Will you be purchasing PDFs from DriveThruRPG?

[Sir Elton]

I plan on buying plenty from DTRPG, once I've got steady income again. The DRM doesn't bother me a whit.

It bothers me.

 

[johnsemlak]

Every time someone says that electronic information (IE, music, software, movies, etc) should be free, a little bit of my faith in mankind dies.

Information should be free. Well, a lot of information should be. And a lot is.

Entertainment certainly should not.

 

[maddman75]

Information should be free. Well, a lot of information should be. And a lot is.

Entertainment certainly should not.

W3rd.

I beleive that information should be free - but what does that mean? That comes down the the very debate we are having. Free doesn't mean no cost, nor does it mean no restrictions. It means quite simply that I am free to do with my stuff what I like. A company should not be able to tell people how they may or may not use a product after they have bought it. Its none of WotC's business if I want to use my Player's Handbook for starting a campfire or toilet paper. It is none of DTRPG's business what kind of operating system I run or what program I use to view my pdf. Or if I want to have someone print it out to me.

There is an exception to this, called copyright. But remember that copyright is not your right - it is an exception to mine. So don't assume you can widen what rights of mine you take in the name of copyright and expect me to smile about it.

 

[scott-fs]

Ideas are not free, they have value. If they had no value, you would not want them, and would not be concerned with what they cost.

I stand by my statement that Ideas are free. It is the expression of those ideas are what have value. I don't place value on an mp3 that exists solely on my harddrive, and which was downloaded from Kazaa. I do place value on the cd in my cd binder, and of which contains the music that I enjoy. The mp3 itself has no value because I could delete them all right now and my life would not be lessened by it (in this instance, I have all the cds by the group I was (and am) still listening to). I still have the cd which I used to extract the track, and could re-extract them if I chose.

I realized that after I posted that message, that it was alot longer than I expected. I also realize that I may have posted some things that seemed contradictory, and which might contradict what I say above. After reviewing my message I think the main issue was in my reference to content. I'll have to contemplate this some more, after I've had an opportunity to sleep. I reserve the right to revise my philosophy of the value of a tangible and intangible item, to make it understandable to the general public.

Ideas don't grow on trees. The time and energy required to create the content isn't free, so the ideas that come from that time and energy aren't free.

Well, ideas do grow on trees. They are all around us. What takes time and energy is in expressing those ideas.

In addition, in the music example, the idea itself does have value. You listen to it for a reason - you like it. Your life would be lessened if there was no music in it, yes? Then, that music has value.

The music as an expression of an idea does have value to me. The container of that expression (an mp3) doesn't have value. That's why I probably would never buy mp3s online, because while I value the music, the file itself I do not. The main reason I wouldn't buy music online is that for the money paid, I want a tangible object. Something I can hold, which would be the container of the content I paid for. I don't consider a downloaded mp3 to have any inherrent value, and the overall value of the content is diluted because I do not have a physical copy. Yes, I could always burn a copy to a cd. Unfortunately, many mp3s that you might download are lower quality than I prefer. Burning a lower quality mp3 to a cd will still result in a low quality mp3 if you subsequently extract it to make a 320bitrate file. While 128bitrate may be common, I prefer mine at 320. The only way I can be sure that the file will be at that quality is if I extract it from an original cd myself. The result of the extraction ends up being of greater value to me, since I know it is of that quality. I will acknowledge that mp3s collectively have some inherrent value as you can collect them together and form them into a playlist, saving my cds from the wear of spinning them in a cd player (and swapping them).

This just might be irrelevant.

What this comes down to is that I prefer (and value) having a physical object. When I do come across content online (downloaded music, gaming product, PC games, etc) which I use and enjoy very much (many good European bands for instance), I do go to the effort of locating a source to purchase a physical copy of their content.

When it coems down to it, that's the most basic definition of "value". If it has no impact upon your life, the thing has no value. If it has what you'd call a positive impact, then it has positive value. Ideas most certainly can have a positive impact upon your life. Without them, you'd be an empty, unthinking husk. Therefore, those ideas have value.

Enjoyment of content is separate from the value I hold to how it is contained. In fact, I'd probably hold more value for some gaming products if the publisher produced and distributed their material by cd, compared to if I was only able to download them. Same content, but in the first instance it is tied to a physical object.

This is separate from the idea that ideas should be available without cost. An enlightened, wealthy culture can make some things of value available to the public at no cost. Some folks argue that this should be done more broadly. But it is very different from saying that they have no value.

As mentioned previously (and this not just from myself) ideas are available without cost. The content that expresses those ideas can be made available for a price. I just don't hold an electronic file to have as much value on it's own, as compared to one tied to a physical object.

That is the best way I can explain it, and I hope there isn't much more confusion regarding this.

 

[Psion]

I stand by my statement that Ideas are free. It is the expression of those ideas are what have value.

I think established authors and editors would agree to you. Approach an established publisher with an idea, you may get the cold shoulder. A manuscript, on the other hand...

The real value in creative products in synthesizing ideas into finished products. Ideas are comparatively cheap.

 

[scott-fs]

The only question I have now is in regards to my proposed business model. Would consumers support a publisher who provided content on a shareware basis. One in which you can use for as long as you want, but if you like/use the content enough, to reward the publisher. To be more specific, the consumer would set the price that he would pay based on how much value the content has to him. If you felt the latest release was only worth $1, send $1. If you felt it was worth $10, send $10.

 

[Tsyr]

Well, I've always had a sneaking suspision that shareware schemes don't work that well without some very strong incentive to buy the the product.

 

[Umbran]

Just to be clear, US copyright law says ideas are free, in the sense that they cannot be copyrighted. Applications of ideas, however, can be copyrighted and/or patented. It's how a person uses the idea that can be owned, and (IMO) rightly so.

Rightly, but somewhat inacurately, as "idea" isn't an easy thing to define. You see, the copyright office is made by lawyers, not artists

It is true that you cannot copyright the idea of "love". Nor even, "lovers who are too proud and scared to admit their love". But you can copyright Rhett Butler's, "Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn," both in word and image. And by becoming icons, Rhett and Scarlett have become ideas unto themselves, yet they are copyrightable.

While it may not be explicit, copyright law implicitly says, "you cannot copyright any idea that can be said simply." Ideas so subtle or complicated that the details of their presentation matter are effectively covered, however.

And rightly so. Things that can be said simply are easy, and one can expect most sentient critters to come up with them independantly. Things that are subtle or complex, however, wil not usually be stumbled upon by others. In effect, copyright and patent law protect ideas that you would not reasonably expect many folks to stumble upon independantly. These more unique ideas have great value, while the simple ones do not.

 

[Umbran]

It takes next to zero time and energy to think/comprehend something.

We may have a difference of definitions here, but at the moment, as stated, I have to strongly disagree with that statement. Some ideas take zero time and energy to think or comprehend. Others take a great deal of time and energy.

For my example, I turn to the realm of science. It was said, at one time, that only three people really understood Einstein's General Relativity Theory. This was, in essence, true. But it wasn't because nobody had read it. It wasn't because nobody knew the math required. It was because, even given knowledge of the math, and a copy of the text, the thing was (and still is), darned hard to grok. Even with the simplest expression of the theory known to man, and full facility in the language in which it that expression is written, it takes effort.

And quantum mechanics is worse. Even today, it is commonly agreed by those who knowit best that if anyone tells you they fully understand quantum mechanics, they are lying to you.

 

[Umbran]

The first is "ideas" and the second is "copyrighted material" - see the difference?

Yes, however, I still disagree. Because nobody is going to pay you for writing down your thougts on paper unless they are deep. To earn the reward, cleverness is not sufficient, true. But it is required.

To take this to Psion's example - if you got to a publisher with an idea, he won't listen. If you go tot a publisher with a full manuscrpit, he might listen to you, if that manuscript is sufficently good - meaning that you showed sufficient cleverness in it's writing.

The difference, however, at it's root is not in whether we have an idea and an expression of an idea. It's actually a matter of total number and depth of ideas. A simple idea - two lovers cannot be together, and they eventually commit suicide - is not clever enough. It is too simple an idea. Romeo and Juliet however has more meat, and is worthy of consideration.

The thing is, the details of the expression of an idea change the idea. How I say a thing is generally as important as what I say, due to the synergies of connotations and style.