RPG Illegal File Sharing Hurts the Hobby

[Dr. Harry]

I broke uyp the original flow of the narrative because I see this as a constructed chain of reasoning that I can agree with up to a point, and so I wanted to show what I agreed with -- and what I didn't

I have no obligation at all to buy a product from someone.

Even if I have access to the product and use it through that access, through a friend or a library for example, I still have no obligation to buy it.

I agree with the first sentence completely. I also agree with the second statement, though the use of a friend or library who has purchased the right to have a copy of the book does not extend to the book, however you can get ahold of it. I am not saying that this is necessarily your position, but I say this to clarify that there can be limitations on your ability to examine the book (or any other thing.)

With that in mind, it is clear that if I don't like the product or have no use for it, I have no obligation to buy it.

With that in mind, I have no obligaiton to buy something without first checking it out to see if I want to own it.

.

All well and good, but this does not translate to an obligation (just to be clear) on the part of the vendor to offer you the opportunity to check out the material as thoroughly as you might choose.

While it is phrased in the thread's bits of anecdotal evidence (and we all know how much that's worth) that the illegal downloading led to a sale, I do not feel that this incident justifies the use of p2p filesharing to distribute copyrighted material, nor do I feel that the oft-made claim of "really, most people buy them afterward" has been supported.

 

[Bagpuss]

No, I'm saying that because we percieve the value of fresh water as lower than it really is, we waste more of it than we would if we integrated all of the costs associated with obtaining fresh water into its price.

[tangent]And yet water companies seem to stay in business, and in fact often post huge profits. Guess they aren't giving the stuff away.[/tangent]

 

[Dr. Harry]

I would like to add the following:

The large companies don't care, at all, about copyright. They only care about themselves and their profits.

I think this is disturbing.

In general, I think that this is true, and disturbing, and yet not germane to the discussion of "Does illegal file sharing hurt the hobby?"

So, if Sony themselves don't respect copyright law, why should I respect theirs? In fact, why should I respect copyright law these guys have bought to make more money?

Because our shared system of law is not based upon "hits", where I get to do it as long as some other person did it first. The actions of Sony (and creditting your story as true, as I certainly find it believable) doesn't mean anything about whether or not it is right or moral to steal from Atlas, or WotC, or - for that matter - even Sony.

I would hate to see it if a large company did something like this and got away with it; I also regret that policing copyright and p2p servers for the small thefts is not cost effective.

Where I'm getting at is this: The really large companies have not only destroyed copyright law with lobbying, they have also completely destroyed (in my eyes) the opinions of those who create stuff, such as RPG books, and passionately belive in, and actually follow, copyright. I am probably not alone thinking this.

You are saying that the actions of Sony make the opinions of gaming publishers worthless? That the position of someone following the law is meaningless because someone else broke it at a different point? Law ain't virginity; it is not that the breaking of the law destroys it, but that the maintaining of the law upholds it. I certainly hope that you are alone in thinking this, but you probably aren't ...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

That's a good point - I have a particularly unpleasant reaction when people use the 'I can't afford it' argument for piracy. That's just me, my particular hot button. But...

The problem here is that the RPG publishing industry runs close to the wire - those unbought books now might have a more serious impact. Small businesses must follow positively insane practices when it comes to accounting, distributors are chancy at best (which is a whole 'nother problem)...those lost sales in the short term can hurt. It's mitigated a bit by buying later...but later isn't always better.

In either case, the book is bought when the money shows up. So that point makes no difference to the argument. Downloading now and buying later is functionally the same as buying later, so long as later is the same duration in both cases.

 

[Jim Hague]

In either case, the book is bought when the money shows up. So that point makes no difference to the argument. Downloading now and buying later is functionally the same as buying later, so long as later is the same duration in both cases.

Incorrect - whether it's the publisher or a brick and mortar store, time bought does factor in for things like profits, bills and taxes. So sitting there and waiting to buy because you've got a PDF does lead to immediate loss. Most publishers have very little in the way of a cushion, as evidenced by the appalling fallout from fulillment houses and distributors heading into the night in the past few years.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Leaving aside the concrete example of illegal downloads, on principle I disagree with this. Society may have a regulatory code of unacceptable behavior that is punishable by the government, but that's not a stance on what is ethically (or morally) right or wrong; it's just what society feels best serves itself so that it continues to function in a smooth, controlled, peaceful manner.

I've written papers (years ago) on how the ethical and moral spheres are inherently incommensurable. Part of the reason for it is the way that the legal sphere is inherently impersonal and impartial while the moral sphere is inherently personal and partial. It is usually the case that laws are derived either from a demonstrated practical basis or from a shared moral basis. But the act of codification creates a divide between the law and its moral ancestor, and they become discrete and unrelated afterward. Again, it's been years since I wrote on this, so pardon me if I can't reproduce the technical arguments supporting this.

Anyway, the law is not ethical. It is not an expression of shared ethics. It is a codified structure of behaviour that prohibits action, irrelevent of the moral quality of the action prohibited.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Dannyalcatraz
You mean that one is a physical good and one is a good that is either entirely electronic or exists simultaneously in a physical and a co-equal electronic state?

I don't see that as a flaw.

Then yolu are never going to really "get" the issue.

Yes, I do. I'm an entertainment lawyer. I deal with this issue daily.

Quote:

Theft is theft, regardless of the physical nature of the object stolen.

Yep. And Infringement is infringement. And infrigement is not theft.
Try taking someone who commits infringement to court using the laws against theft and see how far you get.

I have won copyright infringement cases. Nothing big like the ones that get all the press, but I have won.

Copyright infringement (in the form of unauthorized reproduction) is as much a subcategory of theft as embezzlement, shoplifting or larceny by trick. That it has its own section of law just highlights some of the unique problems it presents- you'll find in any criminal code that each form of theft has its own set of laws.

You won't find a state criminal code with CI laws because it is exclusively under Federal jurisdiction in this country, and in every other country, it is controlled at the national, not regional, level.

Intellectual Property, regardless of form, is property. And when you "file share," you're exercising unauthorized control over another person's property. That's black-letter-law theft.

Go take a look through 17 U.S.C.A. or check out the case law.

Your flawed bank robbing example relies on a lack of understanding of the abstract concept of currency.

I have an excellent understanding of the abstract concept of currency. Because of my undergraduate degree in economics, my law degree, and my M.B.A., I've had to take courses detailing the rise of monetary systems, including letters of credits, promissory notes, etc.- covering the history of money from the ancient world to modern day.

Your actual exampel of an ear of corn was more valid in substance. But by needs was abandoned by you because you can not defend it in valid terms.

If you can not see the difference between actually depriving a person of a finite item and replicating their IP, then you can never hope to really get the core issue.

No, I abandoned it because I read you right- you think that the difference in the form of the property (purely physical vs electronic) makes an ethical or legal difference. It doesn't.

That is why I also talked about photography of jewelry designs- the IP creator still has and can attempt to use the IP, but the thief has a copy with which he can interfere with the IP holder's use.

A hypo from another thread on this topic:

A blacksmith, after years of experimentation, devised a new method of working steel that resulted in a stronger steel. His competitor spied upon him, learning the technique. The Prince, hearing of the new steel, journeyed to find the source of the newly forged steel, in order to buy the secret of the technique for his army. He comes to a fork in the road, one path leading to the innovator, the other to the spy...

If the Prince goes one direction, the innovator will be rewarded for his efforts and investment of time, energy and money. If he goes the other, the spy will reap the benefits, and the innovator may even find himself barred from using the new technique without buying a license from the Prince.

Quote:
Apologies...that was meant to read "If I buy an option on a movie script and never intend to use it...


It makes no difference. If I buy the rights to the script from you, they belong to me. The full value of the product, including any potential future exposure for you, is covered in the purchase price that you voluntarily agree to.

Quote:
No, I'm saying that because we percieve the value of fresh water as lower than it really is, we waste more of it than we would if we integrated all of the costs associated with obtaining fresh water into its price.

While water covers 70% of the Earth's surface, only 3% of that water is fresh water, and only .03% of THAT is surface water. It has been estimated that 99.7% of all water in Earth's ecosystem is usable by humans for ingestion.(Water )

First, you did say that the value of water would be higher under your circumstances and you defgined those circumstances as being less wasteful. That is absurd.

Yes...If fresh water were accurately priced, it would be more expensive. If it is more expensive, it is less likely to be wasted. How is that absurd?

...how do you define the value of water as being different than the price? To the contrary of your premise, our technology allows us to produce great quantities of potable water at such minimal costs that people take it for granted. People value water at exactly what its current value is.

Actually, no. There's not much info on the web about it, but I did find this:
Water Use

Fresh Water has only recently (as in past 50 or so years) been understood as a finite resource, but its pricing is still little changed (relative to other consumer goods in the CGI) from the time when it was thought to be an effectively unlimited resource. Desalinization is expensive. Groundwater recovery is expensive.

And we still water our lawns in the deserts with the good stuff.

Price is one of those things that can be affected by non-market forces. Water is but one example. Diamonds are another. The world market for diamonds is grossly inflated because the main suppliers have controlled supply for decades. Prices of Sugar and Tobacco in the US are also artificially supported. The entire Brazillian automotive industy is propped up by government subsidies.

Only when tariffs and price supports are dropped will we actually see true market values.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

[tangent]And yet water companies seem to stay in business, and in fact often post huge profits. Guess they aren't giving the stuff away.[/tangent]

Energy companies stay in business and post huge profits too. There's also an energy shortage. The way people waste energy, you'd think they were made of money. Water's not that bad yet, but...I thought better of what I was about to say about Canada's fresh water reserves, considering the CoC.

Anyway, fresh water is more valuable than we are willing to admit. We waste it a lot. Like energy, if we didn't waste, but instead conserved it, it would lower prices and protect our resources.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Incorrect - whether it's the publisher or a brick and mortar store, time bought does factor in for things like profits, bills and taxes. So sitting there and waiting to buy because you've got a PDF does lead to immediate loss. Most publishers have very little in the way of a cushion, as evidenced by the appalling fallout from fulillment houses and distributors heading into the night in the past few years.

I think you missed the point. If you get paid on January 1st, and you download a PDF on December 1st, you have the PDF for a month, then you buy it January 1st. If you don't download a PDF on December 1st, you don't have the PDF for a month, then you buy it January 1st. In either case, you buy it January 1st. Downloading the PDF does not change when you buy it. The fact of downloading the PDF is irrelevent to the time at which the product is purchased. Therefore the time factor doesn't even enter into it, and your argument doesn't apply to this situation. Come hell or high water, that product isn't getting bought before January first, and so profits, bills, and taxes are unaffected by the PDF being downloaded or not being downloaded.

He's not waiting to buy because he has a PDF. He reads the PDF while he's waiting to buy.

 

[JohnNephew]

1) I wasn't claiming that he doesn't know his sales figures. Of course he does. What I was saying is that he has no more clue about the *reasons* for his lost sales than I do, or you do. Being an prg publishes does not give him magical knowledge about things like that (more's the pity .

I need to rearrange my schedule. I've apparently wasted a lot of time over the last fifteen years trying to understand why one product I publish sells better than another. Apparently it has not left me with any meaningful informational advantage over the average fan on the internet.