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

[The Sigil]

I should note one other thing.

There's a reason I've tried to steer clear of the "theft/infringement" debate here (which goes back and forth, etc.).

I think it's because of the way I look at problems. When there is a problem, we resort to the six basic questions:

Who? What? Where? How? When? Why?

However, I like to play a "meta-question" game in terms of "can I change the answer to any of the above questions and if I can, changing the answer to which of the above questions will change/eliminate the problem?"

In copyright infringement I see:

Who? Lots of people the world over.
What? Various forms of copyrighted material.
Where? On IRC, Usenet, P2P, FTP, CDs, and many other channels.
How? Via the use of computers.
When? Constantly.

Can I change the answer to any of the above? Not really. Even if I could, would it stop things? Probably not.

Why? Well, that was the point of my first post in this thread.

Can I change the answer to "why?" Probably not, but it is theoretically possible. But if I change the answer to "why" would things stop? I think so. If there is no more "why" then there is no more piracy.

I think too many people on the publishing end - big and small - spend a lot of time on the "who" (suing) and the "what/how" (with DRM implementations that get cracked anyway) and no time at all on the "why." And I think that's the wrong way of going about it.

Then again, the reason the industry at large isn't interested in the "why" is probably because if they DID look at the "why" they would realize that step one is the "copyright industry" making a change to respect the bounds and limits of where copyright ends (instead of trying to grab more and more control with technological features - see my DVD example - and longer copyright lengths), rather than forcing consumers to make the first change. After all, consumers, by and large, have reacted to copyright holders, not the other way around! Consumers, by and large, already feel (and rightly so!) that their relationship to copyright is a lot like Lando's relationship with Darth Vader ("I am altering the deal. Pray that I do not alter it again!").

Of course, that's probaby because I have kids, and when trying to change their bad behavior, I don't focus on the behavior itself as much as on the reason the kid is doing what he's doing. Of course, I am a believer in the theory that "talking about principles (and how to apply them) will change behavior faster than talking about behavior will change behavior" (and yes, Joshua Dyal, you probably DO recognize the source of that sentence).

The music/movie industry is talking about behavior. "It's so easy to download a movie, but it's wrong." They should be talking about principles instead. "It is just and ethical to remunerate someone for their work if you derive a benefit from it and they did not offer the work freely." If you put the principles in place, the behavior naturally follows. (Of course, that would require the music/movie industry adhering to the same principles for fear of being labelled hypocrites, but that's another discussion)

--The Sigil

 

[I'm A Banana]

However the role of the 'suits' is extrememely important. Vital, even. If I offer you access to my distribution channels (with the corresponding tertiary financial benefits that come with them), as well as providing you with the best possible production infrastructure and/or up front money...it's within my right to expect a healthy ROI. The only money an artist loses from producing a dud comes from the time they could have been doing something else -- the record companies are the ones with the real financial stake.

You're right.

But there is, at the moment, a major disconnect between what the suits should be doing and what they are doing. They are not providing the best possible infrastructure. They are not enabling the artist to reach new audiences. They are not providing anything that, especially with much of modern technology, can't be done almost by the artists themselves.

In essence, the companies should not be the ones with the finanical stake. The artists should be. If Local Rock Band 3a creates a piece of crap CD, they shouldn't be inured to the consequences, and if they make one that goes gangbusters, they shouldn't be only pulling down $3 a copy.

And technology is rapidly advancing to the point where the artists don't really need the companies if they want to produce works and sell many copies. They may need hard work, dedication, fear of loss, and part-time jobs, but they do not need the suits. It hasn't quite reached that stage yet, but it is getting steadily closer. Internet phenomenons. Blogs. "All Your Base." These things aren't the major powers in consuming today, but give it a decade or two.

The companies, in many cases, seem to have this relationship backwards.They view themselves as the only way that art can be made, and that position has been abused to the point where the companies are dictating what art is made. You can't do something experimental and daring without being "indie industry" these days. Alien Hominid is a side-scrolling shooter game that no major company would touch. The "safe" d20 companies stick to fantasy and prestige classes and ninjas. Music is what is on the top 40 radio stations, and when they introduce a new song, it is remarkably similar to the other songs already playing.

This is only the backlash against this abuse of power by those corporations who hold copyright. Rather than being the middlemen between the artist and the public, they are the designers of prepackaged, plastic art themselves, art designed to sell. And sell it does. But every major Hillary Duff CD release is one less "where the hell do I need to go to find the latest Decemberists album around this small town?!" They tell you what you are supposed to like. They don't choose your opinion for you, but they do limit your choices between Lindsay Lohan and Tool.

Yes, the suits can be valuable allies to the struggling artist. But they are decimating to the advancement of art as a cultural object. Because "good art" (e.g.: commentary, social platforms, contentious images) is rarely the most popular, but the suits aren't interested in quality, just in quantity of dollars. Now, the masses can turn to their computers for the latest Tool top 40 hit, and while that's downloading they can look at this website of a guy who is releasing his music for free as mp3's (or you can pay $10 to get a CD of his stuff, which he just burns in his mother's basement).

The artists cannot "live like rockstars," which will leave creating to the creative as opposed to the opportunistic. The suits have been an important method of distribution and risk-minimization. But they are becoming either unnessecary or drastically changing in form, and the current form doesn't like it at all.

 

[Voadam]

Legally maybe. Morally, it is theft - you have aquired property owned by another illegally.

[/i]

Unfortunately for you, he didn't say "copyright infringement is not theft", he said "they don't easily mesh together as legal concepts because of the nature of intellectual property". That is a very different, and far less strident statement than the one you attribute to the court.

Or morally it is not theft because the original is left with the owner. It is only copied, not taken away.

Do you have a page citation for your quote? I was typed in your quote on a find command on the linked case and it didn't come up. I'm not saying you made up your quote, I'm just saying a quick search did not turn it up.

 

[Storm Raven]

Or morally it is not theft because the original is left with the owner. It is only copied, not taken away.

Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.

Do you have a page citation for your quote? I was typed in your quote on a find command on the linked case and it didn't come up. I'm not saying you made up your quote, I'm just saying a quick search did not turn it up.

Which quote do you refer to? The case citation was made by another poster.

 

[The Sigil]

Except that the owner's property is not the physical object. The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.

Best point in the theft/copyright infringement battle I've seen in a LONG time (here and elsewhere). Mind if I file that away for future use? And may I reproduce it?

--The Sigil

 

[Storm Raven]

Best point in the theft/copyright infringement battle I've seen in a LONG time (here and elsewhere). Mind if I file that away for future use? And may I reproduce it?

Sure. I disclaim any copyright I may have in any statements made in this thread.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The stuff you want depeneds on the existence of the industry. Vilifying them for existing is counterproductive.

No it doesn't. I already said I don't want their crappy stuff, so quit calling it "the stuff you want". I buy my stuff from people who make good stuff. I vilify them for existing because they're taking away market share from the people who make good stuff.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The owner's property is "the exclusive right to make copies of a particular work". By making a copy, you've taken that away from me.

I believe the idea is that "the exclusive right to make copies" is an immoral infringement upon the rights of everyone else. It is wrong and unethical to make that property. It would be like making a law that described a special set of people who had the exclusive right to breed. Copying things -- diseminating information -- is a natural human feature, not something that should be forbidden by law. Heck, even artists themselves aknowledge that their own work is often derivitive of something else. "Good artists create, great artists steal" is the phrase? We're all suckling from the Gygax/Arneson teat that invented the concept of an RPG, why doesn't Gary get paid whenever something at DTRPG sells?

 

[Spell]

I believe the term you are looking for is "patron".

indeed it was...
thanks. sometimes, not being a native speaker doesn't help...

But is it really desirable to throw the production of intellectual property back into the hands of the very wealthy?

it depends who you ask. at the end of the day, mr. patron and mr. EMI or mr. SONY music provide exactly the same thing: money to put out music they want to listen.

personally, i would rather deal with mr. patron. it's a matter of taste, of course, but mr. patron is one guy. mr. big label is a pyramid of yes-men, most of which won't work there for their lifetime.
with mr. patron, i have to please 1 individual. for all i care, there's nobody else. he likes me and my stuff, he pays, i'm happy.
with mr. big label, i have to please all the yes-men, the head of the corporation, the marketing people, the media (by giving interviews, smile all the time, being politically correct, and so on), AND the general public.
in the first instance i might get much less money... but at least i should compromise my ideals up to a point, and sell myself to just one person. in the second case, i'm virtually doing the same job a prostitute does. only the prostitute doesn't have to tour the world on a crappy van (or a beautiful jet plane, depending on who you are).

i think the problems with patrons are that:
1. we have a distorted view of who they were, and what they asked for. we see them in films as fat stupid morons who can't tell art from farts, and we assume that's the way it was. in fact, that was the exception, not the norm. check reinassance italy. classical rome. illuminist europe. you will find that the majory of the patrons were men and women of taste, who were genuinely interested in art and sometimes even in learning.
2. our society puts freedon on the top of the value pyramid. there are other societies, both today and historically, that have worked differently. freedom is good, but if i have to risk way too much to have just a chance to be free... well, i would personally think twice before leaving my patron!

both systems have their pros and cons. in the ideal world, we would have disinterested patrons and a truly competition driven market. instead we have patrons that are willing to pay as long as you work for their interest and you do what they want, and a monopoly de facto.

It was done that way for centuries, and produced some fine art and a tiny amount of literature

some fine art? just because it got vandalised/ lost, it doesn't mean it wasn't there. just have a stroll in rome. i find some parts of the city boring because all that columns, churches, statues, and stuff are yesterday's news (i'm italian, so i do tend to appreciate those things less than some other people, for the simple fact that they are all over the place here).
and that is after half a dozen sacking, bombings of the city, pestilences, famines, revolutions...
as for the "tiny" amount of literature produced, just check project gutenberg.
that, of course, is just a tiny part of what was available. i was recently reading "a criminal history of mankind" by colin wilson, and in the 1800s section he started to talk about a number of novels i had never ever heard of. that's despite the fact that i have studied english literature at university and high school (and that i do read a lot of classics).

the range of available books, arts might be narrow... but keep in mind that sometimes we are only allowed to read what the publishers decide to reprint. shakespeare's work? you bet. a dodgy horror/ erotic novel? why? there's already a thousand on the market, written yesterday...

honestly, how much novels or music that today are considered the rage will be remembered in 100 years? what about 200? 1000?
we suffer from a prospective problem, and we think that our society is the best ever. it might be for some respects (health and clealingness, for example... you have to go back to rome during the empire day to find an efficient network of plumbings...). for some other stuff is just the same as ever. and for some other stuff it might even be worse. jsut because we are not aware of it, it doesn't mean it does not exist.

 

[Falkus]

No it doesn't. I already said I don't want their crappy stuff, so quit calling it "the stuff you want". I buy my stuff from people who make good stuff. I vilify them for existing because they're taking away market share from the people who make good stuff.

You don't get it, do you? The vast majority of consumers think that the evil big industry is making good stuff, because they keep buying it. You're in a minority, the exception, not the rule.

I believe the idea is that "the exclusive right to make copies" is an immoral infringement upon the rights of everyone else. It is wrong and unethical to make that property. It would be like making a law that described a special set of people who had the exclusive right to breed. Copying things -- diseminating information -- is a natural human feature, not something that should be forbidden by law.

And I believe that this philosophy, if it were applied to the real world, would result in the desctruction of the media industry, printed, recorded and programmed. No more decent books, no more decent computer games, no more decent movies, no more roleplaying games. You believe that the work of people who produce IP has no value, and I am going to oppose this, because I find it destructive and insulting to real authors, musicians and producers.