The guy who leaked the Core Books was a:

[rgard]

snip

The reason it is wrong to call people thieves who have downloaded illegal copies (which is at least what I meant in my earlier post) is simply because they have not stolen anything. Stealing means taking something away from somebody, not copying their thing without permission.

'Thieves' and 'Stealing' may be inaccurate legal terms for this, but it is illegal. That you can't dispute as there are laws against this.

The individual who did this has committed a crime and those who downloaded it have committed a crime too (in most jurisdictions.)

The 'Douche bag' label is too nice. People's livelihoods are dependant on this release being successful. There are people who will or have downloaded this, declare victory, play the game using the pdfs and never purchase the books. It's just wrong on so many levels beyond it being illegal.

And this is from somebody who is sticking with 3.5 for the next few years and may never play 4.0.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Family]

<---that.

 

[Nifft]

People's livelihoods are dependant on this release being successful. There are people who will or have downloaded this, declare victory, play the game using the pdfs and never purchase the books.

So the question becomes: of those people who downloaded and did not buy, how many would have bought if the PDFs were unavailable?

From the recent Amazon sales results, the number of 4e copies sold jumped in the days following the PDFs.

As I said earlier in this (or another very, very similar) thread, I doubt we'll ever get data on the actual monetary harm done by unauthorized copying & distribution. It's one of the few things that make big corporations behave as though they were hurt emotionally.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Trickstergod]

Neither. Just some guy, you know?

Seeing as how I preordered yesterday based on flipping through the PDF, though, it hardly strikes me as the worst thing in the world that this was leaked.

And, yeah. I probably would have bought the book at a later date, either from browsing at a store or seeing a PDF after the release date or reading through someone else's copy. Sure. But if the move didn't screw the company over - as in, ruin the number of sales they'll make - I could care less about it getting leaked. It doesn't harm me personally and likely hasn't hurt Wizards of the Coast. So I'm not exactly going to get worked up over it.

 

[rgard]

So the question becomes: of those people who downloaded and did not buy, how many would have bought if the PDFs were unavailable?

From the recent Amazon sales results, the number of 4e copies sold jumped in the days following the PDFs.

As I said earlier in this (or another very, very similar) thread, I doubt we'll ever get data on the actual monetary harm done by unauthorized copying & distribution. It's one of the few things that make big corporations behave as though they were hurt emotionally.

Cheers, -- N

Hi Nifft.

Beyond it being illegal...

Yes, we won't know the actual monetary damage, but why take the chance of hurting the industry?

'Big corporations' employ people like you and me. I have no idea what WotC's measurement in sales is for success with this release, but what if the theft results in less sales that necessitates laying off people who work there?

Those people have rent or mortgages to pay, kids to feed, college debt to pay off, car payments to make and the list goes on.

I honestly don't think we can put stock in the theory that the pdfs generated any additional sales. I know too many people walking around with ipods stuffed full of illegally downloaded songs who have no intention of ever purchasing the songs.

I personally (not saying you would, Nifft, as all your posts convince me you are a good person) will never download something illegally. When I had my gaming store, pdfs of material not available normally via pdf (Games Workshop rule books comes to mind) were banned at the gaming tables. I know for a fact I lost some customers due to that rule, but my conscience is clear on that issue.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[glass]

Get over it. It's not a big deal.

Indeed it is not in the grand scheme of things. That doesn't make it right, however.

I voted 'douchebag', although it's not a word I would be likely to use (being as I speak English )


glass.

 

[glass]

It really doesn't matter whether releasing the files will actually improve Wizards' sales - that was Wizards' call to make, not the thief's.

This. Exactly this.


glass.

 

[glass]

And please stop referring to it as theft and the person as a thief. It has nothing to do with theft. You might as well call him (or her) as terrorist or a pedophile. Even if you disapprove of the action, we can still be correct in the discussion about it.

It is perfectly correct to call this person a thief. It may not fit the technical legal definition in some (or even any) jurisdictions, but it certainly fits the plain English meaning of the word -which is not the case with paedophile or terrorist.

It always makes me smile that people get all upset about the term 'theft', but I have never seen anyone object to the term 'piracy'. If it isn't theft, then it certainly isn't theft on the high seas!


glass.

 

[Ardulac]

It always makes me smile that people get all upset about the term 'theft', but I have never seen anyone object to the term 'piracy'. If it isn't theft, then it certainly isn't theft on the high seas!
glass.

That's because pirates are falsely thought to be cool, while thieves are a less common target of admiration. Internet piracy, however, has all of the allure of being a rebel rule breaker without the undeniably evil murder and denying others of things they already have.

That, by the way, is why I personally think the terms "theft" and "stealing" are ludicrous in a discussion about pillaging the high seas of the internet. Preventing someone from attaining wealth or property is not the same as taking it away. Otherwise every negative critic would be a thief. And what about people who have no interest in D&D at all? Vagabonds, every one of them. Or for a more similar example, people who read books in Barnes & Noble or at a friend's home who never purchase the actual books. Do anti-piracy people spend their weekends picketing those stores? If not, then perhaps they shouldn't draw such an incredibly thick, indelible line between the two.

Don't get me wrong. I frown at people who claim to absolutely love a book and fail to support it. But that applies whether they repeatedly get it from the library, borrow copies, or download it. I'm not comfortable with any of those activities illegal though, because each individual must make their own judgment of whether or not something is worth supporting.

 

[rgard]

snip

Or for a more similar example, people who read books in Barnes & Noble or at a friend's home who never purchase the actual books. Do anti-piracy people spend their weekends picketing those stores? If not, then perhaps they shouldn't draw such an incredibly thick, indelible line between the two.

I don't agree. It's perfectly legal to go to Barnes & Noble or your friend's house and read their stuff. It's not legal at all to download a stolen pdf.

Thanks,
Rich