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

[Lonely Tylenol]

Are you serious?

I would send someone back in time with a mission to make sure that abomination was never made so that I would not have wasted my time on it. I didn't even pay to see it, I saw it on TV and I regret doing so.

Once you see Titanic...YOU CAN'T UNSEE IT!

 

[nothing to see here]

One word: antitrust

I'm a big supporter of strict antitrust laws. That still doesn't change the fact that prior to monopolistic conditions the consumer is best served by competition, and competition requires beusinesses to occasionally engage in ruthless (some would say dishonourable) practices.

 

[Iku Rex]

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.

Wonderful news!

Does anyone have a P2P link for the PDF that started this debate?

Since "the exclusive right to make copies" have now been take away from Eden Studios (see quote above) it can't possibly be illegal for anyone to upload it. Right?

(Of course, lawyers, lawemakers, judges and the sort seem to think that "the exclusive right to make copies" reamains firmly in your "possesion" regardless of how many illegal copies are made, but I'm sure Storm Raven wouldn't make bold claims if he didn't know what he was talking about.)

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That just serves to ensure competition. How is that a better market model than a competitive one?

If you'd read the post I was responding to, you'd see that the complaint I was responding to was that if the large media publishing companies suddenly disappeared, that the resulting mass of smaller companies, while producing more competitive environment, would eventually swallow each other up and become a tiny number of huge companies again. Decent antitrust legislation would prevent that cycle and ensure that, rather than having a market driven by the ability of a set of large companies to push their material, the market would be driven by the competitive value of the material being produced.

As you've said, Britney Spears' music isn't going to be worth anything 15 years from now. Therefore, it must be fashionable garbage. Why do people listen to it? I'll wager it's not because they actually care about how the music sounds. Rather there is a huge marketing machine that is presenting them with a constant barrage of her and her music, so they come to associate it with normal life. As long as the music is artistically inobtrusive, vaguely danceable, and involves a certain amount of prurient content, it can be pushed in this way because most people simply do not care what music they listen to, except that it must be perceived by them as cool and popular.

I claim that people do not listen to Britney Spears because they think she makes good music. Rather, they listen to her because a careful plan has been executed to make her become a part of the social world of the people who listen to her. They come to associate this music with their lifestyles, and feel the need to continue to listen or else feel disconnected from their lives. This is a planned effect.

I suspect that in the absence of very large publishing companies, this type of music will continue to exist. However, there will be more room in the market for other, different producers of music. Music that might be worth something 15, 50, or 200 years from now. Actually, I know that this music is being made. However, it's not being widely consumed because the large companies want to push media that's been calculated to sell to the least common denominator like Ms. Spears, so they marginalize pretty much anything else. In the absence of this effect, something closer to equal time could be given to more sources of media.

Actually, I disagree with Kamikaze Midget. I think that things like satellite music channels and internet streaming will eventually provide a similar effect by providing competition vectors for smaller producers. Currently, I haven't been able to find many satellite radio channels worth listening to (and it's been some time since I last checked), but considering how many there are and how many keep popping up, I expect it's just a matter of time before they start putting better stuff on more channels.

But this is getting really off-topic, so I'm going to let it rest at that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I'm a big supporter of strict antitrust laws. That still doesn't change the fact that prior to monopolistic conditions the consumer is best served by competition, and competition requires beusinesses to occasionally engage in ruthless (some would say dishonourable) practices.

Towards each other, yes. This is a flaw inherent in capitalism, that the competitor who can undercut his competition using rotten practice will do better than the just competitor. But I think that quite a few people, including some of the ones posting here, perceive a (unnecessarily) dishonourable attitude toward both the public and the artists.

 

[Desdichado]

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.

I don't disagree, but I think cries for change need to be immediately followed up with workable solutions. That's as much why nothing has changed as any other reason; no reasonable alternatives have been proposed.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

Ah, well I obviously only made up that last one, but I hereby grant you license to do whatever the hell you like with it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I wonder whether it might be instructive to consider the software industry rather than the music industry as a point of comparison. Speaking purely as an amateur here, IIRC the idea of software licensing was introduced as a sort of legal counter to the ease with which software could be copied and redistributed. There are varying kinds of software license but (again IIRC) the basic point of most of the commercial ones is that you purchase the right to use the software, rather than purchase the software. This gives them (technically) the right to revoke the license if you breach their conditions - which includes not making copies.

I wonder if RPGs might move in this direction? Where you don't purchase the PDF, you purchase the license to use a PDF (simplistically speaking). This wouldn't affect peoples ability to make illegal copies, but would perhaps put the licencees on a stronger legal footing?

I dunno, but it seems that the software industry is potentially a better point of comparison than the music industry.

Cheers

 

[just__al]

Flame away but....

When ever possible I download everything I am going to purchase before I buy it. If I decided I want the product, I buy it, otherwise I delete the PDF and save the bookstore the hassle of a returned product.

Had I not done this I probably wouldn't own DMG II, Frostburn or the Ebberon Campaign sourcebook.

That all being said, these books only leave my shelf during game day and the rest of time I do my planning using the PDF's as I have limited space.

I'm actually buying products I probably wouldn't have bought BECAUSE they were pirated and I got a chance to look at them first.

But YMMV

 

[philreed]

Flame away but....

When ever possible I download everything I am going to purchase before I buy it. If I decided I want the product, I buy it, otherwise I delete the PDF and save the bookstore the hassle of a returned product.

Would you steal a meal from a restaurant before deciding if you want to eat there.

Remember, the internet is not a lending library.