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

[nothing to see here]

True. But then those same suits are the ones who determine what is released, not the artists. The suits are the fuzzy-hatted pimps, arraging for the creators to whore themselves out to a ravenous public. The whores sell themselves, but the pimps determine what whores sell.

It's certainly a colorful metaphor. I'm not sure how apt it is. Any artist can release any song any time they want. Heck, several posters have already pointed out how easy it is to produce and release your own music with some good software and access to the internet.

Whether or not people listen to your song is another matter. The major labels are the ones that control distribution channels, and they are under no obligation to allow free unfettered useage without first looking for a return on investment.

So in short, today's artists have to often choose between their artistic independence, and their financial solvency...which, quite frankly is a dilemma that has faced artists for as long as we've had a word for art.

Does P2P filesharing challenge this model. Yes it does. Does it mitigate some of the more unjust feature of this model. Yes it does. Does P2P filesharing, in so doing, risk elminating the ability for the artist to make a living through their art altogether. Yes it does.

This debate essentially is one of risk replacement. And since nobody knows exactly what will happen to cultural, artistic or information products withoutsome means of copyright protection, it's a debate largely based on conjecture.

 

[Spell]

Well, isn't that the problem? People aren't buying the CDs, they're just downloading the songs from someone else who did.

http://www.slyck.com/news.php?story=870

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050727-5139.html

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20040329-3585.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/27/p2p_users_legal_downloads/

http://www.boycott-riaa.com/article/11542

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/03/29/uk_oz_album_sales_rise/

http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/papers/FileSharing_March2004.pdf#search='album%20sales%20increase%20despite%20p2p'
(just read the first sentence in the conclusion, if you can't be asked to read it all)


http://p2pnet.net/story/5681
...
oh, sorry, wrong link...

you want more? for every piece of paper you show me saying that people is not buying because of p2p, i can show you one that says the contrary. i suppose you think they are all corporate servants paid by the... uhm... p2p avengers?

 

[The Shaman]

So am I a truly creative person? I need a monetary incentive to be creative. I have other things I need to do with my time If I can't make money being creative. I need to eat and if being creative doesn't let me do that, I have to do something else.

Would you stop preparing gaming materials if you weren't getting paid for it? Would you no longer prepare adventures, or write house rules, or develop campaign settings, if there wasn't a paycheck waiting at the end of it?

Creative people don't always seek to make a living off their art. One can be an artist without being a full-time professional artist.

 

[jgbrowning]

Would you stop preparing gaming materials if you weren't getting paid for it? Would you no longer prepare adventures, or write house rules, or develop campaign settings, if there wasn't a paycheck waiting at the end of it?

Creative people don't always seek to make a living off their art. One can be an artist without being a full-time professional artist.

I certainly wouldn't produce any material that would have value to anyone else. My crib notes and campaing ideas are nothing anyone would pay for although I have a lot of fun with them. People pay me because I do the work for them. And it is work, but it's also creative and I wouldn't want to do anything else. I just don't like the general idea that compensation is inversely proportional to artistic value.

joe b.

 

[The Shaman]

I just don't like the general idea that compensation is inversely proportional to artistic value.

Neither do I, nor is that what I said. What I said is that the creative spark exists whether compensation is attached or not.

 

[stevelabny]

Lbraries have been around for a very long time, letting people read books for free and decide if they want to buy it. And for many people, a book is something you read once, and not again, as opposed to a movie, or a game or other forms of entertainment.

Video rental stores provided the same thing for movies, except that now the consumers have to play a smaller price, but the "movie industry" is still only getting one sale per store.

Netflix is now a dvd-rental place for the entire country, where anyone can spend 10-20 dollars per month to try as many movies as they can squeeze into the time frame.

The radio has always let me sample music for free, the only problem being for the past 20 years, its been sucky awful music only.

People always share what they like with their friends. My Harry Potter books? Get lent out to 5 or 6 people at least. All my players in my d&d group have a PHB, but I'm the only one with other books. Any movie, tv show, or video game I purchase/rent? Being played by multiple people.

So for just about all forms of entertainment, there has always been a way to wait a bit and acquire it for free or a much cheaper price.

Does the internet make it even easier to get cool stuff? Yes.
Is there a viable argument that internet piracy helps more than it hurts? Yes.

So all those who have been pirated need to either accept it, or find a better business model.

I've worked for small business owners who used to rant about shoplifting, but they steal cable tv. Some people will say that pirating from big companies is ok, but that you shouldnt do it from little guys. Yay dependent morality.

Almost everyone has a scam, cheating on their taxes, stealing cable, making interesting calculations to be eligible for low-income housing or scholarships. Society has become nothing but finding the better scam. Sad? maybe. But such is life.

Its more productive to deal with the reality than lash out at the perceived "criminals".
Almost everyone is a criminal in some way. And the ones who arent criminals? Probably have jobs that only exist because people have turned the laws themselves into scans to beenfit them.

 

[jgbrowning]

Neither do I, nor is that what I said. What I said is that the creative spark exists whether compensation is attached or not.

Creative people, truly creative people, don't need a monetary incentive to be creative.

I was just stating that I need a monetery incentive to be creative. Following your logic that means that I'm not truly creative. I'm not sure what the difference between creative and truly creative is, if it isn't based upon money under this paradigm.

To me the full-time creatives can be creative because they have the money to support their creativity. So I tend to think the really creative people (the ones that are best at their art/craft) are the ones who require/expect compensation for their effort.

joe b.

 

[The Shaman]

I was just stating that I need a monetery incentive to be creative. Following your logic that means that I'm not truly creative. I'm not sure what the difference between creative and truly creative is, if it isn't based upon money under this paradigm.

To me the full-time creatives can be creative because they have the money to support their creativity. So I tend to think the really creative people (the ones that are best at their art/craft) are the ones who require/expect compensation for their effort.

Wow, you are reading way, WAY too much into what I wrote. Back away from the computer for a moment and take a look outside the walls of the tunnel.

First, "Creative, truly creative" was just hyperbole - I'm not attempting to create a typology of creativity here.

Second, you clearly have a different idea of what "creativity" means than I do. To put it into context here, the gamer who puts up a website for a homebrew setting available to anyone who wants to use it is exercising the same sort of creativity as the game writer who publishes pieces in the rags, some .pdfs, and maybe gets a couple of freelance jobs working for one of the bigger companies in this particular cottage industry. The fact that one is compensated and one is not has no bearing on the term creative as I was using it - it speaks to the act of creation itself. As I'm using it here, people create because they enjoy it, whether compensation is attached or not - if I go to the coffee house to play guitar on open-mike night, it's because I enjoy performing, not because of the free lattes.

Third, using the same example, it may be that the homebrew setting is in fact better than what the professional writer is turning out - I've certainly seen stuff on the 'net that is better than stuff on the game store shelf. Compensation is no sure means of determining the quality of a product.

Fourth and last, that said, it certainly follows that someone who commits to being a full-time artist is likely to be better at their craft than someone who does it part-time or as a hobby - there is a level of expertise that follows honing one's craft through dilligence and repetition. This is one of the benefits of creative people making a living at their craft - they tend to get really good at it.

 

[jgbrowning]

Wow, you are reading way, WAY too much into what I wrote. Back away from the computer for a moment and take a look outside the walls of the tunnel.

But there's a Troll in that Tunnel. Or is that vice versa?

First, "Creative, truly creative" was just hyperbole - I'm not attempting to create a typology of creativity here.

Ok. I missed that.

Second, you clearly have a different idea of what "creativity" means than I do. To put it into context here, the gamer who puts up a website for a homebrew setting available to anyone who wants to use it is exercising the same sort of creativity as the game writer who publishes pieces in the rags, some .pdfs, and maybe gets a couple of freelance jobs working for one of the bigger companies in this particular cottage industry. The fact that one is compensated and one is not has no bearing on the term creative as I was using it - it speaks to the act of creation itself. As I'm using it here, people create because they enjoy it, whether compensation is attached or not - if I go to the coffee house to play guitar on open-mike night, it's because I enjoy performing, not because of the free lattes.

Ok. To be honest I have a harsher definition of creative than that. That's what lead to my confusion.

Third, using the same example, it may be that the homebrew setting is in fact better than what the professional writer is turning out - I've certainly seen stuff on the 'net that is better than stuff on the game store shelf. Compensation is no sure means of determining the quality of a product.

Agree. Compensation is not quantifiable measure of quality (quality of course being very subjective), but I do think that compensation is integal to the creation process enough to not be dismissed as unimportant.

Fourth and last, that said, it certainly follows that someone who commits to being a full-time artist is likely to be better at their craft than someone who does it part-time or as a hobby - there is a level of expertise that follows honing one's craft through dilligence and repetition. This is one of the benefits of creative people making a living at their craft - they tend to get really good at it.

Yeah. For the record I don't think I'm an artist, nor do I think I'm truly creative. I'm just a guy with some ideas and persistance. So you could have just told me that you didn't think I was truly creative and it would have been ok.

joe b.

 

[The Shaman]

Yeah. For the record I don't think I'm an artist, nor do I think I'm truly creative. I'm just a guy with some ideas and persistance. So you could have just told me that you didn't think I was truly creative and it would have been ok.

Not a chance - I think too highly of your truly creative* products!

*Whether you choose to call them that or not!