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

[Jonny Nexus]

This is obviously a false dichotomy.

Why?

(I'm not being argumentative - I'm generously curious about your reasoning).

 

[Turjan]

Why?

(I'm not being argumentative - I'm generously curious about your reasoning).

Just look at software. If you "buy a program", you actually just buy a license, not the program. You never own the software itself. You have a right to use the software under certain conditions. This is some clearly obvious example where there's something in between "owning" and "not owning".

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Okay, I'm not even sure what point I'm making here, but I guess what narks me about the whole "creative work = discovered information" argument is that it implies that if I write something creative I haven't made the world a better place by creating something that didn't previously exist, but have instead merely discovered words that were already there.

So maybe it's a really childish attitude, but I basically have a really strong feeling of "it's mine, not yours" so I get to tell you what can be done with it, and if you don't like it then you can go and create something similar yourself, because if I hadn't created it then it would never have existed.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Just look at software. If you "buy a program", you actually just buy a license, not the program. You never own the software itself. You have a right to use the software under certain conditions. This is some clearly obvious example where there's something in between "owning" and "not owning".

Yes, but the only reason the writers of the software could license it is because they owned it. If I own something but choose to loan it, or rent it, or whatever - that doesn't mean that I don't own it. I either own a work I've created or I don't. If I own it then I can sell it, rent it, lease it, whatever. If I don't own it then it's not mine to do any of those.

(I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who wrote the software. They own it. The person who bought a license doesn't. Either way, you either own it or you don't.)

 

[Spell]

Modern crime has no borders, that's why we need extradition treaties and the like. The problem with IP cirmes stems from the ridiculously high American share of world cultural products (particulary from a revnue standpoint). There is very little incentive to sign a treatie to surrender it's citizens when the threat is so assymetrical (not a lot of American priaters stealing Chinese movies, for example). Hence getting this international framework requires som diplmoatic arm twisting...which is what we are seeing.

i can agree with that. what i don't agree on is that we should all accept the USA law system as the best system in the world. or stand peacefully aside when the US megacorporation bribe our politicians to modify our laws, or to introduce taxes bacause of "theft".

in europe whenever we buy a blank cd, we pay a (small) tax that goes into the pockets of the music industry to fight piracy, or as a compensation towards piracy (it depends who you ask).
this NO MATTER what you do with that cd. you use it for store your music? you have to pay the music majors. you use it to make a back up copy of your manuscript? you have to pay the music majors. you just put it there and forget about it? guess where the money goes, anyway?

now, i find this incredibly unfair, ESPECIALLY since our politicians didn't take this step alone, but because they were bullied by the majors. you could argue that those are not good politicians, and i would agree, but i don't want to turn this topic into a political area.


also, i'm sorry to say it, but the idea that we should adopt your laws because "the ridiculously high American share of world cultural products" it's quite offensive to non USA citizens and a sign of ignorance, too.
just because you are not aware of it, it doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Turjan]

Yes, but the only reason the writers of the software could license it is because they owned it. If I own something but choose to loan it, or rent it, or whatever - that doesn't mean that I don't own it. I either own a work I've created or I don't. If I own it then I can sell it, rent it, lease it, whatever. If I don't own it then it's not mine to do any of those.

(I'm looking at it from the point of view of the person who wrote the software. They own it. The person who bought a license doesn't. Either way, you either own it or you don't.)

Although you are principally right, the actual situation is a bit more complicated. In case of software, you often own a physical copy of the software, which in itself entitles you to further rights. This physical copy can be stolen. Your software key can be stolen. But here we come into areas that are vastly different even between western countries. The laws regarding these topics are still in flow.

 

[Falkus]

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.

And if you couldn't make money off of them, there would be no more published thoughts, ideas or series of msuical notes arranged in a certain way. Your philosophy has a complete lack of understanding of the human psyche. Open source is the exception, not the rule. Why do you think the vast majority of software isn't open source. It's not the road to success like you claim it is.

Not even communism goes as far as you do. Marx acknowledged that the effort a worker puts into something has value, your phillosophy claims that labor has no value at all.

 

[Spell]

It just happens that in the case of RPGs, it might be true that the actions of P2P distributors affect the livelihood of the producers. If so, then there might be an ethical aspect, but I think that ethics mostly comes into this situation because people enjoy pointing fingers and accusing each other of being blackguards. Or thieves. I'm just waiting for an author to claim to have been raped by P2P, so we can start calling them rapists too.

in case of RPG, it is true that ethics come a bit more into equation, but it is also true that it's a small and relatively tight community. while we don't personally know, say, monte cook or gary gygax (well, not all of us, and in 99% of the cases, not enough to call them "mates"), we do know enough about them and their business to be sympathetic about them.
that helps making piracy less of an issue, in my opition. it's easier to download stuff and hurt business X who i have never heard of. if you know the guy whose business you're damaging you do your best not to screw things up (unless you really want to, but that's another story!)

 

[Spell]

They hate our freedoms...

damn them aussies!

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Although you are principally right, the actual situation is a bit more complicated. In case of software, you often own a physical copy of the software, which in itself entitles you to further rights. This physical copy can be stolen. Your software key can be stolen. But here we come into areas that are vastly different even between western countries. The laws regarding these topics are still in flow.

True, but at each point you either own something or you don't.

You own the physical media, and you own a license that gives you the right to use the software. You don't own the software. But I take your point that it gets very fuzzy.

In the end though, I'm not really making a legal point so much as an emotional one. If I create a piece of creative work, I feel that I "own" the work itself (as opposed to merely owning the media that it is reproduced on).