RPG Illegal File Sharing Hurts the Hobby

[TheYeti1775]

Most people are basically honest, and are more than willing to pay for quality and convenience. History and market research has shown us this time and again.

Yup I always use the same gas station, even though it is usually .02 higher than the one across the street. The people are friendly and it makes the difference, and I get all my car servicing handled their as well. I'm definitely willing to pay more for better quality and convenience.
Case example, I have my wife dropping off the Blazer to get the brakes done. They will drive her back to our house and come pick her up as part of their service. I'm sure it's in the cost somewhere, but you know what their price is close enough to other stations in the area ($10-20 within) that it is worth it to me.
The same case goes across other industries as well, a good experience will return a customer more often than not. Your average store, gets most of their advertising from word of mouth and they know it.

Yeti

 

[Odhanan]

For me, it's not a question of justification for file sharing or not.

File sharing of copyrighted material in the US is illegal. Period.

You don't like it? Vote for a guy who would change the law then, or better yet, run for Congress, or expatriate yourself in a country where this is legal. Until you do that, it is criminal under the rules of the US society. What's so hard to understand?

 

[Mallus]

What's so hard to understand?

Nothing. But it's not simply a question of file sharings legality. The real question is 'what do publishers do about it?'. And related questions like 'at what point do measures taken to combat file sharing become counterproductive and cost-ineffective?', and 'given that file sharing occurs --and enforcement of current copyright laws is difficult at best--, is there any way to use it to a publishers advantage?'.

Wishing that more people respected intellectual property rights doesn't accomplish anything.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Illegal smegal
How many of you bought a paper from a guy on the corner. How many of them do you suppose are 'real' paper guys?
How many of them put the quarter in the bin and grabbed them all?
How many times have you bought stolen property?
By that stand point many here of the so called would never steal printed work, just did.

I have no problem with them going after the providers. You get rid of the source you get rid of the problem. But using RIAA's method of attacking the 'downloader' has done nothing but hurt them in the long run. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a CD for myself. I know it was in the 90's. I got DMX channels for my music now.

But if someone gives you something, don't prosecute the receiver.

Yeti

 

[Bardsandsages]

Illegal smegal
How many of you bought a paper from a guy on the corner. How many of them do you suppose are 'real' paper guys?
How many of them put the quarter in the bin and grabbed them all?
How many times have you bought stolen property?
By that stand point many here of the so called would never steal printed work, just did.

I have no problem with them going after the providers. You get rid of the source you get rid of the problem. But using RIAA's method of attacking the 'downloader' has done nothing but hurt them in the long run. I honestly can't remember the last time I bought a CD for myself. I know it was in the 90's. I got DMX channels for my music now.

But if someone gives you something, don't prosecute the receiver.

Yeti

Faulty logic. A purchase made in good faith (i.e your paper salesman example) is not the same thing as deliberately going to a website, searching for copyrighted material, and downloading it. Now if you SAW the paper salesman steal the papers and then bought it anyway, you would have a valid analogy.

People are accountable for their own actions. To imply that people who make a conscious decision to download something that is protect by copyright should not be prosecuted, but instead the company that provides the technology should be, is the same as locking up the people who work in the Smith and Wesson factory whenever someone commits a crime with a gun. There are legitimate uses for file sharing technology, and just because someone makes a conscious choice to use the legitimate technology for an illegal activity doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it.

 

[TheYeti1775]

Not faulty logic

The law sees no difference in knowing it's 'stolen' or not knowing. So the logic isn't faulty.
The same principle applies to Pawn Shops as well.

And I'm not saying the Technology Provider either. I'm saying the provider/dealer/salesman, the one providing the material in question, should be the one prosecuted.

You walk down the street and someone hands you a mint condition 1e Dieties and Demigod and says nothing and runs off and your caught with it. Should you be prosecuted for it?

You google something like PHB, looking a review, instead find a download. How many of you wouldn't download it?

This arguement could run forever and a day, and will lead nowhere but further division in an industry that doesn't need it.
Somewhere there is a happy medium and no one has yet to find it.
As the prices go up, your downloading will go up. Simple fact of life in our world today, most do not care about morals.

Now for as far as not paying for intellectual items, I will submit another for you to mull over.
You borrow Races of Stone from someone, you use some feats and skills from it. Give it back to the original owner, but you continue to use the feats and skills in another game the original owner isn't in. Guess what you just stole intellectual property by many of the arguements that have appeared in this theard. No you didn't copy the whole book, by hand or electronically. But you did take from it what you needed, transferring by another media (this case your hand notes) and used it. Now you find the book online in someones unprotected server, you browse it take a couple of notes. Use it in a game same thing. You didn't 'download' it only looked at.

Next arguement you have the physical book, is it wrong to have a copy electronically too? if you didn't pay for the electronic one?

Now don't go getting all upset, I like a good devil's advocate role.

Yeti

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But if someone gives you something, don't prosecute the receiver.

The law sees no difference in knowing it's 'stolen' or not knowing.

Actually, the law DOES distinguish between knowingly or unknowingly obtaining stolen goods.

If you recieve the property unknowingly, you lose posession of the property, but do not get prosecuted.

If you recieved the property knowingly, you lose posession of the property, and get charged with "recieving stolen goods."

You walk down the street and someone hands you a mint condition 1e Dieties and Demigod and says nothing and runs off and your caught with it. Should you be prosecuted for it?

See above.

You google something like PHB, looking a review, instead find a download. How many of you wouldn't download it?

Me.

As the prices go up, your downloading will go up. Simple fact of life in our world today, most do not care about morals.

I'm a 0% downloader, and I care about morals. Call me an optimist, but I think most people do, and if they realized the fact that filesharing was illegal, they wouldn't do it.

Now for as far as not paying for intellectual items, I will submit another for you to mull over.
You borrow Races of Stone from someone, you use some feats and skills from it. Give it back to the original owner, but you continue to use the feats and skills in another game the original owner isn't in. Guess what you just stole intellectual property by many of the arguements that have appeared in this theard.

Fair use & fully contemplated by the game industry.

Next arguement you have the physical book, is it wrong to have a copy electronically too? if you didn't pay for the electronic one?

Not wrong if you paid for it.

The publisher set a price for the physical and electronic versions of the book. You don't get one bundled with the other unless it specifically says you do.

Among my other skills & talents, I design jewelry (semi-professionally). Some of my stuff has been on international display.

Someone who buys a piece of jewelry I design doesn't get the right to the sketches out of my sketch book or my CAD files unless I sell it to them seperately. If I find anyone trying to duplicate my jewelry without my permission, I sue them...and win.

 

[The Sigil]

For me, it's not a question of justification for file sharing or not.

File sharing of copyrighted material in the US is illegal. Period.

You don't like it? Vote for a guy who would change the law then, or better yet, run for Congress, or expatriate yourself in a country where this is legal. Until you do that, it is criminal under the rules of the US society. What's so hard to understand?

Bzzt! Wrong!

I have here a set of all the PDF works I have published. I own the copyright on them. It is legal for me to make them available via a filesharing network.

I have also a copy of the SRD, complete with OGL... and a copy of the latest Linux distro, complete with GPL. Because I have explicit permission from the copyright holders (through the licenses) to distribute them, it is legal for me to make them available via filesharing.

In both of these cases, I am file sharing copyrighted material in the US. And in both cases, it is 100% legal. Period.

The existence of filesharing itself is NOT the cause of the problem of copyright infringement, any more than the existence of cars is the cause of traffic law violations. To wit, filesharing is a tool (not the only one, think of "usenet" or "sneakernet") which allows human actors to violate laws, not the violator of laws itself.

I don't think the actual legality of sharing PDFs (without the permission of the copyright holder) on a filesharing network in the US has been questioned here, so I'm confused as to what point you're trying to make. There have been some arguments as to whether or not this is ETHICAL, but "ethical" and "legal" are not always the same (in US law alone, we can cite slavery, Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, women's suffrage, Persons with Disabilities Act, etc. etc. etc.).

Despite your flawed premise, you did make a good point at the end - if you don't like the law, the U.S. system gives you the opportunity to change it. So yes, if you're in the US, and you don't like it, start trying to take advantage of the system and get the change you're looking for.

--The Sigil

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

File sharing of copyrighted material in the US is illegal. Period.

To edit down what Sigil said, your statement should have read "Unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted material in the US is illegal."

 

[The Sigil]

To edit down what Sigil said, your statement should have read "Unauthorized file sharing of copyrighted material in the US is illegal."

Yes, that edit is helpful... I'm just trying to clear up the misconception that "P2P is illegal" or "filesharing is illegal." It should be "copyright infringement is illegal, and often P2P is the vehicle by which infringement is done."

There are some really great legitimate reasons for P2P and filesharing to exist (BitTorrent and making the distribution of Linux Distros easier on the bandwidth of the originator, for instance), and I want to make it clear that I understand that. I don't blame the tool, I blame the idiot using the tool the wrong way.

--The Sigil