Pirating RPGs. (And were not talking "arggg" pirate stuff here.)

[HeavyG]

Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating.

Well... piracy is pretty common right now. I'd say it's already a de-facto "pay if you want to" model, out there. :\

 

[Elephant]

Cracked downloads do not equate directly to lost sales, but there is an impact. I've seen it. I used to know one group that bought exactly one copy of anything and then sent electronic copies to the group. The claim was that they owned a legal copy, so could have backups.

It made them sleep better, but it's utter crap too. If more than one person can be viewing it per purchased license, it's copyright infringement.

Pathetic and dishonest. If the whole group wants the book, the whole group should buy the book - otherwise they should lend things back and forth.

The line gets fuzzy on purchased pdfs, though. For example, I have a copy of TheLe Games' 17 Magic Armors. After reviewing it, I think it has some cool stuff in it that I'd like for my group to use. I can email the pdf to one of my friends so that he can look at it, but I'm unlikely to think to delete it from my hard drive as I do so. Even if I DO think to do so, it's a hassle to simulate a bound book by emailing and deleting the pdf multiple times in order to send it to multiple friends.

With all this in mind, I've chosen not to mail copies of TheLe's pdfs to my friends - it's less of a hassle to simply read them from my hard drive. The downside of this is that my friends don't really get exposure to the armors - I haven't been DMing much lately, so I haven't had occasion to insert these special armor properties (or anything else from TheLe's products, for that matter) into the game. And as a player, of course, I can't very well say to the DM "I want to use this material, so you have to buy a bunch of stuff in order to know about it for the game." ... the DM would tell me to take a hike!

I've handled the situation as ethically as I can, and the people who sneer at p2p downloads can find no fault with my position here. However, the truth of the matter is that my actions have probably resulted in fewer sales for TheLe Games; my friends don't have any exposure to the products and therefore no desire to support them.

I feel stuck, really. On the one hand, I prefer for my actions to be ethically sound. On the other hand, I feel like I'm letting TheLe down in a way - he's given away quite a few free copies of his pdfs, and I'd love to see him gain a few sales because of it. Editing issues aside, they're solid products, and they're worth having.

 

[Elephant]

And arguing about the "incorrect" usage of theft when describing copyright infringement is a common tactic used by people who don't like being called thieves.

Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?

Calling it a "tactic" is rather inappropriate, given that equating copyright infringement with serious crimes (commonly theft, sometimes rape and serial murder) is a common tactic on the part of a sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry that makes the most voracious of downloaders look like paragons of virtue.

Regardless of the legalities involved, I just don't WANT to side with the people saying that downloading stuff is bad - that population contains such callous blackguards that anything they promote looks questionable to me.

Oh, one more thing. Copyright infringement does not NECESSARILY take money from the pockets of the holders. They like to use language tricks and semantic nonsense to make it SOUND like it does, but there is, at best, mixed data on the question.

 

[The Shaman]

Hey, check this out: http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/

It's a 45 min. movie set in the Star Wars universe that is available free of charge over the Internet.

I agree completely that if they attempted to sell this movie they would be in a fight with Lucas's lawyers. They would likely lose that fight.

And if you go back and re-read what I wrote, you'll see that I specifically indicated "for sale" as distinguished from fan fiction - one might even be able to get by with a satirical piece that riffs on SW.

It doesn't change the fact that intellectual property is still legal property, and your earlier statement is incorrect and misleading, reflecting your personal ideological stance perhaps but not the laws of most Western nations, including those where the game book was pirated.

That still doesn't make them wrong. Just because an act is illegal doesn't mean that act is wrong.

Taking something that doesn't belong to you is wrong - that fact that there's a law attached to it simply reinforces society's stand on the issue.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

How to you guarantee this? Apply this to roleplaying games.

No one can guarantee anything, but I do believe it is fairly easy to illustrate that people will pay for a product or service even if they do not have to.

Ever seen this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106049 ?
It appears that an awful lot of people donated money to EN World . . . to the tune of over $13,000. I don't know if everyone that donated got something out of it, but I'm sure many people would have donated without getting anything in return.

Ever noticed some EN World users have something other than Registered User under their user name? Many of them got that by becoming community supporters. They essentially gave money to EN World that they didn't have to. Sure, they can change their user name title and they can use the search function, but they didn't get any real concrete value out of this donation. They did it because they wanted to see EN World stick around and felt that they could part with a bit of cash to make that happen.

I think people would do the same thing to ensure the publication of quality RPG material. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Ransom Model (which I think kicks a$$) . . . demand a certain level of donations before publishing material. That would do it. I still believe that some people would pay a voluntary "fee" for use of a good product. I know I would and have in the past (for shareware software).

Essentially, I don't think you have clearly defined (that is to say completely ignored) the difference between information and intellectual property. How do you define each?

I did ignore the difference between information and intellectual property. I believe intellectual property is a false construct of the modern age that will vanish in the future. Many great thinkers and artists existed long before intellectual property laws existed and we still had great music, poetry, literature and scientific discoveries (Mozart, Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Plato, Socrates, etc.). The fact that someone can own a thought, idea or series of musical notes arranged a certain way is offensive to me, but that's the world we live in.

As to pricing information/intellectual property at a sum total of zero dollars, I think you will quickly find that economics will quickly dissolve the number of products available to zero as well; nothing for nothing in its purest form. Not everyone else in the world thinks like you. As such, people simply won't bother producing stuff/information/intellectual property.

I believe you are mistaken. See my previous post regarding open source software. As was already mentioned . . . ever hear of Linux? Also, see above . . . artists, scientists, etc. from times before intellectual property laws existed still created/discovered information and were well compensated for their efforts even though they didn't "own" their works.

 

[Crothian]

Calling it a "tactic" is rather inappropriate, given that equating copyright infringement with serious crimes (commonly theft, sometimes rape and serial murder) is a common tactic on the part of a sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing industry that makes the most voracious of downloaders look like paragons of virtue.

So, making unfair comparisons is worse then this illegal activity? And the gaming industry is far from "sleazy, unethical, moneygrubbing".

 

[Izerath]

Legal Eagle's question

OK - I know the general differences between Copyright infringment and theft in legal terms: both in how the crime is pursued in the courts and the sentencing differences for those found guilty.

That said, you'll likely rarely recall reading about a copyright infringement arrest. If I remember correctly, it's because the oneous(sp?) of proof of copyright infirngement falls on the copyright owner, not the legal system. Essentially, I would have to witness the infringement and then sue the pants off the guy that did it, provided I know who that is. The reason for this difference in treatment is that copyrights and patents protect "ideas and concepts" while the definition of theft is specific to physical products.

A simple example are the "anonymous defendant" lawsuits that big music labels are filing against avid and often abusive p2p users. By filing the lawsuit, it gives them certain legal rights to pursue the identities of the anonymous users for copyright infingement. Essentially you have to sue them to stop and then sue them for damages as well.

So to those lawyers out there - is my line of thought correct? Is the only legal recourse for those who are trodden upon as publishers to sue the evil-doers? And if so, if they can quantify the number of infringments, is their some legal tax or other recourse they can take to "write off" or recoup their perceived losses based on the infringements they can prove occurred?

Just a fellow who's always been curious about the law.....

 

[Shining Dragon]

No one can guarantee anything, but I do believe it is fairly easy to illustrate that people will pay for a product or service even if they do not have to.

Ever seen this thread: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=106049 ?
It appears that an awful lot of people donated money to EN World . . . to the tune of over $13,000. I don't know if everyone that donated got something out of it, but I'm sure many people would have donated without getting anything in return.

Ever noticed some EN World users have something other than Registered User under their user name? Many of them got that by becoming community supporters. They essentially gave money to EN World that they didn't have to. Sure, they can change their user name title and they can use the search function, but they didn't get any real concrete value out of this donation. They did it because they wanted to see EN World stick around and felt that they could part with a bit of cash to make that happen.

I think people would do the same thing to ensure the publication of quality RPG material. Earlier in this thread someone mentioned the Ransom Model (which I think kicks a$$) . . . demand a certain level of donations before publishing material. That would do it. I still believe that some people would pay a voluntary "fee" for use of a good product. I know I would and have in the past (for shareware software).

Didn't Stephen King also try this? With a serialized novel called The Plant that didn't go beyond 6 installments. It seemed that $1 was too much for some to pay per installment.

 

[Kem]

Also, see above . . . artists, scientists, etc. from times before intellectual property laws existed still created/discovered information and were well compensated for their efforts even though they didn't "own" their works.

They got paid to make the works. They got paid to perform (in some method).

Others got paid to MAKE MORE.

Not all where ever fully compensated for their efforts. Few in fact where.

Based on how much Mozart I hear, how much artwork from Leonardo, how much calculus I see being used, I will say outright, right in the open, that they where NEVER compensated for what they made, based on the popularity, and value placed on their items today.

 

[jgbrowning]

LMAO!

Yes, but you still can't put a price on that information. To me that information will have nearly infinite value. To you, probably less value, but some. To some person unaware of the situation that information will have practically zero value. However, if we publish that information on the Internet we have in no way reduced it's nearly infinite value to me nor have we increased it's value to an uninterested party.

Price is a negotiable. Your example proves exactly why you can put a price on information. I'm not following your arguement. It seems like you think there's something called "inherant value" and how since nothing has an "inherant value" nothing has any value.

Value is a relationship between availability and need/desire. If there is something that someone needs/desires then there is value and you can put a price on it. Through negotiation, that price will reach a "market value." A market value isn't the "worth" of an object—it's just the codification of many value relationships over a period of time. There is not, and never has been, any inherant value in any information. However, value is not, and has never been, inherant to begin with.

Now on to another point: Having the ability to infinitely duplicate some information can destroy value, or conversely it can increase value of said information.

I all boils down to this: information has value regardless of it's formatting. No matter if I tell you how to double your crop-yield, write it down and sell it to you, broadcast it on a radio, use smoke signals, or use any other method of communication the information has value if you want to double your crop yield. It's only if you don't, or if you're life is never effected by others doubling their crop yield does that information have no value. To you.

joe b.