Unearthed Arcana 3.5....where besides Kazaa?

[Amal Shukup]

The longer this conversation goes, the more radical I seem to be getting...

It's still a loss by the vendor of said product, no matter what specific laws it falls under. I was referring to Amal Shukup's point that it should not be counted as a loss, because the downloader wouldn't have purchased anyway.

This misrepresents my point. My point was, that the vendor didn't LOSE anything and thus cannot 'claim' a loss. A downloader MAY have gained something, but it isn't a zero sum game and it isn't appropriate to present it as such. I'm not saying something bad didn't happen, but it is important to frame the discussion in terms of what is actually happening - not drawing a false parralel with the theft of inventory.

Just because they choose to try and bilk people, doesn't make it right for those people to break the law.

When does it become illegal for them to keep bilking us? How should we as a society respond to their efforts to loot the creators and the public? (again, we have strayed far pretty afield from RPG publishers, who have not earned ANY of this animosity). Competition is the usual prescription, but the music and publishing industries have erected substantial barriers to market entry for those operating on different (more creator and consumer friendly) models.

I guess we could rely on gov't regulation of those industries... Hah! Oh yeah, that's going to happen...

If a law is unenforceable, the law doesn't serve the people, and people don't serve the law, then it's time to change the law. Laws are not some universal constant. They are created by people to serve people. The only issue now is finding a way to change the law in such a way that still provides incentive for people to create new information.

YES! Absolutely. 100% the point.

I no longer make any money from the sales of the previous novels. I took a contract up the rear and now I'm paying for it. Buying any of the previous novels would only put money into a publisher I am no longer affiliated with.

Also the point. Exclusive Copyright is a monopoly (anathema to a free society) which is endured by society in order to provide incentive to, and compensate the creators of works.

Except of course, they are not getting paid. The major holders of exclusive copyright are not the creators of the works. How does it benefit society to enrich the corporations who force lousy contracts on their creators? And then use their ill-got millions to raise barriers against competition and to lobby for increasingly idiotic laws defending their poor helpless iron-clad selves against their unruly artists and ungrateful consumers? How do we do that without building a substantial mass of seething resentment?

Okay. I'm definitely getting more radical here... Need to go read a thread on AOO's or something...

The Internet ISN'T going to go away, and requires (like the printing press and radio) a paradigm shift in the way we view the process of rewarding the creators of content. The costs of 'enforcing' copyright unilaterally place an undue burden (financially and in use) on legitimate consumers and will ALWAYS exceed the value it provides to any party.

Copyright is a compact (and one I believe in. Fiercely) between the creators of good work and those who enjoy the fruits of that work. Laws that protect copyright need to be based on that premise.

Again, I'll quote myself:

Most people who can WILL pay a fair price for a product they want given the opportunity.

Most people are good honest people. We WANT to pay a reasonable price for the goods we want. Look at the people in this forum - offering to buy Mach 2.5's work SIGHT UNSEEN, just because we wanted to support him. This isn't unusual AT ALL - the world is FULL of people like this.

The means of distributing and paying for products needs to reflect and reinforce this basic relationship. The Internet is an incredible tool to ENABLE this, but too many see it as a threat rather than an opportunity. Must wonder why...

I think the RPG industry largely gets this. I don't think that many gamers rip off their favorite game publishers. Do we? No! We pay gladly for the stuff.

And I hope that gaming industry NEVER goes the way of the music industry (and to a certain degree, mainstream publishing) where the interests of a third party (neither creators nor consumers) take precedence over the other two. Our responsibility as customers is to ensure this - keep buying the good stuff that you like and use!

A'Mal

 

[WayneLigon]

You're looking at internet sharing as a utility using old economic models, and by doing so I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what the internet is. The old model is Produce > Distribute > Consume = profit. In this models producers/distributors and consumers are completely seperate entities with defined roles, and the consumer is a passive entity.

No, I'm looking at content that is created by people who want, and deserve, recompense for their time and efforts. There is no 'old' and 'new' economy; those were buzzwords created in the Boom to blindside people and create the atmosphere that led to people believing you could make money from nothing. At the end of the day, people want to be compensated for their work. And they will be compensated, or they stop doing it.

That is not how the internet works. Every consumer is also a producer. All you need to do is put some files out there.

In my experience, no, most ptp users are not 'producers'. They didn't make that film or TV show; they ripped off a DVD and are now sharing it through the ptp network. They didn't write that book they've scanned in and are sharing.

If they, themselves, write and produce a song and then place a digital copy out there for everyone to share, then they are a producer. If they write a netbook and put it out there, then they're a producer. Once they are a producer of that content, then they can give it away for free if they wish. If they, themselves, did not make that product then all they are doing to enabling others to steal what they themselves stole in the first place.

The way you feel, a more accurate statement with similar intent would be: "Ethically, it's just as bad as theft."

No, it's still theft. You have deprived the creator of compensation he is due for your possessing a copy of that work. You've electronically picked his pocket.

 

[kenjib]

No, I'm looking at content that is created by people who want, and deserve, recompense for their time and efforts. There is no 'old' and 'new' economy; those were buzzwords created in the Boom to blindside people and create the atmosphere that led to people believing you could make money from nothing. At the end of the day, people want to be compensated for their work. And they will be compensated, or they stop doing it.

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with the Clintonian "new economy" whatsoever. This isn't about economy moving from durables to innovation and information. This is about decentralized distribution models by which people are compensated for their work. They are totally unrelated and what I'm talking about has nothing to do with people making money from nothing. Same people make things. Same people buy things. The stuff in between is different.

In my experience, no, most ptp users are not 'producers'. They didn't make that film or TV show; they ripped off a DVD and are now sharing it through the ptp network. They didn't write that book they've scanned in and are sharing.

If they, themselves, write and produce a song and then place a digital copy out there for everyone to share, then they are a producer. If they write a netbook and put it out there, then they're a producer. Once they are a producer of that content, then they can give it away for free if they wish. If they, themselves, did not make that product then all they are doing to enabling others to steal what they themselves stole in the first place.

Remix, sampling, etc., movie re-edits, spoofs, etc. This is a very large and growing segment of media product.

No, it's still theft. You have deprived the creator of compensation he is due for your possessing a copy of that work. You've electronically picked his pocket.

That is factually incorrect. It is not, by definition, the same thing. Theft comprises something that one person loses and one gains. Copyright infringement is copying something and leaving the original owners still in possession. It's that simple and anything beyond that is just obfiscation. Copyright was invented along with the printing press. Before that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with people copying and distributing any kind of information at will. Yet, of course the idea of theft did exist.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/resources/copyright/history.htm

You can't steal hypothetical revenue. That just doesn't make any sense because the item in question never existed and quite possibly would never have existed in the future without the perpetration of the crime.

What you are describing is clearly copyright infringement - depriving the owner (your use of the word creator is incorrect) of some kind of information the compensation he is due (because of an artificial, government created monopoly) for your possessing a copy of that work. That is exactly what copyright is, and you yourself used the word "copy". Without permission, you do not have a *right* to *copy* the information, therefore you have infringed on the owner's exclusive *copyright*.

I'm not trying to claim that it's any less offensive than stealing, regardless of my personal beliefs. I am just clarifying a semantic point which I find to be important because it overly confuses the issue. These crimes are handled in drastically different ways under the legal system and the legal recourse for the victim is also clearly different. The difference in the law, and in the definition, is clear and indisputable.

 

[Hardhead]

I just want to add, there are lots of reasons why someone would download this stuff that are, to me, morally acceptable.

For instance, my copy of Factol's Manifesto (an old 2e Planescape prodcut) is falling apart. This isn't because of poor care - it's an issue with the binding. A lot of copies of Factol's Manifesto have this problem. A lot. I've lost several pages out of it. Downloads to the rescue! Now, I can print out the pages that I've lost due to the poor binding process. Is that illegal? Yeah, probably. Is it morally wrong? Let me tell you, I'm sure not loosing any sleep over it.