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

[wingsandsword]

Second to that copyright should last limited and reasonable time (10-20 years) only and not 70 years after the death of creator. Or is it already 90 because of Disney?

Copyright originally lasted 28 years (a bit of inherited English law from the Statute of Anne, the 1709 act of Parliament that created the legal concept of Copyright). That's it 28 years. It was extended by the Berne Convention of 1886, the first international copyright treaty, to the life of the Author plus 50 years (although the US didn't become a part of the treaty until 1989, it had it's own separate rules). The Mickey Mouse Protection Act Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act increased it to Life of the Author plus 70 years, and 95 years for "works for hire" (i.e. corporate creations). Of course, it was passed after Mr. Bono's death and his widow and successor was famously quoted as saying they wanted perpetual copyright, but their aides said that it was explicitly unconstitutional as the Constitution explicitly states that copyrights shall be of limited duration, so they are trying for "forever less one day".

 

[The Sigil]

You forgot the absolutists.

"There is no grey area!"
"Practical solutions miss the point!"
"You just don't get it, do you?"
"If you disagree with me, you're not just wrong, you're violating universal principles of righteousness!"

Only a Sith deals in absolutes!

--The Sigil

 

[Spell]

You forgot the absolutists.
[...]
"You just don't get it, do you?"
"If you disagree with me, you're not just wrong, you're violating universal principles of
righteousness!"

i think i'm gonna have a t-shirt with these two last quotes, if i graciously get the permission from the copyright holders...

 

[Spell]

I have a hunch that the common people from the renaissance would probably have been interested in the renaissance version of Britney Spears if such a thing were available.

i have a hunch that what the public buys is not just the actual product...
for example, i would buy a new edition of the OD&D rules, despite the fact that i do agree that, generally, the system was way less efficient than the d20 one. but i wouldn't buy just a system. i would buy a dive in my past, a rule light system that i can change in a second or so without much problem, the ability to immediately use ALL the past products i have with no conversion work whatsoever...
if it hasn't be deleted, i talked about britney and her buying public in one of my previous posts...

i'm saying this because, in my view, saying that the common people's taste is crap, is like saying that they have no taste at all... which is obviously not true. after all, in the 2000-2003, when britney and her clone were the rage of the music industry, said industry had a serious drop of sales... but, naturally, that was because of the big bad pirate cartel...

 

[Jacen]

First let me said I an old gamer who is passed the age where stealing gum from the local stop and rob gives me a thrill.

I have never stolen anything from a shop. Never vandalized a car, never taken car to my use without permission. It is interesting there are no more car theft in Finland. Translated it is something like unauthorized usage of car. So calling one car thief is somekind offence. (As I see this started when some kids of rich and influencial ppl started to steal... eh borrow cars for their fun rides and burned them afterwards - and got caught) Anyway...

….That said, it's wrong. Copyright infringement is as wrong as theft, but they are not the same thing. Thanks….

Well here in Finalnd we pay levy (some kind of tax if I understood the word correctly) from empty recordable CD, DVD, cassette, blanck copymachine paper and copymachines etc. Even hard disk based VCR has it. And this to compensate the losses made to artists and industry by making private copies. Copies of disk I own and I am not going to buy second one. Copies made from CDs borrowed from library. Copies made to close friends. Burning photots taken by me to CD or DVD. Making DVD back-up from hard disk drive. copying CD for car use etc. I think you get the picture. Because of this it is not ilegal to copy and D/L material for personal use. Because it is even paid I don't see that even as wrong to do.

Gee some of people here know thieves who watch movies downloaded illegally from net.

Almost told that I am one of those, but I am not. I just watch movie downloded legaly from net. I do download then and watch them and I am doing nothin ilegal or even immoral because I am paying that with every empty recording media and quite a few hardware bought. And not to forgot that over 300 bought DVD. Legaly bought from stores here at Finland or trusted web shops (amazon and alike). All should be original and legaly produced. NO illegal copies bought.

And if thieves like what they see after watching the movie fully, then the thieves may go buy it. Kind like sneaking into a theatre thru the exit door at the multiplex.

Bought tens of movie after seeing that from computer. Never sneaked to theatre. Always paid for that. Well to be honest lately I haven't been seing that many moveis at theatre. Just don't want to pay about 12 dollars for seing a movie I know almost nothing about and being to forced to watch 15-20 mins of comercials even before movie starts. That sucks BIG time. Well be there no new movies wouldn't be so big loss. Watching movies and playing RPSs is something like to do but can do witout them too. And easily too...

So acording to many people here I am a thief and criminal when acordin to local laws I am not. Guess who I am going to trust and listen.

 

[The Sigil]

The problem is that your proposals would likely worsen the problems you seem concerned with, not help them.

1 - Shortening copyright

This helps the "big guy" a lot, and hurts the "little guy". The "big guy" can afford to churn out cheap, disposable stuff. Britney Spears is a classic example of this. Her music won't be worth anything fifteen years from now. The only people you hurt with this rule are those who create enduring, valuable material. Shouldn't the law encourage that sort of thing?

Ah, but the point of copyright is not to enrich the creator, but to enrich the public. As it is set up now, the creator gets 99.99% of the benefit. I don't think that's equitable.

I may agree with you that Britney Spears' stuff will be worthless in 15 years. If so, why are we giving record labels the ability to sit on it for another 80 years after that?

I saw a post on slashdot - wish I could re-dig it up - that demonstrated that if you assume the commercial value of owning something is proportional to the length of time which you own it (or some such thing - it was an exponential function) that copyright length breaks down the "value" something like the following (I'm going from memory, maybe someone else can google-fu the original?):

10 year term gives about 50% of the Value to the creator and 50% to the public.
20 year term gives about 80% to the creator and 20% to the public
30 year term gives about 95% of the value to the creator and 5% to the public
40 year term gives 99% of the value to the creator and 1% to the publc
anything above 50 years gives a number indistinguishable from zero value to the public.

I don't presume to know whether the sweet spot is 50/50 or 80/20, or 95/5, but given that copyright is intended to enrich the public, I know for certain that giving the public something of near-zero value is not following that intent; thus copyright in its current form is too long.

I'm not saying I have all the answers. I am saying the pendulum is currently way way way way WAAAAAAAYYY to far in favor of copyright holders, and continuing to swing even farther in their favor, and that's not socially equitable.

2 - Restrict ownership to natural persons.

Except you have now made copyright a lot less valuable for the actual authors of a work. One of the big money making avenues of individual authors is the ability to sell their work to a corporation that can market the work. restricting the ability to sell works of authorship makes them inherently less valuable to the creator.

Not at all. You retain the ability to license a single company to reproduce the work (as with patents; IIRC, patents cannot be held by corporations, but rather only by natural persons, who are allowed to designate/assign one company as the one that can use the parent - see Richard Garfield holding the "Magic: The Gathering" cardplay patent and assigning its use to WotC). It works just fine for patents. Why not for copyright?

(Besides, keeping copyright out of the hands of corporate interests has the desirable side effect, IMO, of keeping an artist from "losing control of his work" - to use the example at hand, Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson have for all intents and purposes lost control of their creative work in D&D - in both cases against their will. Is that "fair" to them?)

3 - Central Copyright Registry

This just helps the "big guy". Who do you think will win the race to the courthouse? Its usually the guy with more resources.

I have a hard time buying this one. All I have to do, in theory, when I write my magnum opus, is slap it in an email and shoot it to the US Gov't. It's nearly impossible for a corporation to get their hands on it fast enough to stop that. Unless and until "big corporations" are spying on every writer, musician, and artist everywhere they go, the copyright creator has the natural advantage of speed and secrecy on his side.

I think this was a concern before; with the advent of the internet, not so much - the time it takes to transmit my stuff to Company A and then for Company A to change the copyright notice and transmit it to the Gov't is less time than it takes to transmit my stuff to the Gov't (since I would assume that from the same point, it will take the same amount of time to transmit to either destination).

Of course, I've also got Tom Lehrer's "Nikolai Ivanovich Lobachevsky" in my head now thanks to you, so maybe not. But I would suggest that if I show you my six months' worth of drafts, and "big guy" can only show the finished product that "miraculously" arrived at the courthouse five minutes before mine did, it's pretty clear who did the work.

4 - Compulsory licensing for all types of copyrighted material

Unfortunately unworkable. The compulsory license system for music only works because it applies to very public activity relating to the work, and hence, is self-policing. Private use of a similar system would be impossible to regulate with any kind of success.

I'm not so sure about that one. Since everyone seems to be headed down the "DRM built into your hardware" path, why can't we just build "compulsory licensing" in on top of this? Is not one essentially as easy to execute (in theory) as the other?

Alternatively, as I mentioned before, you simply use a "blank media levy." Not as fair as compulsory licensing, because the pie probably isn't sliced in the same proportions it's used, but essentially the same.

As to voluntary complaince... I think if the price is right (low), people will be willing to pay for legal stuff. Look at iTunes, for instance. Or Yahoo recently introduced a $5/month "all you can eat" music service (streaming, not downloading). I for one am looking hard at that as an easy way to make sure my kids can listen to just about whatever tickles their fancy without exposing myself to legal liability (I know, the selection is limited, etc., etc., but hopefully you see where I'm going with this). I have all the CDs I'll ever want and the money to get anything new that tickles my fancy - but they, I'm sure, will have much different tastes than me... and more voracious appetites than I do.

I see it as a $5/month insurance policy against being sued for people I'm responsible for grabbing copyrighted music on a machine I'm responsible for (if my kids want music, they can just get it legally off this service rather than illegally somewhere else). To me - and a lot of other people, I'm sure - that's a pretty good tradeoff.

--The Sigil

 

[Spell]

That's exactly correct. People are willing to pay extra for companies that give extra.

since you of course are so insightful, i will admit i need a lecture. could you please point me to one example in which the same game was given in a graphic heavy option for a price and in a crappy graphic version for a reduced amount?

Nobody would ever risk spending the amount of money it takes to make a computer game

can you point me to the exact point in which i made any statement even vaguely resembling what you are putting in my mounth?

more importantly, would my... what was it?... oh, yeah, "irrelevant" economic system mean that nobody would spend ANY money or ANY time on any computer game that could be enjoyed on a different level, despite the crappy graphic or the lousy routine?
the answer is no. check this out: http://normandcompany.com/STICKMAN/
it's free. the graphic hurts my eyes. i turn down the music. but, heck, they're fun. and free. made in the author's spare time, i suppose.

Today's market, while not always guaranteeing it, does allow that to happen. Yours doesn't.

and where did i advocated that? in fact, i did say that in my "irrelevant" (sorry for using your words again, but you really enlightened me) market, you would have more amateurish products.

YOUR point was that there would be NO product whatsoever. i was simply challenging that, regardless the value of said products.

to quote you again: "you don't get it, do you?"

How about Titanic, Lord of the Rings or Blade? Come back when you have an argument.

the first one blew so hard that for a moment i thought there was a tornado in the cinema. i could live very well without the second (despite being very very close to the book, i still like books better than their cinematic versions), and the third.
just my two pences. oh, an my argument, which you are ignoring to bring your crusade on, is that we would have some kind of film output if the budget would be 1000$. in fact, we are already have that kind of films. you say they suck? 99% of them probably do, but i do enjoy the odd one.

Money, money, money, money. Is that all you care about? How much it costs you? You're not willing to spend five extra bucks at the theatre?

are you pulling my legs? so, let me get this straight: you ignore what i'm saying to push in my eyes the fact that if you don't spend millions you have no games, or films, or music that could be enjoyable for ANYBODY on earth, and i should reply talking about the weather?

So basically, not only do you hate corporations

i never said i hate corporations. what i did imply with some of my previous posts (even if, to be honest, i didn't say that explicitly, too) is that i hate draconian laws passed by any government because of the brib... no, wait... bullyin... no, what's the word? oh, yeah, lobbing of some big corporations.
the moment those laws are passed, the big corporations become no better than the worse pirate on internet (or on sea).

but you hate people who go to movies, and what to remove many elements that we find enjoyable.

damn! my secret plot for the downfall of humanity has been discovered! it's time for me to show my true identity!
i'm CECIL B. DEMENTED, and i am a free niche cinema avenger!!!
(and before you say even ONE word, yes, i am well aware that that film did cost more than 1000$, and that it probably came froma major film studio... but, wait, should i deny it just because i obviously have some kind of political agenda?)

History has shown that ruthless corporations are the ones that succeed. What you advocate goes contrary to sound, economic sense.

so, if you believe that, in order to succeed, you have to be ruthless and be able to bend the laws, how can you, in good faith, say even a word against piracy and pitares? after all, they are ruthless trying to have more for less (or for nothing). following your logic, that is the only way to succeed.
following your logic, and your "sound, economic sense", you should be downloading hard... or be a loser!

personally, i still have so see one argument against the possibility of heathly (maybe not huge, but still healthy) and more moral business. in fact, the very presence of people like phil reed, monte cook, steve jacksons and other in the RPG market goes against your view of ruthless draconian economies and foster my belief in my "irrelevant" economic beliefs. unless you think that monte cook has 53 roll royces and 3 buildings in beverly hills, that is.

 

[Jacen]

personally, on a slightly different topic, i see downloaded copies of my music on p2p as free advertisement.
call me a stupid, but i really believe that those who like a product will buy it, even when they have the illegal copy.

Call me stupid, but I have bought almost whole production from couple of bands after hearing them from D/L mp3s. You know that sometimes it is almost pain in the a** trying to find some older CD that was produced in small quantaties.

But lately the amount of CDs bought by me has degreesed in great amounts. Just want to buy a CD not some palstic disk that doesn't fit the standards of CD and don't know how long they will work in payers. Or disks (wannabe CDs) that installs some unwanted software that can mess up the computer so that reinstall is needed.

Copyprotected discs sucks and I am voting with my wallet. Too bad that one of the bands I like started to use them. Haven't bought any of their CDs after that (but own an self made CD version of their plastic wannabe CD). And levy was paid from empty media -> not even an illegal copy.

 

[Spell]

Why the pro-lawbreaking side of the argument needs to resort to miquotation like this is beyond me.

you see, i see a number of problems with that statement.
1. last time i checked, i didn't see anybody trying on these boards to say that breaking the law was acceptable or desiderable.
2. last time i checked, the other side was ignoring the point of other people's posts just as well... the fact that Falkus did ignore my point makes you guilty in what way?

as far as i can see, there is no "side", just people debating on a subject. in the 300+ posts f this thread i have seen some very good point advocating a new type of market, very good points about the way copyright has been exploited to do things that were not in the spirit of the law, as well as very good point the demise of piracy. i have also seen some poorly made points, used to foster this or that argument.
i might have not "changed side", but the discussion has stimulated me to think on the subject.

i still see no side, no "pro piracy" cartel, and no "kill the pirate" cartel as well. do you?

 

[Spell]

Do you really think that if music were reduced to a partronage system the music you like would be supported? I doubt it.

there would be as well. there's always a good amount of in the output. it's congenital.

Besides, why does it bother you this much that people buy music you personally dislike?

in fact, i bother that much that people is buying any other music that is not recorded/ produced/ written by me...
that doesn't mean that, as soon as i will get lucky i will go out of my way to outlaw britney, or any other artist. i believe that the public is intelligent enough to make their choices and buy what they want. i just think there was not enough choice (i changed my mind fairly recently, with the coming out of dozens of new bands and acts that are not so stereotyped.)

besides, if you know anything about music (in fact, if you have earing at all!) you know that britney is not there becasue she can sing (or play or compose).