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

[Psionicist]

#3: Foster an environment where people face more risk than reward for e-thefts. For instance, if we implemented a USA federal system where you could turn in someone that was E-stealing copyrighted product off the internet and get a confidential reward, we might be able to nip this in the bud. Imagine what would happen if there was a minimum $3,000.00 fine for being caught comitting an e-theft (up to $25,000 for multiple offenses) (plus 1 week minimum community service), with 25% of the collected fine being given to the person turning in the thief. Heck, if that were available, I can imagine a nice niche cottage industry for being a narc ...

Do you by any chance work for the music industry? Just curious.

 

[Psionicist]

(snip)

So, what's your Slashdot UID?

 

[Desdichado]

Brent_Nall; I'm not familiar enough with the legal definitions of theft to understand if you've creatively written your own laws there for yourself or not, but the idea that all information should be available for free to everyone is ludicrous. Information is not public domain, and misuse of information in all kinds of situations is both legally and ethically wrong. Even if it's not technically theft, according to your same basic premise, insider trading, corporate espionage and blackmail are all just perfectly acceptable activities to engage in.

It's also economically incredibly naive. If you take away the artists' source of income, then you stop getting products to steal. Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating. Everybody loses. Dumb idea. Unless, of course, you're also advocating government subsidies of RPG authors and artists. But that's just as dumb an idea for completely different reasons.

I do agree that the cost of trying to control piracy is greater than the benefit that we'd get (as a society) from implementing such controls, but that's a far cry from flat-out advocating piracy as a completely normal and acceptible thing to do.

 

[The Shaman]

*snip*

Intellectual property is indeed property in the legal sense, and it is illegal to use it without obtaining the rights to it. Don't believe me? Write a story set in the Star Wars universe and offer it for sale over the Internet, then let me know how many billable hours your attorneys charge you for fending off Lucas' law firms.

 

[BryonD]

And arguing about the "incorrect" usage of theft when describing copyright infringement is a common tactic used by people who don't like being called thieves.

Their infringement of copyright takes money from the pockets of the copyright holders, which is almost tantamount to theft. But arguing semantics is a good way to make themselves feel better and avoid the issue at hand. Maybe its because copyright infringement isn't among the 10 Commandments and so isn't technically a sin?

I wonder if we'll see the other common justification of "I wasn't going to buy it anyway".

Edit: Not that I'm accusing you specifically of anything, Psionicist. I just thought that your post made a good jumping point for my own.

If you think it is just semantics then you don't understand the situation.
And falsely declaring the desire to correctly identify a problem as somehow justifying the problem is absurd.

If someone vandalized Phil's car, that would be a crime against him and he would fully deserve compensation. But it isn't theft. If some fool called it theft and you corrected them, you would not be justifying the vandalism.


I can't stand these cheap scum who do this crap. But calling one action another because it is easier to understand just muddies the water and runs counter to solving the real problem.
Anyone who illegally distributes copies should be forced to pay AT LEAST full value (and really more) for every single copy moved. The problem is getting enforcement to care and catching the true criminals.


On the DRM vs. watermark topic, if Drivethru says that sales are way up, then clearly there is more money going toward the pockets of the authors/owners. If you got crime either way, go with the way that gets the good guys paid the most. Maybe a better plan will come along in the future....

 

[Psionicist]

Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating.

Joshua, this is Linus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds Linus, get out of your sports car and say hello to Joshua. Some people make money from open source software. If anything, it's naive to claim the only way there will actually _be_ books/software/info is if someone gets paid to create it. How was the intellectual property laws when Shakespeare or Mozart did their thing? Did they suddenly stop creating because their work was copied and they were not paid royalties?

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

We must educate the public that information should be free to any and all people at anytime.

Why? Information has as much inherent value as anything else. Whether it's physicists unlocking the secrets of subatomic particles or some guy busting his ass at night working on an RPG, it takes work to craft 'information' from the 'hypothetical'.

 

[BryonD]

Brent_Nall; I'm not familiar enough with the legal definitions of theft to understand if you've creatively written your own laws there for yourself or not, but the idea that all information should be available for free to everyone is ludicrous. Information is not public domain, and misuse of information in all kinds of situations is both legally and ethically wrong.

I don't agree with his conclusions, but there are some fundamental truths there. I think you mis-step when you refer to public domain. In an absolute sense, there is no such thing as public domain or an absense thereof. It is an arbitary human invention as part of the arbitrary concept of intellectual property.

Even if it's not technically theft, according to your same basic premise, insider trading, corporate espionage and blackmail are all just perfectly acceptable activities to engage in.

Exactly.
In an absolutes only world:
if I now a business secret that will crush its stock and use your lack of knowledge to let you buy soon to be worthless stock, I've done nothing wrong.
if I get picture through your factory window and use that to profit off your innovation, to your expense, then I've done nothing wrong
if I find out about you dirty secrets and simply offer not to tell for a few bucks, then I've done nothing wrong.

But these are true only in a world of absolutes and a lack of reasoning, logic and complexity. In the full spectrum of reality, these things are clearly wrong. Just as infrigement is.

Theft is wrong in the absence of reason. A squirrel takes an acorn from another, the second squirrel loses something. No great cognitive thought required. Just a simple wrong.

If I read one of Phil's pdf's to you and you memorize it simply in the hearing, have you wronged Phil? We have replicated his information. Information itself, really is free by its own nature. It can be replicated perpetually for no cost. The concept of IP is an artificial construct of human thought. But it is a very good concept that addresses right and wrong in a way that simple absolutes can never achieve.

Blackmail is wrong. Infringement is wrong.
I think your reasoning started out a little wrong.
But your conclusions were exactly right.

 

[Shining Dragon]

If you think it is just semantics then you don't understand the situation.
And falsely declaring the desire to correctly identify a problem as somehow justifying the problem is absurd.

I think my post miscommunicated my intent.

I meant to say something along the lines of:

Arguing semantics and offering fallicious justifications all are used to distract from the argument at hand - that copyright infringement (if I may use the correct term) is illegal. Already this thread seems to be heading downhill, especially with Brent_Nall's post above (I see in it declarations that no property is being lost, that information should be free, piracy is not theft, something that is illegal can also be not wrong.... all the hallmark's of someone justifying to themselves their criminal behaviour - not that Brent_Nall is doing so himself, but he is using the same arguments of one who is).

Any thread that discusses piracy or copyright infringement always seems to spiral down this path (IMHO).

Copyright Laws exist to ensure the creator of the information makes a reasonable income from it. If they didn't exist then we wouldn't get such things as Firefly, Vampire: The Masquerade, Unisystem, etc.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

So, what's your Slashdot UID?

Sorry, dude, I don't have one.


In all honesty, I have never downloaded any music, software or written works illegally. The current deterrent system is enough to stop me. I have enough money to buy what I really want, and I won't risk my freedom or wealth to illegally acquire something I can buy. So, I guess I'm just a loud-mouthed advocate for a cause I won't directly support.

It's also economically incredibly naive. If you take away the artists' source of income, then you stop getting products to steal. Nobody much would make stuff if it was "pay if you want to" as you seem to be advocating. Everybody loses. Dumb idea.

Have you ever heard of open source software (one of many examples: http://sourceforge.net/)? Software developers regularly make pretty significant discoveries and advances in the realm of software development and publish those findings at no charge. Many of these developers accept donations for their projects, and some rare, talented individuals make a good living publishing, at no direct cost, open source software.

I think that any realm of information discovery/creation could flourish under such a system.

Intellectual property is indeed property in the legal sense, and it is illegal to use it without obtaining the rights to it. Don't believe me? Write a story set in the Star Wars universe and offer it for sale over the Internet, then let me know how many billable hours your attorneys charge you for fending off Lucas' law firms.

Hey, check this out: http://www.panicstruckpro.com/revelations/

It's a 45 min. movie set in the Star Wars universe that is available free of charge over the Internet.

I agree completely that if they attempted to sell this movie they would be in a fight with Lucas's lawyers. They would likely lose that fight. That still doesn't make them wrong. Just because an act is illegal doesn't mean that act is wrong.

Why? Information has as much inherent value as anything else. Whether it's physicists unlocking the secrets of subatomic particles or some guy busting his ass at night working on an RPG, it takes work to craft 'information' from the 'hypothetical'.

Information does not have an inherent value. Information is infinitely sharable at practically zero cost to anyone. If I acquire some information without paying for it I have in no way decreased your benefit if you acquired that same information via some effort on your part or by paying for it.

The effort that some person goes through to create or discover some information certainly has some value. I firmly believe that people that discover/create information can be fully compensated for their efforts even if the information they create/discover is made available at no direct cost. See above.