but plenty of people are taking the settlement deals rather than roll the dice with a jury. That tells me they're a bargain for the defendants.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point.

THEFT is VERY different than copyright infringement.

In the case of theft you can account for ALL of the loss because there REALLY is a loss. If someone steals 10 TVs from your store, then you are out ten TVs. Whether you never ever find out who did it is completely beside the point.

This is not remotely true for copyright infringement. You can not say how much of it has occurred because there is ZERO tangible impact on you.

If someone makes 1000 copies of your $10 PDF and you do not know about it then you will never be aware of ANY tangible impact. Completely unlike theft.

Now, if you discover that this person had made ten copies, then you know that a crime has been committed against you. You STILL have suffered ZERO tangible impact. But a $100 finding for you may be a perfectly reasonable starting point because that is what you would have demanded for use of your copyright. But that does not make it a $100 loss. Because finding out about the 10 creates zero economic difference between those ten and the other 990 you still do not know about.

If the RIAA was sufferring a tangible loss from downloading they could divide that loss by $/song and get the total number of songs copied anywhere and everywhere. Obviously it would be absurd to suggest that they could do so.
The settlements are based on potential judgements for the crime of copyright infringement. All you have established is that there are financial settlements for copyright infringement and there are also financial settlements for theft. To claim that this makes theft = copyright infringement is an extreme case of poor logic.

BTW, Where do you send your checks for singing Happy Birthday?
Does Michael Jackson still hold the copyright on that? No wonder he is going broke. Thousands of people steal that from him daily. It must add up to billions per year. It is a wonder the guy isn't in completely bankrupt on that money hole alone.

 

[HellHound]

So far, I haven't seen a single European publisher partake of this discussion. We're all US publishers.

Ahem.

*I* am certainly not a U.S. publisher, thank you very much.

 

[Greatwyrm]

All you have established is that there are financial settlements for copyright infringement and there are also financial settlements for theft. To claim that this makes theft = copyright infringement is an extreme case of poor logic.

I'll give ya 10gp in RPG if you can quote any of my previous posts where I said theft is identical to copyright infringement. The closest I've gotten is saying a pirated pdf and a stolen TV are both stolen. If you wish to disagree with the arguments I pose, feel free. All I ask is that you debate the arguments I'm actuall making.

BTW, Where do you send your checks for singing Happy Birthday?

I have a blanket ASCAP royalty agreement. Like a radio station. That aside, according to the ASCAP website http://www.ascap.com/licensing/termsdefined.html#public singing Happy Birthday to someone doesn't seem to constitue a "public performance". Still, you might want to drop them a line.

 

[ruemere]

You are confusing copyright with patent, lumping all IP protection together. Copyright protect the expression of an idea, while patent protects an idea (effectively -- technically a design or a process, but the result is the same).

Protection of ideas absolutely needs to be handled with much more care than it currently is, and the current patent process is incredibly flawed. Protection of the expression of an idea, though, can indeed be "blind[ly] enforce[d]" quite safely.

Understanding the underlying concepts is essential before logic can be applied.

Kindly read the message I replied to again, please. The original poster alleged that the "an illegal copy of a PDF IS a lost sale, just as an illegal copy of a piece of software is a lost sale." thus opening herself to my retributive comment by making a comparison between illegal PDF and software.

Secondly, note, that the "software patent abuse" part has been placed in Post Scriptum part of my message as it is only a side note, not a comment to the message I replied. So, I do not "lump" them together... unless using a time honored way of PS is not enough for you. If it is not satisfactory for you, please ignore me and my old-fashioned writing habits.

Thirdly, the extremes to which current copyright protection activities go, are most frightening to me. Tomás de Torquemada would rejoice.

Finally, I am rather disappointed in the fact, a few parties involved in this discussion suggested to the original poster to follow with a legal action, yet they did not seem to exhibit any willingness to execute such actions with regard to their own products.
Myself, I would not recommend a risky action to a friend (or a stranger) unless I attempted it first.

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. I have no more to say on this topic. It's easy enough to contact me privately if anyone feels the need.

PS2. MrOberon, I sympathize with you.

 

[marketingman]

I know Hellhound but you are North American based though.
Silven Crossroads is based out of Sweden.

But I handle the marketing fromthe US.