Piracy of "The Valley of Frozen Tears"

[Greatwyrm]

Please quantify the exact financial losses you have suffered due to piracy.

Well, I'd say it's equal to the price of the pdf times the number of illegal copies you can identify. A rather simple equation.

This can always be achieved for "stolen merchandise". It can not be achieved for copyright infringement.

Going back to my example of Mickey Mouse, let's say I start producing my own original Mickey cartoons and distributing them for free on the internet. Do you think a judge is going to tell Disney, "I'm sorry, you won the case, but you can't prove how much financial damage this did to you. Mr. Stevens is to pay $1.00, plus your court costs."

What really gets me is the people who don't believe there should be any electronic IP protections in the first place. Information might "want to be free" (not quoting you, ByronD), but we don't always get what we want. I want to be rich, good looking, and dating a Playmate (tm). You can probably guess how that's turned out.

 

[BryonD]

Well, I'd say it's equal to the price of the pdf times the number of illegal copies you can identify. A rather simple equation.

OK, then give me the answer for a real case.
The equation may be simple. The point is, you can not fill in the variables.
Solving this simple equation is virtually impossible.

Going back to my example of Mickey Mouse, let's say I start producing my own original Mickey cartoons and distributing them for free on the internet. Do you think a judge is going to tell Disney, "I'm sorry, you won the case, but you can't prove how much financial damage this did to you. Mr. Stevens is to pay $1.00, plus your court costs."

What really gets me is the people who don't believe there should be any electronic IP protections in the first place. Information might "want to be free" (not quoting you, ByronD), but we don't always get what we want. I want to be rich, good looking, and dating a Playmate (tm). You can probably guess how that's turned out.

But that completely misses the point.

I clearly stated that copyright infingrigment is wrong. So re-stating that does nothing to address my actual point: copyright infringment is a VERY different wrong than stealing.

Trying to equate them is flawed from the start and will therefore result in flawed conclusions.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

Byron, Greatwyrm is essentially right in that the formula is simply, though normally not quite as simple as retail price x number of illegal copies.

It's actually based on wholesale price instead, which for RPGnow vendors, is effectively 75% or 80% of cover price.

And that's the compensatory damages only. The judge may, of course, adjust the value somewhat at his discretion.

The trick part is the calculation of punitive damages, which can easily be more than the compensatory damage by an order of several magnitudes.

 

[jgbrowning]

Until someone goes to court and wins a case concerning rpg PDF piracy, anyone's opinions on the matter (including mine) aren't very important. If someone's already done it, ask them to join the conversation.

joe b.

 

[johnsemlak]

Well, I'd say it's equal to the price of the pdf times the number of illegal copies you can identify. A rather simple equation.

I think you're assuming that an illegal copy of a PDF is equal to a lost sale, which is untrue is most cases.

 

[BryonD]

Byron, Greatwyrm is essentially right in that the formula is simply, though normally not quite as simple as retail price x number of illegal copies.

It's actually based on wholesale price instead, which for RPGnow vendors, is effectively 75% or 80% of cover price.

And that's the compensatory damages only. The judge may, of course, adjust the value somewhat at his discretion.

The trick part is the calculation of punitive damages, which can easily be more than the compensatory damage by an order of several magnitudes.

So your answer is......????

And besides, I'm sorry but you can not show that as damage.
Let's say you have a product that "wholesales" for $10.
Making one copy of it does not in any way effect your net worth as picking a $10 bill from your pocket pocket would. And making 10,000 copies would have nowhere NEAR the effect of taking $100,000 in cash or material goods from you.

And none of this has anything to do with the "I would not have bought it anyway" line. That is 100% irrelevant.

The definition of compensatory is to offset. If you personal net worth is $10,000 before someone makes one copy of your product, your net worth is $10,000 AFTER they make one copy. If they steal $10 from you, your net worth is $9,990. It costs $0 to offset or compensate you for loss in the first case. It costs $10 in the second.

Punative damages are a second matter and my prior statements should make it obvious that I am not challenging that in any way.

Refusing to accept that copyright infringement IS a very different crime than theft and has very different consequences will not change it.

 

[marketingman]

Like epsin said, put up or shut up but how about this instead of donating to Votf and RIIA why not take that money and charter the foundation anaignst gaming piracy..
It will not be attached to anyone company but an all volunteer effort.

Maybe we won't succeed as well has we had hoped but at lleast we did not accept the status quo.

I will underwrite the legal team and the cost of the chartering. Let me know what yoou think.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

I think you're assuming that an illegal copy of a PDF is equal to a lost sale, which is untrue is most cases.

an illegal copy of a PDF IS a lost sale, just as an illegal copy of a piece of software is a lost sale.

 

[Dana_Jorgensen]

So your answer is......????

And besides, I'm sorry but you can not show that as damage.
Let's say you have a product that "wholesales" for $10.
Making one copy of it does not in any way effect your net worth as picking a $10 bill from your pocket pocket would. And making 10,000 copies would have nowhere NEAR the effect of taking $100,000 in cash or material goods from you.

And none of this has anything to do with the "I would not have bought it anyway" line. That is 100% irrelevant.

The definition of compensatory is to offset. If you personal net worth is $10,000 before someone makes one copy of your product, your net worth is $10,000 AFTER they make one copy. If they steal $10 from you, your net worth is $9,990. It costs $0 to offset or compensate you for loss in the first case. It costs $10 in the second.

Punative damages are a second matter and my prior statements should make it obvious that I am not challenging that in any way.

Refusing to accept that copyright infringement IS a very different crime than theft and has very different consequences will not change it.

copyright damages are not based on the net worth of the victim.

It can be based on the net worth of the individual copies of the product, or it can be based upon the net worth of the derivative product it is based upon. In the case of PDFs, this issue would align with counterfeiting, since the infringement involves exact duplication of the existing work. In that case, the compensatory damages would be based exclusively on the wholesale cost of each and every illegally distributed copy that can be traced back to the infringer.

 

[BryonD]

copyright damages are not based on the net worth of the victim.

It can be based on the net worth of the individual copies of the product, or it can be based upon the net worth of the derivative product it is based upon. In the case of PDFs, this issue would align with counterfeiting, since the infringement involves exact duplication of the existing work. In that case, the compensatory damages would be based exclusively on the wholesale cost of each and every illegally distributed copy that can be traced back to the infringer.

Theft impacts the net worth of the victim
Copyright infringement does not

Conclusion: Copyright infringement is NOT the same thing as theft

All the red herring, tangent issues you can bring up will not chnage that