Torrent throwdown on the Wizards board

[Argyuile]

Ridiculously strawman situation, and completely irrelevant. We're discussing an entertainment product being illegally distributed and acquired, not a necessity being unattainable due to collusion.



In the wrong, as far as ethically speaking, no. In the wrong, as far as legally speaking, I have no idea. IANAL. The RIAA could very well be right. It's for a court to decide (and appeal), not me.



WotC is not asking everyone playing the game to own a copy, merely that every copy acquired is by legal means.

Your entire post seems to be full of overly contrived strawmen that have no application in the current situation.

Im addressing 2 aurgments that I've seen in this thread

#1) That legality = morality

I'm not saying that you can't believe that, I'm just saying that morality being totally subjective its a ridiculous argument.

#2) That breaking the law is always a bad thing and should always be punished.

As such I have provided the above examples to illustrate that I don't believe that to be true. I am attempting to separate the legal argument from the moral argument.

 

[mlund]

It is many people's views, including mine, that the intellectual property laws in America are very unjust. They exist to enslave the creators, inventors, musicians and artists, exploit the consumer and protect the rights of the distributors.

That's an interesting opinion that some people might share with you, but it lacks any sort of substantiation. The use of "enslave" here is amusing hyperbole that might score points in some circles, but it does you a disservice in the view of a skeptic. You're entitled to your opinions, but your claims about facts need support that you just aren't providing.

The creator doesn't own the property created, the company that distributes the property owns it.

That's an out-and-out lie that shows complete ignorance of the subject of copyrights and property rights.

Creators are the initial owners of property. Since it is their property they can sell it, rent it, trade it, gift it, or lease it to other parties.

If you invalidate their right to exchange their exclusive rights to some other desired good, service, or currency you've deprived them of their right to property and damaged the value of that property by making it less liquid.

The creator has to actually give up their rights to it to the company that has print facilities and a distribution network.

That's another outright lie. Sometimes it is profitable to choose to do so. Sometimes it is not. Some of us hire a printing vendor and develop our own distribution network or utilize an existing network for a fee.

Diamond Comics, for example, has the best distribution network in the business. They don't own the I.P.'s that they distribute. Comic printers don't either.

Ideas, information and art should belong to everyone, not to the distribution companies.

No. THAT paradigm is actually far more comparable to slavery than your earlier, misguided claims. What you are proposing is that a man's work be taken from him without compensation because you feel entitled to it.

At least the "evil distribution companies" have to pay a man for his work and a man is free to elect to not do business with them. You simply want to take his labor from him whenever you please. You are the slaver here.

It's so messed up that not even the author or artist actually owns the intellectual property they create.

The only people that actually deprive a creator of their properties are those who appropriate those properties without the creator's consent. When the creator sells or contracts his rights to a property he's given consent. When a creator watches his works being pinched by a bunch of bums under the guise of "socialism" or "freedom of information," he's being robbed.

Of course they are. They can't be any other way. Subjectivity means that something is relative to the way it is perceived. Objective means that something is what something is, without the filer of perception. Morality is entirely an invention of humanity and cannot be viewed outside of that context.

I'm sorry but Kant and Plato would disagree with you, and they've got far better credentials.

Consensus on morality within a given society, however, probably has to be subjective by the very nature of human society and consensus.

Moral consensus != Moral truth

- Marty Lund

 

[DerekSTheRed]

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.

Are you saying you would only illegally download from a "big" company but not from a little guy that barely scrapes by? Are you going to audit each company's financial records to make sure your illegal download isn't hurting their bottom line? IMO illegal downloading is a habit and once you start doing it, you will rationalize every illegal download in a slippery slope fashion until you stop rationalizing it and just do it without thinking of the consequences. I know, I used to just that.

Derek

 

[nerfherder]

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1037302

Quite an argument, what do you guys think?

I think I'm surprised at the number of people admitting on a company's website that they have violated their copyright. I wonder if Hasbro's lawyers are starting the legal steps necessary to prosecute them.

 

[JohnSnow]

This is actually still interesting. And shockingly, everyone's staying civil...

Creators are the initial owners of property. Since it is their property they can sell it, rent it, trade it, gift it, or lease it to other parties.

Actually, that's not entirely true. Some companies make it a condition of employment that the work that you do while working for them (including any intellectual property you create) remains the property of the company, not the creator. Essentially, when you accept the job, you agree that your salary includes compensation for any intellectual property you create.

This has been fought out in courts, and, so far at least, the companies have won. As an example, the 3e D&D rules are the property of Wizards of the Coast, and not that of Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, et. al.

For collaborative projects, that probably makes sense. But like I said above, a lot of things are messy when corporations are involved.

 

[Argyuile]

I'm sorry but Kant and Plato would disagree with you, and they've got far better credentials.

Consensus on morality within a given society, however, probably has to be subjective by the very nature of human society and consensus.

Moral consensus != Moral truth

- Marty Lund

Yes Moral consensus, so wait, am I pro life or pro choice? Also I was going to go have relations with a 17 year old, is my level of morality dependent on what country or state I'm in? When I drink at 19 years old in Canada I'm perfectly moral but when I go back to Michigan that little political boundary makes me immoral again? I'm so confused.

 

[Novem5er]

Are you saying you would only illegally download from a "big" company but not from a little guy that barely scrapes by? Are you going to audit each company's financial records to make sure your illegal download isn't hurting their bottom line? IMO illegal downloading is a habit and once you start doing it, you will rationalize every illegal download in a slippery slope fashion until you stop rationalizing it and just do it without thinking of the consequences. I know, I used to just that.

Derek

No, I'm saying that I wouldn't illegally download something, decide NOT to purchase the product, but then continue to use the illegal copy anyway.

It doesn't have anything to do with a big company or small company. As a moral and responsible person, I will financially support the hobbies that I enjoy. But the act of ALSO looking at a copy of said material is not itself immoral.

Distributing material beyond fair use may be immoral. Using material without financially supporting it's creation/distribution may be immoral. But simply accessing that material, without payment, is not immoral by any means... for if it were, then we would live in a dangerous world.

My argument is based on a moral system of patronage, rather than an absolute system of pay-for-knowledge.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

i don't have time to read this whole thread at the moment, but its a very interesting read so far.

To make the issue of digital ownership more fuzzy, how many of you here that venomously against piracy have ever used an avatar that you did not create (cropping the image or addeding text does not count)

Just to pick on someone i know heavily against piracy, JohnSnow, did you ask newline cinema or Viggo Mortensen for use of that image? do you think that you should pay a fine and are you comfortable in doing so?

My avatar, I made from scratch. I did not steal anyone else's intellectual property to give myself an online identity.

Hopefully you understand my point John. Also apologies if I upset you by using you as an example.

I'm just trying to show the issue is not black and white, or at least i don't see it that way. I don't know where i stand on the issue. Both sides have very good and relevant points.

 

[mlund]

Actually, that's not entirely true.

No, it is entirely true - I assure you.

Some companies make it a condition of employment that the work that you do while working for them (including any intellectual property you create) remains the property of the company, not the creator.

I'm well aware of that. This falls under the "sell, rent, lease, gift, etc." prerogative of the creator. It is done with the creator's full consent under the terms of an agreed-upon contract.

Essentially, when you accept the job, you agree that your salary includes compensation for any intellectual property you create.

Exactly. You agree to the sale of said rights in a consensual exchange.

Creator --- Contract of Sale / Commission / Whatever ---> Buyer

It still originates with the creator. The right to enter into such an agreement is part of your free exercise of your property rights as a creator.

As an example, the 3e D&D rules are the property of Wizards of the Coast, and not that of Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, et. al.

Indeed - they sold their work for a price, as is their right as creators. If they couldn't do so, their rights would be infringed upon and the value of the property would be damaged.

Of course, there is also a tangent case to be examined about Derivative Works here - building a 3.X game brand out of the I.P. ashes of 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, and even Basic D&D. It isn't like the D&D 3rd Ed. core books could've been created and published by Cook, Tweet et. al. without some sort of license from Wizard's preexisting intellectual property in the first place - otherwise they'd be in turn violating property rights originating with Gary and Dave.

- Marty Lund

 

[xechnao]

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.

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 is a war for education that needs to be won. People should fight for the education that will allow them to be creative and contribute. If the right battles are fought and won then the war can be won and no such problems you are citing here arise. Wars are lost though you know. That does not mean that people should never fight.

EDIT: unless you want to have a system based on classes and you are seeking for methods and excuses to enforce it (as the privileged classes usually do)

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.

What artist-writer are you speaking of? Any specific example so to see how it actually has been working this?