Unearthed Arcana 3.5....where besides Kazaa?

[Visceris]

Well, Ranger I don't own a scanner and I wouldn't have clue one how to use it. I do buy PDFs when they are of exceptional worth otherwise I buy the hardcopy first then get the PDF version. Besides WotC doesn't have d20 Modern, Urban Arcana, or d20 Menace as PDF files.

I am not doing this to have a clear conscience. That is just plain silly. I do it because it is how I would want someone else handle and purchase any of my work. Do onto others as they do onto you, or something like that.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Not from every explanation I've ever heard. besides, how the hell would it be proved that you did not make the copy yourself if you have an EXACT filecopy on the shelf? Example, I own Nirvana's Nevermind. One day I decide I need a copy of Come As You Are but I can't find my copy. I download one from Kazaa. Later I find my copy of Nevermind. Then the RIAA busts in and questions me about my mp3s. If the EXACT same track is on the shelf in a purchased format, how am I incorrect?

I'm not a lawyer, but the Fair Use clause is pretty clear on what's acceptable and what's not. You're only allowed to make copies of your own property, not download someone else's.

You're right its nothing like radio. However, I actually own said track and thus who gives a damn?

It's this and similar sorts of attitudes that seem to pervade users of Kazaa and other peer-to-peer file sharing groups. The fact is, you're committing a crime. Let's not sugar coat it and try and justify it. If you've downloaded a song, or a game, or a book, off of Kazaa, you are guilty of a crime. Period.

As for who gives a damn? Who was it earlier in the thread that was talking about his book? True, I also believe the argument that the people that download weren't going to buy it anyway, and so that's not revenue lost. However, knowing that there's an easy way to pirate various electronic media, do you really think that the majority of people interested will actually buy something as opposed to pirate, especially when no one (in theory) will know? The attitude of "who cares?" is exactly the reason that file sharing has become a serious problem far beyond the base level of piracy that normally occurs.

Do you think our government or any government are slow to act? Or is the DCMA good enough to protect authors of their works?

Well, I'm not particularly fond of the DCMA, personally. I think it needs a lot of refinement before it really becomes and fair and effective bit of law.

As for my government being slow to act? Or others? Quite honestly, I don't particularly think there's anything they can do about it at this point. Peer-to-peer networks have been ruled as legal in court, so they can't go after the people who enable others to pirate stuff. Going after individual people would not only be a monumental task that would be sure to overload legal systems to the point of absurdity, but rediculously, almost prohibitively expensive as well.

My personal thoughts on the matter are that we have a sort of triangle of blame here, at least with regards to music. On the one hand, I feel the recording industry has been bilking both artists and fans alike, seriously overcharging for music with artists seeing very little of the profit. On the second, downloaders are responsible for their own actions, and just because you're not likely to get caught doesn't make it any less illegal. Finally, the makers of these peer-to-peer programs are responsible for enabling others to pirate music easily, knowing full well that's what their programs would be used for.

What we're seeing now is a sort of essential paradigm shift, where technology coupled with resentment have forced the RIAA to adapt. No single genre of entertainment has been as badly affected as the music industry, which says something about the RIAA right there. Case in point, my future brother-in-law just recently got a computer, and his first question to me was how to download and play music. I hardly think his is an uncommon tale either. As technology, and specifically computers, continue to become more and more mainstream, this problem is just going to increase in magnitude. Unfortunately, instead of trying to adapt, what's happening is the RIAA is trying to stick to it's policies of ripping off everyone involved, threatening lawsuits and generally trying to bully everyone back into their camp.

We do see some compromises - Apple's iTunes is a great example. Unfortunately, like I said before, why will people pay for something they can easily get for free? Ultimately, something somewhere has to give. Right now though it doesn't seem like any side involved wants to do so. And so the problem just keeps building and building, until it's out of anyone's control. Which is pretty much where we are now.

Personally, where I'd like to see it go is cutting out the RIAA altogether. Artists sell their music on their own labels (if they so choose) on programs like iTunes (which they already can), keep 100% of the profits for the work they've done and the talent they have. Record labels basically still handle distribution and promotion, but for the most part the former is obsolete given iTunes and the ability to burn your own CDs. Peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa are forced to take action against illegal file sharers, or face criminal charges, since they know that's what it's being used for and aren't doing anything to stop it. Some will adapt a sort of iTunes-like scheme, where you purchase a song but instead of downloading it from a central server (like iTunes) you download it from peers. Others will be arrested and tried for their crimes.

 

[SSquirrel]

It's this and similar sorts of attitudes that seem to pervade users of Kazaa and other peer-to-peer file sharing groups. The fact is, you're committing a crime. Let's not sugar coat it and try and justify it. If you've downloaded a song, or a game, or a book, off of Kazaa, you are guilty of a crime. Period.

As for who gives a damn? Who was it earlier in the thread that was talking about his book? True, I also believe the argument that the people that download weren't going to buy it anyway, and so that's not revenue lost.

In the example I gave I own the track. How is that making sure they don't get their money. They ALREADY got my money for the song when I bought the cd. Hell there's some music I've bought on at least 3 seperate occasions and still have on casette. Have I considered downloading a copy fom Kazaa and burning it? of course? Have I? No. I still own the music and thus am allowed a copy of it tho, so I may eventually.

I'm one of those rare folks who actually WILL go out and buy the music eventually...once my ass gets out of the serious debt problem we have right now. I LIKE album art and liner notes. I PREFER the better sound quality that you can't get with an mp3. Most of the time I don't even download official releases, I download things like bootleg live shows from artists like Prince who will most likely never release any of his old live material as he (a few years ago anyway) has talked about rerecording all his old WB material and specifically not cursing and such. That whole he's a JW now thing.

Did the guy in the thread lose out on some money? Most likely. I feel bad for him I honestly do. I don't think that every copy he finds on someone's drive would have been someone who would have actually bought said book, but I think there is some lost revenue.

I'm done with this topic tho as I'm too broke to afford pretty much anything (even my rent or bills) so I'm not going to argue about if it's right or wrong to download things.

Hagen

 

[GentleGiant]

It's this and similar sorts of attitudes that seem to pervade users of Kazaa and other peer-to-peer file sharing groups. The fact is, you're committing a crime. Let's not sugar coat it and try and justify it. If you've downloaded a song, or a game, or a book, off of Kazaa, you are guilty of a crime. Period.

Erm... no. You can download a lot of stuff off of e.g. Kazaa without committing a crime. If we're not sugar coating, let's try not to generalize to the extremes either, shall we?
A lot of music, books and even movies can be downloaded through such peer-to-peer programs, music, books and movies put up there for that specific purpose (to be "spread around" as much as possible).
Now, that doesn't mean that anything you can download from Kazaa is legal, just remember that there are exceptions (and a lot of them).

Peer-to-peer networks have been ruled as legal in court, so they can't go after the people who enable others to pirate stuff. Going after individual people would not only be a monumental task that would be sure to overload legal systems to the point of absurdity, but rediculously, almost prohibitively expensive as well.

My personal thoughts on the matter are that we have a sort of triangle of blame here, at least with regards to music. On the one hand, I feel the recording industry has been bilking both artists and fans alike, seriously overcharging for music with artists seeing very little of the profit. On the second, downloaders are responsible for their own actions, and just because you're not likely to get caught doesn't make it any less illegal. Finally, the makers of these peer-to-peer programs are responsible for enabling others to pirate music easily, knowing full well that's what their programs would be used for.

Why should the courts go after the makers of peer-to-peer programs?
If you stick by your argument that "[they know] full well that's what their programs would be used for" then I am looking forward to seeing you at the forefront in the battle against each and every single maker of firearms (I'll let you get away with battling only the American firearms makers )...
They, the makers of e.g. Kazaa, are not responsible for how their programs are used. They have put together a piece of software, they themselves are not the ones distributing illegal material. If you want to stay within the confines of the internet (as opposed to fighting "real" battles like the one against firearms makers), then you should be ready to sue everybody from Bill Gates to Al Gore (the "inventor" of the internet ). They, among others, have made it possible to distribute all manner of illegal (and offensive, e.g. child porn) material.
So take a step back and gain some perspective.
Sure, you can download a lot of scanned products (rpg books in this discussion), but as has been evidenced numerous times, the loss to the companies are probably minimal, since most people buy hard copies of the books anyway.

 

[Mach2.5]

Who was it earlier in the thread that was talking about his book?

That would have been me.

Why should the courts go after the makers of peer-to-peer programs?

All feelings of seething vengence aside (something that's much harder to do than you may think), Kazaa itself shouldn't be held liable in and of itself. What should be done is a restructuring of the entire system of peer-to-peer networks where there is a way to check legitamicy of a file. But that's not a reasonable kind of undertaking. Granted, old Bill Gates and his posse' of world dominators have a new system in mind that will do just that, its not a system that I want to see implimented, even if it does protect my property.

 

[LightPhoenix]

Erm... no. You can download a lot of stuff off of e.g. Kazaa without committing a crime. If we're not sugar coating, let's try not to generalize to the extremes either, shall we?
A lot of music, books and even movies can be downloaded through such peer-to-peer programs, music, books and movies put up there for that specific purpose (to be "spread around" as much as possible).
Now, that doesn't mean that anything you can download from Kazaa is legal, just remember that there are exceptions (and a lot of them).

True, and I admit generalization in that aspect. However, this argument is obviously about illegal stuff.

Why should the courts go after the makers of peer-to-peer programs?
If you stick by your argument that "[they know] full well that's what their programs would be used for" then I am looking forward to seeing you at the forefront in the battle against each and every single maker of firearms (I'll let you get away with battling only the American firearms makers )...
They, the makers of e.g. Kazaa, are not responsible for how their programs are used. They have put together a piece of software, they themselves are not the ones distributing illegal material. If you want to stay within the confines of the internet (as opposed to fighting "real" battles like the one against firearms makers), then you should be ready to sue everybody from Bill Gates to Al Gore (the "inventor" of the internet ). They, among others, have made it possible to distribute all manner of illegal (and offensive, e.g. child porn) material.

Plain, and simple, bull. That's all a gigantic excuse, the biggest one that is being used by these people to justify their actions. These people were well aware of what their programs were going to be used for. When you create something, you are responsible for it's use. They knew that their programs were being used to perpetrate crimes. They still know. And they're doing nothing about it. That's irresponsibility of the highest degree.

As for Bill Gates and others, now who's over-generalizing?

 

[LightPhoenix]

In the example I gave I own the track. How is that making sure they don't get their money. They ALREADY got my money for the song when I bought the cd. Hell there's some music I've bought on at least 3 seperate occasions and still have on casette. Have I considered downloading a copy fom Kazaa and burning it? of course? Have I? No. I still own the music and thus am allowed a copy of it tho, so I may eventually.

You're allowed a copy you make of it. Not one off of Kazaa. Fair Use is perfectly clear about replication of stuff you own.

I'm one of those rare folks who actually WILL go out and buy the music eventually...once my ass gets out of the serious debt problem we have right now. I LIKE album art and liner notes. I PREFER the better sound quality that you can't get with an mp3. Most of the time I don't even download official releases, I download things like bootleg live shows from artists like Prince who will most likely never release any of his old live material as he (a few years ago anyway) has talked about rerecording all his old WB material and specifically not cursing and such. That whole he's a JW now thing.

And I'd like to take the opportunity to apologize to you for being overly confrontational. The fact is that's more responsible than the vast majority of users, and it's commendable. Most people wouldn't care that much. But you're arguing something that just isn't true.

Did the guy in the thread lose out on some money? Most likely. I feel bad for him I honestly do. I don't think that every copy he finds on someone's drive would have been someone who would have actually bought said book, but I think there is some lost revenue.

Like I said, I don't particularly subscribe to the theory of lost revenue as the RIAA and others would have you believe. I agree, someone downloading something probably isn't going to buy it. However, the prevalence of illegal file sharing has become so widespread that it's affecting every artist.

 

[SSquirrel]

Plain, and simple, bull. That's all a gigantic excuse, the biggest one that is being used by these people to justify their actions. These people were well aware of what their programs were going to be used for. When you create something, you are responsible for it's use. They knew that their programs were being used to perpetrate crimes. They still know. And they're doing nothing about it. That's irresponsibility of the highest degree.

Apology accepted BTW heh. I've just been in so many of these discussions in the past years I'm kinda fed up with them myself.

As far as responsibility goes, uhm I know that in America lawsuits work wonders and people sue companies for the stupidest reasons, but give me a break. I totally disagree with the theory of responsibility. I'm one of those people who doesn't believe that music/art/books/etc makes someone pick up a gun and go kill someone else. *tangent but related* People always look for a scapegoat. People sue the gun companies b/c someone used a gun to kill someone else. Well ya know guns are made for shooting. While I am pretty anti-gun myself, I still think some of the claims that the gun manufacturers get nailed for are retarded.

If some moron out there picks up a gun and kills 10 people, the family of at least one of those victims will sue the gun maker as knowing this would happen. Bwah!? After Columbine the parents of those kids blamed everyone but themselves. It wasn't the Marilyn Manson or Pantera they listened to that made them kill those kids, it was years of parental inattention, verbal abuse from kids at school, crazy teenage hormones and easy access to weapons. The parental inattention and unlocked gun case are things VERY easily controlled, but they weren't.

Now I know someone will say that these 2 are nothing alike but they're EXACTLY alike. Going after the makes of Kazaa etc for someone using Kazaa to download a song is the same as going after the gun manufacturers when a gun is used to commit a crime. In both cases it's pretty dumb. Now if say it werea case of a faulty weapon killing the user or someone nearby thru no fault of the user, then sure sue the gun company.

Then again I also don't think a rating on video game should have any bearing on who can buy it, nor parental advisory stickers on CDs...but all this is for other message boards really. "Kill the Haitians" in GTA:Vice City is NOT a genocidal statement meant to make teens across America rise up and off folks of Haitian heritage, it is a boring mission in VC to kill a Haitian gang. Out of context examples can work wonders tho.

Hagen

 

[kenjib]

There are many valid applications for peer to peer, most of which haven't been taken advantage of yet. It's decentralized distribution of information is actually quite revolutionary. It's one of those simple concepts that has massively broad implications in many fields, but nobody is even coming close to realizing it's full potential yet. Distributed disk caching. Peer to peer web hosting. Peer to peer distributed computing ala seti@home. Peer to peer power grid. Peer to peer barter/auction marketplace. Peer to peer circumvention of oppressive censorship. This is real power to ordinary people that ties usefulness to availability in an unprecedented way. Even if someone did feel it would be beneficial to somehow regulate peer to peer dissemination of information, it would be impossible to do so without harming the potentially massive future potential of this technology in the bigger picture. This whole copyright thing has very little to do with peer to peer. The old Napster had the same problems, and wasn't peer to peer. They got shut down because they hosted the files. That's the crime, not creating a client that utilizes peer to peer technology.

 

[Amal Shukup]

You're allowed a copy you make of it. Not one off of Kazaa. Fair Use is perfectly clear about replication of stuff you own.

There is very little clear and understood about fair use - by either the consumers or those who make the products.

I own a Movie on DVD. I'd like to have a copy that worked in the cottage's VCR. Too bad: the powers-that-be make it IMPOSSIBLE to copy the thing without overcoming their stupid copy protection mechanisms - which I don't know how to do (not being a criminal). Except that even ATTEMPTING it makes me one. Didn't succeed, though.

Heck, I'd just like to hook up all my video watching equipment without having to invest in third-party hardware (RF modulator) 'cause the DVD players have built in copy protection wonkiness.

The non-trivial costs associated with this industry threating me like a criminal (and with flat out BUYING legislation to protect their narrow interests) are simply passed on to me buried inside already extortionate prices. The real criminals can overcome these hassles - I'm the one getting inconvenienced, and paying big for the privilege.

So if I someday find myself forced to 'Illegally' download something I've already bought just so I can make 'fair use' of it (because the publisher has made it IMPOSSIBLE to do it legally), then they can come haul my butt out of Sherwood Forest. Seriously. Bring it...

I've got NO grievance against WoTC or any game publisher - they have all treated me (the customer) in a stand up fashion and I am thrilled to offer them my hard earned cash for their delightful products. My feelings towards the music and film industry is less positive: As a customer, I feel more used than served. But I want to support the good work of the artists... What happens when my desire to support the artists is overwhelmed by my resntment?

Don't even get me started on what Disney is doing to the concept of Public Domain. Like being able to use public domain didn't make them rich in the first place... And now they own Kermit (and Grover!) too.. Resentment... Building... Must... Destroy... <deep breath> 'whew' that was close...

I will quote myself from an earlier post:

Most people who can WILL pay a fair price for a product they want given the opportunity. I believe this and I've seen evidence for it many times. Treating customers like criminals (most IP holders these days - NOT WOTC to their credit) or like suckers (the music publishers since always) is NOT the solution to this.

I'm not suggesting that lawless behavior is the apopropriate response (Yet, anyway). BUT: unjust laws (and business practices) make criminals of honest people. A balance MUST be struck between protecting the interests of the IP Owners AND those of the public/consumers.

I offer this quote from Thomas Babington Macaulay (from an 1841 speech arguing against the egregious extension of Copyright):

...At present the holder of copyright has the public feeling on his side. Those who invade copyright are regarded as knaves who take the bread out of the mouths of deserving men. Everybody is well pleased to see them restrained by the law, and compelled to refund their ill-gotten gains. No tradesman of good repute will have anything to do with such disgraceful transactions. Pass this law: and that feeling is at an end. Men very different from the present race of piratical booksellers will soon infringe this intolerable monopoly. Great masses of capital will be constantly employed in the violation of the law. Every art will be employed to evade legal pursuit; and the whole nation will be in the plot.

I would suggest that the explosion of peer-to-peer file sharing indicates that 'public feeling' has already shifted to a great degree. That bears serious consideration.

A'Mal