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

[The Sigil]

Times change. Copyright as it is today is quickly becoming obsolete. It's lack of justice is becoming quite evident. The "suits" are trying to guard against that, protect their own business model, and stagnate the world, manipulating the people to stay within their pre-defined and profitable boundaries.

Copyright obviously was a useful tool for its time. But its time has quite evidently passed.

Here's one of the quirks I find amusing about copyright in its current incarnation:

Copyright was originally created to protect "the little guy" - a writer/publisher - from the "piratical booksellers" - the big corporate conglomerates that would get a copy of his work and then reprint it en masse and sell it without compensating him... or alternatively, the bookseller who approached a "starving artist" and bought the copyright to an excellent piece of work for a pittance, then turned around and made huge profits selling copies of it.

In other words, it was a law protecting the little fish from the big sharks.

Now, of course, copyright has been turned on its head - it's used by large conglomerates to smack down the "little guy" for making just a few copies of a widely sold work. Computers - and especially the internet - have given the little fish teeth and the big sharks are trying to use copyright law to protect themselves from dying the death of 1000 cuts.

Now, copyright is a law protecting the big sharks from the little pirannhas (sp?).

Not saying either way is "right" or "wrong" - just that I find it ironic that it's been turned on its head.

--The Sigil

 

[Numion]

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.

No I haven't. I may or may not have infringed on your right. I've stolen nothing.

Why the "pro-copyright" side needs to resort to mispresentation like this is beyond me. But thats what the recording industry is using in the propaganda. It makes me cringe that they've directly brought the infomercials based on US law to finnish movie theaters. "Copying a movie is stealing"; it isn't anywhere. "Copying a movie is a crime"; when it isn't in Finland.

 

[Spell]

You're talking to the wrong guy. I love old games, but I don't want to see a return to them either. I like high quality graphics and realistic physics. You're saying that I'm wrong for enjoying that.

where did i say that, exactly?
you are very well entitled to have your tastes, whatever they are. but it is you who are assuming that:
1. the majority of the market demands high quality graphic, and would demand it even if not having it would produce a consistent drop in the final price.
2. if, for argument sake (which is what i was doing), all of the sudden there was no copyright, and developers would have no money to create games with high quality graphic, the majority of the market would stop buying any game, no matter how fun and innovative it is.
sorry, this is not my view. i don't know about the market, but i know about myself. i stopped buying computer games because i can't be asked to pay that much, to spend loads of money to have the last graphic card which is virtually useless to me in every aspect but playing games, and because, quite frankly, i find them quite boring.

i would rather play 20 dollars to buy a copy of wacky wheels or kick off 2, than 10 to play the last ps2 horror game.
am i saying you are crazy not to share my view? no. but i'm entitled to my opinion as well, and since we're living in orc-land, i don't care what the rest of the market says. i'm not buying.

Oh, and thank you for backing up my main argument. That the reduction and elimination of IP laws would drastically reduce the quality of published and recorded media.

oh! you mean i could not enjoy great films like star wars 3, alone in the dark, and similar stuff? man, that would kill me!
i think you are trying to be a bit too ironic and smart.

the general quality of products would probably drop down. so what? it would also cost a fraction of what it costs today. your argument is that, by spending 100 million dollars the film, on average, would be crappier. i'm saying that there wouldn't be a budget of 100 million dollar to begin with, so no flashy (and useless, at least as far as i'm concerned) special effect, not another crappy schwarznegger film, not another copycat film made just because that other production firm has done the same style, and we have to have a share of the market, not another britney spear, and so on.

of course it would have negative sides, too. it can't be all that good.
i might have an idealist view of the world, granted, and a very personal one (oh, what a surprise! we all had 100% personal views of things, last time i checked) but you are saying that, without copyright law, there would be nothing, nada, zero, niente.
sorry, you are wrong. simple as that.

It's called the real world. People are greedy, it's the goddamn basis of the western world. Capitalism.

funny, i prefer my fairy land. you know, when years ago, i stopped acting as if everybody was trying to stabbing in my back, i realised that nobody was. also, when i started to be nice to people and give them credit, they turned out to be pretty decent and nice guys, in the vast majority.
maybe i'm in fairy land, but i suspect that if all the big corporations (be it food, films, music, you name it) would start to act responsibly and treat their customer as if they were living beings with a brain, as opposed to spoon-fed midgets, who can only find their ass because somebody else has nicely pointed it to them, maybe they would find the profit would go up.
or maybe not. but at least they would be whining less and be less bitter and draconic.

 

[jgbrowning]

Is your position that we need Copyright now more than we did before the Internet?

We need a system that was designed a hundred years ago to help enable creativity now more than ever because a system has been introduced that has changed the way that creativity reaches the public?

Times change. Copyright as it is today is quickly becoming obsolete. It's lack of justice is becoming quite evident. The "suits" are trying to guard against that, protect their own business model, and stagnate the world, manipulating the people to stay within their pre-defined and profitable boundaries.

Copyright obviously was a useful tool for its time. But its time has quite evidently passed. Creativity is being produced on a collossally mass scale above and beyond the bounds of copyright. Copyright is now more of a hinderence to creativity than a boon to it.

Whoa.... so you mean that copyright is now reducing creativity?

The internet is letting anyone be creative and diseminate their ideas and make money from those ideas. Every one that is realising their own work (music/art/rpging) on the net is experience the full benefit of copyright in that have a guarantee that those "suits" can't steal their ideas without running the risk of legal repercusions. The low cost of entry into various markets previously controled by "suits" makes the fact that copyright exists that much more beneficial to "non-suits."

I simply don't understand this. Copyright as written is not LIMITING creativity it is INCREASING creativity. You can be as creative as you want. Just come up with your own idea and not someone elses. Regardless of wether or not that someone else is Disney or your neighborhood garage band.

joe b.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Here's one of the quirks I find amusing about copyright in its current incarnation:

Copyright was originally created to protect "the little guy" - a writer/publisher - from the "piratical booksellers" - the big corporate conglomerates that would get a copy of his work and then reprint it en masse and sell it without compensating him... or alternatively, the bookseller who approached a "starving artist" and bought the copyright to an excellent piece of work for a pittance, then turned around and made huge profits selling copies of it.

In other words, it was a law protecting the little fish from the big sharks.

Now, of course, copyright has been turned on its head - it's used by large conglomerates to smack down the "little guy" for making just a few copies of a widely sold work. Computers - and especially the internet - have given the little fish teeth and the big sharks are trying to use copyright law to protect themselves from dying the death of 1000 cuts.

Now, copyright is a law protecting the big sharks from the little pirannhas (sp?).

Not saying either way is "right" or "wrong" - just that I find it ironic that it's been turned on its head.

--The Sigil

Yeah, but you switched the "little guy" role midway through your argument. In the first half the little guy was the author; in the second half he was the reader. Which (IMHO) means that it hasn't been turned on its head in quite the way you imply.

 

[Joshua Randall]

Now, copyright is a law protecting the big sharks from the little pirannhas (sp?).

I will ignore your use of the loaded term "shark" to refer to a publisher of a PDF for a D&D game (because let's not forget -- that's what this thread is about), and simply ask this:

Why should only "the little guy" benefit from copyright law? Why shouldn't the big guy also benefit?

 

[The Sigil]

Problem is, I have yet to see anyone of your general belief system propose an alternative that really made any sense. You can't just get rid of a system like copyright law and not replace it with something else.

I'm not sure what the alternative is. I know the current system is horribly broken, however, and that something needs to change. I personally think copyright law - at least in its present incarnation - is unworkable.

From my vantage point, there are four major changes that can be made to make the system workable. They are not mutually exclusive, and not necessarily all required.

1 - Shorten copyright duration. Drastically. Like, to 14 years (possibly less).

2 - Restrict ownership of copyright to "natural persons." In the case of multiple people creating a work (e.g., Lennon/McCartney), each and every collaborator is entitled to exercise all rights without permission of the others.

3 - Require registration of copyright (like used to be required by registering a copy with the Library of Congress). This at least makes it easy to track down a copyright holder (the "orphan works" problem).

4 - Create a "compulsory licensing" scheme for all copyrightable formats and expand it to include "perfect/direct copies." When you download/create a copy of something, you can "register" that copy with a central clearinghouse for a nominal fee (fee schedule obviously to be determined, but for ease of use, let's say $.50 for non-computer works like books, $.20 for computer-held works under 1 GB in length and $1 for computer-held works over 1 GB in length such as DVDs). This could work in combination with #3 above so that I can download a copy of, say, "LotR: RotK" off the internet, then pay the Library of Congress a $1 fee which is then passed along to New Line Studios). If I am then "busted" for copyright infringement of LotR:RotK, I can simply call up the Library of Congress and get my receipt, which immediately clears me of infringement charges with respet to LotR:RotK - I paid my compulsory license fee. This also creates kind of an "amnesty" program, if you will, for all those people who still have stuff they downloaded from Napster back in 2000, or whatever... pay your compulsory license fee, and you're good! You don't have to worry about being sued. The studio gets money. Everyone wins.

--The Sigil

 

[jgbrowning]

I will ignore your use of the loaded term "shark" to refer to a publisher of a PDF for a D&D game (because let's not forget -- that's what this thread is about), and simply ask this:

Why should only "the little guy" benefit from copyright law? Why shouldn't the big guy also benefit?

Both benefit with copyright law. The "big guy" first by having the ability to make profit enough to justify the creation in the first place, the "little guy" by having a greater availablity of products to chose from, and the "little guy" in that eventually the material will enter into public domain.

joe b.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Problem is, I have yet to see anyone of your general belief system propose an alternative that really made any sense. You can't just get rid of a system like copyright law and not replace it with something else.

"The Public As Patron" (e.g.: donations) has achieved some remarkable successes so far.

In this business model, you disseminate the work you do for free and build a consumer base for it. Through advertising, rumor, word of mouth, and quality product, you build a base that enjoys your product.

Then, after building a base, you discuss in realistic terms your situation: you do what you do for free, but you could do it a lot more if you were paid for it, if the community gave something back, if people, in effect, gave you money to continue producing your art/service

So you do donation drives. You collect money from those who already like your product in exchange for small gifts, and the promise of "more of what you already like and what you already like made better." Those unwilling to pay are not denied the main content, merely the bells and whistles. You utilize the income to produce more product. Repeat as nessecary to continue outputing quality, or until your popularity fades.

This has shown demonstrable success in the "new economy," and it's certainly only one of many possibilities (as shown by the above post that listed only a handful of potenital viable solutions).

What's to stop derivitive works and others profiting off of taking your ideas? Nothing. Nothing except the knowledge and fan base you have already secured, of course. The most powerful cultural force in the world is the rumor mill. By producing something and offering it for free, you get people hooked, and then you can continue to provide better and increased content as long as you are supported.

This eliminates the problems of "one rich guy," and also the difficulties regarding ownership and control of product identity. Your patron is the world, in a very democratic fashion -- if you like what they do, you can pay to have more of it, or not pay and have the same level (or potentially less). The risk is only in the rejection of work. You cannot expect to make money on art. You may, but one never creates art for the sake of selling it.

Donations sound silly and prone to the selfishness in humanity at first glance. But if you could have 5 more D&D books in a year than you do now, and those 5 books would be completely free and (why not?) OGL, would you give WotC $1.50? Would everyone from your gaming group? Your neighborhood? Your FLGS? Would you personally give your favorite d20 author $5 if it meant he would make more of what you love?

It has been proven to be effective. The only way to test it on a large scale is for some large-scale icon to give it a whirl. I haven't seen any that were particularly interested, have you?

 

[Spell]

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

i can't believe that anybody in his right mind would need britney spears's music.
after i saw her success, i changed my mind on marketing, and now i do believe that if you have a nice face and a lot of support, you could fart in your mike and everybody would buy your record.

go out in the street, stop the first 12 year old you find and ask him if he knows spandau ballet. chances are he will say: "spandau what? get lost!"
what about, say, donovan? what about billy haliday? charlie parker? robert johnson?

you see, the public is not buying the music. they are not stupid. they are buying the hype, the image of britney, the idea of being young and fresh and energetic, and a lot of other things, INCLUDING the music.

the inherent quality of a product comes out after some time, when all the social overstructures fall apart, and you get all the product itself. until then, the public buys so many things at once that the actual music is lost in the equation. it was britney spears because her label decided for her. if they had decided for going classical and put a mozart dance mix on top of the sales, with the right advertisment, they could have done it.

vilyfying the industry happens because there's a lot of resentment going on. the artist is seen as a monkey who has to jump when they say it. and the industry is seen as a bunch of evil money-grabbers who would put a knife in the heart of their mother, if they could gain a false penny out of it.

obviously, the truth is in the middle. some artists *are* monkeys. and some industry representatives *are* evil [insert swear of choice].
calling name doesn't help, i must admit. but when i see some lobbying and some laws enforced even where it would be illegal to enforce them, i can't help doing my share.