Torrent throwdown on the Wizards board

[Argyuile]

How do you propose we decide which poor sucker gets stuck with the bill?

History shows that when everyone gets the benefit but only some do the work, eventually, the hard workers catch on that they're being scammed, and stop working so hard. This is why communism, whether on the large scale of the USSR or the small scale of hippie communes, collapses. This is why kibbutzes have gone toward market systems.

So a system based on some people paying while the majority doesn't will sputter along for a while, based on inertia, but one by one, the payers decide that they're tired of supporting the non-payers and drop out, or, more often, decide "I've paid enough -- someone else's turn!" and become non-payers. Then the pressure on the remaining payers increase, so they're more likely to drop out, and the cycle collapses.

We are in the VERY early part of the cycle -- there's still dupes out there who feel like they're being noble and heroic when they support an artist, even though others just take the work for free. They feel, "Hey, I'll pay for this book now, and someone else will pay for the next book, the writer makes enough to live off, and everyone's happy!" But with each iteration, more leech and fewer pay. The writer has less time to write because he needs to earn money from other projects. The people who supported him feel disgruntled because they were buying, in part, his future productivity. So with less promise of more material to come, they are less likely to pay for what IS produced, and, also, when there's a lot of existing material, people newly aware of the artists are more likely to consume what's already out there for "free" instead of paying for the new material when it's released.

Look at early factory productivity in the USSR, or the way kibbutzes worked in the first generation of Israel's existence, or the way most communes and utopian communities in America started (and this goes back to the 19th century, the hippies were followers and copycats). Then look at how they worked a decade, two decades, a generation later. Same pattern, over and over. We're in a real "up" part of the "free" content cycle. The crash is coming.

It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.

IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back. Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society. The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation. Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation. Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.

 

[Westwind]

Do the DVD sales figures include HD and Blu-ray sales? If they don't, the growth of those two formats (and now just growth of Blu-ray) could account for the change. What evidence was presented that digital piracy was the cause of the decline?

These numbers are a little tougher to come by since all Sony wants you to know is BluRay sales are up a gajillion%. Well, no kidding. Three years ago, sales were 0. Two years ago, sales were however many copies of Pirates of the Caribbean you sold. BluRay (and if you haven't made a choice yet, choose BluRay people--HD is the next Betamax) is really taking off now, so it's hard to parse what BluRay sales you're getting in place of DVD sales. When it comes to DVD sales, it's not so much the -2% growth that's alarming, it's the fact that in 2004 DVD sales grew +29% and now you're suddenly at -2%. Not coincidently, retailers like Borders and Barnes&Noble made major investments in DVD and CD sales around this time (in terms of how many square feet in a store they devoted to those products, also in terms of opening much bigger stores to accommodate a high volume of DVD/CD sales) and take a look at how their stock's been doing lately.

 

[LowSpine]

I do not have a problem with the pdfs but I do fully believe that wotc deserve to be paid well for hard work. I do not believe in free information. That is just teenage hippy talk for 'I want it! - stamps foot.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

The RPG market is not a big one and I'm inclined to believe it would be more vulnerable to revenue loss than, say, historical fiction. On a purely anecdotal level, I also believe any market populated by tech-savvy geeks is more vulnerable to piracy simply because they posses means and opportunity out of the box and only need motive.

I read somewhere the SciFi shows on US network tv don't do well because sponsors don't get a lot of bang for the buck and consequently, networks don't want to run them or cancel them early. SciFi fans are more likely to download the episodes illegally, skip/mute the ads, or just plain ignore commercials. Contrast that to Nascar racing fans who will religiously buy products their favorite driver sponsors. This means Nascar is more valuable to tv advertisers and networks per capita then SciFi fans. If you feel like there is too many "stupid" shows and not enough "smart" shows on tv, it's probably because smart people aren't the target audience anymore because of this.

Cause and effect, if people buy books and make the publisher and creator profit then they are more likely to make and publish more of them. If you want to see more rpg products, do not use illegal copies. If want to see more high quality rpg products, only buy high quality rpg products. They aren't going to publish books, if they don't think they are going to sell.

I understand the whole, argument that you live too far away, or that you buy one book for your group, or you're just browsing and what not. I think it's safe to say WotC would look the other way if the illegal to legal ratio of use was 5:1 or maybe even 10:1. It's when it's 1000:1 or more that they HAVE to do something or else risk not making a profit. It's a cost benefit decision making process.

Derek

 

[Novem5er]

It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create. You can create whatever you want. But if you want to actually make a living or have your work seen or heard (you know, in the sense that art elevates all of humanity), you have to sell your soul to some company who then owns the work you produce

Another fine point! Forgive me if I'm wrong about the specifics of this next statement, but I think it generally applies:

Mike Mearls (et all designers) already got paid to "create" the information. The artists already got paid to create the artwork in the corebooks. The visual design team and copywriters got paid to put the books together. The printing press already got their money. WotC already paid for all this... and it is WotC mission to make that money back by distributing that work, plus X% to make a profit.

What % of D&D players are required to purchase the books to make their money back? What % of players need to purchase books for them to make their expected profit?

Look the IDEAL model for WotC is that 100% of players buy the books. Their worst-nightmare is that 0% of players buy the books. As fans of the books, we don't want that to happen either, or else they wont pay Mike Mearls (et all) to create NEW books.

We already don't expect 100% of players to buy books... but what is our expectation? 50%? 70%? As long as WotC is making their investment back, plus x% for their trouble, then the difference between 60% or 70% player/purchase is a question of corporate profit, not morality.

 

[DerekSTheRed]

It makes one wonder how sourceforge can exist at all since no one is being paid for their work.

IP is not a car, it is not the food grow or the clothes on your back. Copying IP is not going to lead to some type of collapse of society. The absolute worst that would happen would be stagnation. Even then, IP exits to promote innovation however, people innovated long before IP ever existed as a concept, so its not like no IP laws completely stop innovation. Its not like there was some cave man sitting around deciding not to invent the wheel because he didn't think he would get paid for his invention.

Before copyright laws, creative people had to find a patron to do creative work. There might have been 1000s of musicians more talented then Mozart who didn't get a chance to show it because of a lack of a patron. Allowing creative people to make a career out of being creative promotes innovation. Having no IP laws didn't stop innovation, it just made it harder.

Derek

 

[Novem5er]

Clearly, this totally ignores things like "what a person can memorize." Obviously, if you can memorize a book, you can "use it" as long as you want. This is because (at least now) no control can be maintained over what people think. "Thought police" (so far, at least) remains just a joke.

(snip)

. . . I just wanted to clarify that my position has nothing to do with any theory about "harm" and everything with the distinction between what constitutes "fair use" and what qualifies as "distribution."

You actually make an excellent point. Fair use is a pretty good measuring stick for this situation. But then, why wouldn't it be okay to download a PDF copy of a physical book that you own? Many people here are saying it's immoral to download anything, whether you own the book or not! They seem to imply that the act of having an unauthorized copy is immoral.

I will agree... Mass distribution is wrong. I don't do it. But you also mentioned the "thought police" That's my largest concern. Saying that it's immoral to have information that you didn't pay for is ridiculous... now distributing information beyond fair with the intention that NOBODY has to pay for it? Yeah. I'd draw the line somewhere around there.

 

[Family]

We already don't expect 100% of players to buy books... but what is our expectation? 50%? 70%? As long as WotC is making their investment back, plus x% for their trouble, then the difference between 60% or 70% player/purchase is a question of corporate profit, not morality.

That is a fine point for my shampoo brand, but when it comes to my hobby it is moot.


---
Mal: "I would appreciate it if one person on this boat would not assume I'm an evil, lecherous hump."
Zoe: "No one's saying that, sir."
Wash: "Yeah, we're pretty much just giving each other significant glances and laughing incessantly."

 

[Rykion]

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that people should create things for free. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to require everyone who accesses that creation to pay for it.

Certainly, that's what museums and libraries are for. It is also why most stores let you demo games, music, books, etc.

I think it's fair to make people pay to use art/material/information if they intend to make direct profit from it.

I agree. Learning and enjoyment are also forms of profit.

But when was the last time you paid to see a Norman Rockwell painting? Not an actual painting, but a copy thereof. I bet you could do an internet search for Norman Rockwell, find images of his paintings, right-click and Save Image As, and then have access to that image for free for the rest of your life.

Thief? Criminal?

Both my mother and grandmother have Norman Rockwell prints. They were paid for. The paintings are likely in the public domain now.

Artists have to get paid or there will be little art going around. But everyone who experiences that art does not have to pay for that experience.

They do have to pay except at free libraries, free museums, or for art that is the public domain or that is distributed freely by the person or entity that holds the rights.

 

[JohnSnow]

In defense of the "Info should be free" claim, the constitution is clear that it should be free.... eventually. Copyright is supposed to exist only for a limited time to give the creator a chance to make a buck then open it up so that someone else can build upon the idea.

This goes back to the "Corporation" problem. The laws were written before corporate ownership of things was widespread. Inventors, authors and artists were supposed to own their works for a time, and (IIRC) have the right to pass those on to their heirs.

With Patent Law, it's clear - there's an expiration date. Copyrights have become another issue because the framers of the copyright laws never imagined immortal entities (like Corporations) being able to "own" original creations. People die, and then maybe their immediate heirs gain the right over their creations. But after a time, their works become public domain. As it should be. (Can you imagine if Shakespeare's works weren't "public domain?" Or Twain's? The mind boggles...)

Corporations have muddied the waters because they just don't die. The easy, and obvious, solution would be to put a reasonable time-limit (50 years?) on how long exclusive rights can be maintained, exactly as is the case with Patent Law. But given how many large media outlets that would adversely affect, and how deep their pockets are, good luck getting that law to pass.