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

[El Ravager]

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).

This sums up a lot of how I feel about this issue. And until publishers seriously start to consider and act on the bolded part of your post, I really won't loose any sleep about piracy.

Note though, this is how I feel about the issue on a large level. Closer to the original topic, I don't believe that what I quoted from Sigil represents RPG companies. I don't think that the damage is great, but RPGs are a smaller industry and smaller damage has more effect on RPGs. But it is still a fact of life and, I believe, good RPG companies who put out good product will make it dispite this and the many other problems they face.

=====
El Rav

 

[Desdichado]

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).

Yes, I do.

 

[I'm A Banana]

IMHO, the biggest problem with patronage is that it creates art for the rich and powerful, by the rich and powerful. I can't be a pauper and also have the ear of high society any better in today's world than I could back then. It defines people too much by the jobs they do, and echoes too much of a class conciousness for me. I don't want some rich hipster paying me for my art. I just want to create and have it seen and ideally have people know it as my creation.

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.

No. Posted above are just a handful of ways that real authors and muscisians make money on the "cutting edge" today, and they do work. How many webcomics survived, even for a time, based on donations?

The decent books, games, movies, and RPGS are not the product of the industry. They are a product of those artists who occur because it is the nature of humans to create art. Industry has no hand in it. Cave paintings existed before patrons, and we will be wistling dixie long into the postapocalyptic wastland. You cannot destroy the artistic desire of humanity. Though you can certainly attempt to manipulate it.

 

[Desdichado]

It is wrong and unethical to make that property.

Well, that's the crux of this whole debate, isn't it? I could be cynical and say, "of course you believe that; because believing otherwise would put limits on your own personal freedoms to take unabashed advantage of the artists who own that property," and that would effectively sum up the two endpoints of the spectrum of belief on the issue.

 

[Arnwyn]

Some companies (Canada)

I hate that company. Their thermostat is on the fritz all the time.

 

[The Sigil]

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?

From the beginning, it has been noted that "copyright" is a form of abridgement of "Free Speech."

As to whether it is wrong an unethical to make that "property"... a tough call. I'll go with MacAuley (again)...

(Copyright) is a tax on readers for the purpose of giving a bounty to writers. The tax is an exceedingly bad one; it is a tax on one of the most innocent and most salutary of human pleasures; and never let us forget, that a tax on innocent pleasures is a premium on vicious pleasures. I admit, however, the necessity of giving a bounty to genius and learning. In order to give such a bounty, I willingly submit even to this severe and burdensome tax.

I have to agree in that I am willing to submit to some form of copyright in order to receive the bounty of genius and learning. Call it an "enlightened disavowal of certain rights" because I think the benefits I will receive by a limited waiver of some of those rights outweight the benefits I receive by keeping them. I should note however, in the strongest language possible, that I do NOT feel that the current sytem of copryight strikes the proper balance and I do not feel that the current system is inherently ethical, so I am NOT saying I am willing to submit myself in an unqualified matter to copyright law as it presently exists (I feel it is too weighted in favor of the author/publisher).

I am definitely in favor of a 7-year copyright. I am definitely NOT in favor of a life+70 copyright. I am not exactly sure where the "sweet spot" is between the two where I go from "approval" to "disapproval."

But I am enlightened enough to forgo some free speech rights to receive the bounty of the genius and learning of others. I don't think the current system is one I would willingly choose to submit to if it were offered up for vote now (of course, we're NOT given the choice; the laws are what they are, though I'd like to see them change, but you get the idea).

--The Sigil

 

[Voadam]

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.

[/i]

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

post 249

You said:

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".

The linked case is at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/473/207.html

 

[I'm A Banana]

But I am enlightened enough to forgo some free speech rights to receive the bounty of the genius and learning of others.

If I'm giving the other side of the argument as I know it correctly...

You don't need to give up free speech to benefit from others' creativity. You do not need an industry for artistic creation. The idea that we won't have the next Motzart or Copernicus if we don't copyright is a fallacy. For most of human history, we have not had copyright, and art has still been generated, and powerfully so.

Personally, I'm not nessecarily against copyright, because I certainly believe some form of copyright could certainly help foster this natural tendancy of humanity. But to posit it as an essential component of generating creative works is wrong. It isn't. It's a side-product of the fact that we as human beings produce art.

 

[Spell]

Suddenly, you didn't have to hire a musician any more. You could buy a player piano instead!

sorry, that example doesn't work. the piano player didn't sell to the household who could afford hiring a musician... they were too crappy to aim to that. any well rehearsed musician (i'm not talking about monster of technique and execution) could beat a player piano playing with a hand tied to their back.

the piano sold to the household who did had some money, but that didn't have a good pianist. in the old day, in well to do families, there was at least one person (usually female) able to sight sing parts and/ or play the piano. you did your music yourself, in the evening.

player piano changed that. as did records. the final blow was the radio.

Of course, the musicians (who were often also composers) wanted to restrict technology and would have refused to sell their music to the player piano companies.

now you know why they didn't oppose. on the other hand, some of them were quite unwilling to record their performances, when somebody devised a way to make copies out of a single master recording (in the very early days, you had to play again and re-record the performance, if you wanted another copy!).
all of the sudden, they were afraid that nobody would have paid them a dime, if they could get their performance on record for much less (notice that i'm talking about songs. early records were too short to accomodate most classical pieces).
then they realised that was a way to reach new audiences, and everybody started to record.

Today, your garage band can make a recording of you playing 12 Beatles hits and (if each is less than 5 minutes in length) pay $1.02 in compulsory licensing fees to the copyright holder (probably Michael Jackson) for each CD you sell... and you cannot be denied the right to do this by the copyright holder (this is why it's called "compulsory" licensing - it compels the copyright holder to allow anyone who pays the license fee to play his songs).

i think that doesn't apply to europe, but just to north america... too bad i did my law classes in boston! :_(.

Honestly, I think it's the only real way of finding a compromise between copyright holders' interests and technology...

i think the only way that could happen is if people really stopped buying. but that is not happening, for good or bad, so...

 

[El Ravager]

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?

I agree with this as well. Some here say that copyright infringement is stealing or immoral. I think that the very notion of copyright as it exists is immoral. Certainly creators should have a way to be compensated for their work, but the way it works now is wrong.

Authors should sell a book, not a text, not a story.

Musicians should sell CDs and live performances, not songs.



All this IMHO, of course.

Anyway, I think I have now fully expressed my opinion now. I doubt many are paying attention to little me anyway. So I think I am done with this thread.

=====
El Rav