• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.
  • We, the systems administration staff, apologize for this unexpected outage of the boards. We have resolved the root cause of the problem and there should be no further disruptions.

RPG Illegal File Sharing Hurts the Hobby

Forgive my rambling, but this is a topic that comes up often in converstaion with a friend whilst we're driving to various gaming sessions.

A few quick questions to the industry;
How many sales are LOST because of piracy?
How many sales are MADE because of piracy?
How many people with pirated pdfs on their computers had no intention of buying the game anyway?

These are very relevant questions. The first one especially so, as how many people do any of you know that will use a pirated pdf from their computer whilst at the gaming table? How many print these pdfs out to use at the table? I suspect the honest answers to be "maybe a couple."

As to the second question, I'm sure there are people out there that were unwilling to risk $30-40 on a book they might not like, but after browsing a pirated pdf decide to go ahead and buy the book.

This leads me to what I think the industry could do to help itself. Sell reasonably priced ($10-15, not this 95c off stupidity) watermarked pdfs to try and grab the uncertain market. This price is around the magic impulse buy figure, and the vast majority of customers that like and intend to use the book will buy a hard copy as well. That's two sales! The customers who didn't like the pdf don't feel as bummed for blowing $10-15 rather than the $30-40 for the book (which also runs the risk of being returned).

I can hear the "it costs a lot to produce books" crowd starting up now, but hear me out. Certain costs are the same if it's dead tree or pdf. I'm guessing here that the cost of writing, art and layout are the same. From this point the file needs to be processed for dead tree or pdf printing and that both of these processes involve more-or-less the same effort and cost. I keep hearing that books are sold into the distribution chain at about 50% RRP, so by selling a pdf directly at 50% RRP a publisher is making more profit than with a hardcopy. The pdf is a one time cost instead of a recurring physical cost for printing materials and shipping.

Green Ronin done something similar with Blue Rose. The pdf went on sale for $16 (IIRC), then a couple of months later the physical book went on sale. In the intervening time they also managed to get customer feedback and reduce the amount of errata the physical book would have had! (An updated pdf was also sent out to customers).

I've rambled enough, but I'm sure you all see what I'm trying to say.
 
Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
I honestly don’t believe that robbing is a good idea - from rich or poor. I believe that it is a human right to own stuff (objects and to some extent ideas). But there is the problem that it is tricky to put ownership on an idea, it’s immaterial and as long as the actual object is not “stolen” that containis the idea (a book), nothing is lost to the owner.
Click to expand...
Ideas cannot be copyrighted nor patented. The idea of having artificial gravity or null gravity propulsion that has appeared in many sci-fi books, movies and TV series cannot be protected with a copyright. The idea of intergrated circuits in a microchip cannot be patented. The actual product, the book (RPG or otherwise) that has the idea of artifical garvity included in it is a work built upon an idea and it can be copyrighted and protected. The actual product, the Intel microchip, that is based upon the idea of the intergrated circuit can be patented and protected as a work.

So when you copy a book or copy a song you are not just copying an idea that is included in it you are copying somebody's work. By coping this work you have denied income to the person who produced the work. In essence you have "robbed" him of income. You can use ideas in it (such as aliens invade Earth, artifical gravity, ancient alien civilizations have spread mankind across the universe) in your own work but you cannot copy somebody else work without due compensation (or permission) to it's producer/author.
 
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:

Even though intellectual property is immaterial, it still took time and effort from the creator to bring it into being. You are doing the author of that intellectual property a disservice by not paying for that time and effort with an illegal download.
Click to expand...
I agree, it took time and effort to create it– to create the idea. I also agree that I might do the creator a disservice by not paying for his work, if he wants to be paid. But I don’t steal since, to use Hemdians words:
”Well the theft isn't of the item, per se, as it is a copy. The theft is in any lost revenue.”

If I have money to pay with and don’t pay when I get it, then I believe it is wrong.



Comparing the two different types of entertainment producers is a fallacy, especially when it comes to profit and loss for each.
Click to expand...
I agree, it does not matter if you copy the work of rich or poor –If you can pay you should pay.

So, to quote myself:

“I don’t see that – without exception – the gaming industry is hurt by “obtaining unpaid PDFs” as you wrote. In some cases sure, but not all. ”

And then a little refine(quote):

“I don’t see that – without exception – the gaming industry is hurt by obtaining unpaid PDFs if you can’t pay for them. In some cases sure, but not all. ”
 
Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
when you copy a book or copy a song you are not just copying an idea that is included in it you are copying somebody's work.
Click to expand...
Thanks, when I wrote “idea” I meant “the idea AND the work it took to formulate it”.
 
Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
If I have money to pay with and don’t pay when I get it, then I believe it is wrong.

I agree, it does not matter if you copy the work of rich or poor –If you can pay you should pay.

“I don’t see that – without exception – the gaming industry is hurt by obtaining unpaid PDFs if you can’t pay for them. In some cases sure, but not all. ”
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that it is acceptable to steal something (by illegally DL/file sharing a PDF) if you can't pay for it? Why aren't all economic classes held to the same legal standard when it comes to theft? Shouldn't the person who doesn't have quite enough money to buy his favorite RPG supplement adjust his budget to make the purchase or perhaps take an odd job (shovelling snow out of a neighbors driveway or mow a neighbors lawn) to earn the extra money to buy want he wants instead of stealing it through illegal file sharing of a PDF? After obtaining an illegal copy of an RPG supplement from a friend do you send the maker of the product a check the next week to pay for it now that money isn't so tight (after payday that is) or do you conviently forget about the illegal DL/copying?
 
The US Copyright laws are badly broken: most artists would agree, but at various ends.

AS a performer, I need to obtain permission to use anything written since about 1900... including happy birthday... if I wish to do it in public.

As a composer, however, I have little ability to enforce my creative property.

The problem is that far too many schmucks and meshugenas (go look them up...) don't believe in the ownability of ideas or even processess. If we go back to that mode, the entire entertainment industry collapses. We go back to the roaming trouveri I troubadori.

For better or worse, Roger Sanger owns the right to control distribution of NEW COPIES of the DGP materials. US Copyright does not currently permit restrictions upon the resale or giving of tangible versions away,save for tangible versions created from intangible ones, but does prohibit thrid party production of new tangible versions. In other words, Roger has the right to say "Yes, Joe can make copies for his friends" and "No, Fred, you can't". Marc Miller is in slightly less clear territory. Some of the DGP materials are clearly derivatives, and thus require MWM's direct permission, as well as Roger's. Other bits, however, are whole cloth their own, and could fall under fair use (101 Vehicles, 101 Robots, the Adventures), but as part of the larger whole are clearly still based upon MWM's work. If Roger charges for it, it's an issue of contract, since Roger contracted and accepted the status of the contract when he purchased the enmeshed rights.

If I, not having accepted any such contracts (OK, that's not true, anymore, due to playtest agreements for T20), choose to incorporate ideas from those, but file off the names and don't duplicate the exact wordings, could produce functionally compatible materials clear of copyright and trademark. (That I've essentially agreed not to is part of Hunter's T20 playtest requirements of those few years ago... and with good reason. Game systems are generally not protected by copyright, and the processes are seldom unique enough for patent.)

The problem is one of deprival of value. If I infringe Roger that way, since he's blocked from profit by MWM, his real losses are nil, and his potential losses are minimal. If I instead pull such a stunt on Hunter, his potential losses (or QLI's, really) are FAR higher, since QLI is currently allowed to make money on the derivatives. Further, In my case, I've contracted to not do so, so Hunter then has DIRECT breach of contract, plus intent to infringe upon intellectual property rights.

Now, going a step further, If I duplicate DGP materials, I deprive MWM of the potential for legitimate royalties. I also have stolen control from both MWM and Roger.

Not that I will stop someone from copyiing my books, but if they do so, they have literally stolen them to do so. I don't loan them out. Now, under MWM's cloning policy, I'd have allowed one copy, on the basis that RS's losses are potentially nil, since he's not permitted to make any moneys on it until he recontracts with MWM... and I'd be in breach of the law, but not in such a manner as to have been actionable at the time. Now, however, is a different matter.

Worse still is electronic editions. One is contracting by purchase not to redistribute nor to make excessive copies on tangible media, nor to distribute nor sell tangible copies, nor to resell the intangible source. Reselling that is breach of contract, pure and simple, and thus civilly actionable. It's also a potential civil action under copyright law, and if one has to decode an encrypted file, it's also a violation of DMCA... and potentially criminal thereunder.

Now, in one case, I've specifically got permission to have the materials on more than one machine... but I've also secured from the players agreement to destroy when the campaign endsand not redistrubute at all. In another, I was specifically told to redistribute to those files to singed-on playtesters. But those were the special exceptions.
 
Ok, I will correct myself against better judgement.
Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
So, are you saying that it is acceptable to steal something
Click to expand...
No, that is not what i'm saying. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I believe that 'stealing' is acceptable in some cases. A Governments taxation of its citizens is a form stealing (under my def of stealing) and I believe it has a right to do so. There are some other cases as well, but gov-taxes illustrate it well enough.

But once again, what I commented on in the beginning of the thread is not a form of stealing, since the owner has not lost anything, not a sale and no item.


Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
After obtaining an illegal copy of an RPG supplement from a friend do you send the maker of the product a check the next week to pay for it now that money isn't so tight (after payday that is) or do you conviently forget about the illegal DL/copying?
Click to expand...
I borrowed the 'pocket Empires' book from a friend, is that stealing in your mind assumingi only read it? Anyway, you do raise an interesting point (in your own hostile way ). If the copyright owner doesn't lose a sale when you obtain an unpaid pdf from a friend, does he lose a future sale if you get more money in the future? I think so, hence you should send him a check. Would I do that though? I doubt it.
 
Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
But once again, what I commented on in the beginning of the thread is not a form of stealing, since the owner has not lost anything, not a sale and no item.
Click to expand...
Actually, the owner has lost something. The owner has lost the opportunity for a sale and thus the chance to profit from his own work.
 
Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Actually, the owner has lost something. The owner has lost the opportunity for a sale and thus the chance to profit from his own work.
Click to expand...
Assuming the owner didn't lose anything, you say he still lost something? I don't know how to answer that, sorry.
 
IMO, creators should do themselves a favour and make their work available online for free, either wholly or in sample form. No-one has yet put forward any convincing evidence that file-sharing costs sales. Those figures about billions of dollars being lost to the music industry are just a big stack of wild guesses calculated to the Nth degree (e.g. assuming that every download or file-share equals a lost sale).

On the other hand, there is a growing feeling (I'm not sure I would call it a "body of evidence", yet) that the practice actually encourages sales by providing potential buyers with a preview the product before they buy. This particularly applies to books and other printed material, as it would not make economic sense to get a free download and then spend more money printing it out than the book would have cost in the first place. And who wants to read a book on a monitor? Eric Flint puts the case very enthusiastically at the Baen Books Free Library. You know, that link at the bottom of this web page? :eek:

Of course, that assumes that the item is actually good. Which means the music industry is in even deeper trouble than it thinks it is, as file-sharing might actually have been propping up its dismal sales.
file_23.gif
 
I think that this discussion, like many of the same ilk, simply show that laws and mores have not yet fully adapted to the rise of the realm of electronic things (as opposed to physical things). Something about easy, anonymous copies and the lack of a physical thing seems to make the ethical angle easier to finagle.

Notice that Baen doesn't actually put *all* of their books online for free.

Borrowing from someone that you know or a licensed entity (like a library) who paid for a book is one thing. "Borrowing" from some anonymous source or one who hasn't paid for the copy is rather another.

Use what justifications that you want ("doesn't hurt anyone", "It's okay to steal if I can't afford it," "It's not a thing, it's an idea", "I'm just borrowing it since I wasn't going to buy it anyway," "I'll buy it if I like it", etc). In the end, you're still enjoying or making use of something that you haven't paid for when you should.

I don't mind having some sample work up online for display (which I have, in a way, at my old deckplans site). However, I'm not about to advocate that we put up the Golden Age Starship supplements (which have my work) online for free in the hopes that someone will donate cash if they like them. And, it does affect me if you find a copy online for free rather than buying through QLink.

Ron
 
Using ANY kind of Intellectual Property without permission, either directly from the owner or with the license that is granted from a property's purchase is STEALING.

End of story.

There isn't much gray area there.

I work for a software publisher. I take things like this quite personally. If someone makes an illegal copy of a program and distributes that, it impacts the bottom line and eventually my paycheck.

Just because something is not tangible (i.e., it is a series of bits, or a sequence of sounds through an interval of time) like a car or a boat doesn't mean that using the end result of someone's work without paying is not stealing.
 
"Using ANY kind of Intellectual Property without permission, either directly from the owner or with the license that is granted from a property's purchase is STEALING." -- Jim Fetters.
Click to expand...
That is correct, as far as it goes. The terms of copyrighting a publication allows for personal use, and publication of excerpts as long as the original author is credited [1].

Shareware developers have come up with the right idea; issue a 'crippled' version that has limited features [2].

I've seen some deckplans that detail only the bridge, only the engineering section, or only a stateroom, but not all three. I've also read excerpts from stories that resemble movie trailers in that they express a lot of action without giving away too much of the plot [3].

Stealing is inevitable, but that does not make stealing acceptable. It is largely up to the vendor to reduce the chances that their products will be stolen. Posting an entire adventure on line, with images, and providing no safeguards at all against the "Select All --> Copy --> Paste" [4] routine is the same as leaving the warehouse door open. Even the most copy-resistant PDF file can be ripped [5].

Keep in mind that "There is no honor among thieves" when you rely on the "honor" of those who read your public posts. Don't rely on the morality or ethics of your readers either, for they may not have any [6].

-KR-

[1] Usually through the use of footnotes like this one.
[2] Or limited-duration functionality.
[3] Used to be found between the copyright page and the table of contents in paperbacks.
[4] ... for example. Other common procedures are readily and legally available.
[5] I discovered this, much to my dismay, when I posted one of my own "secure" PDF files on one site, and found that it had been hacked and re-posted within a week under someone else's name on another site.
[6] And "Common Sense" ain't so common, either.
 
Wow, that didn't take long from the first post to degenerate... (Fortunately, degenerating threads on this site aren't too ugly.)

Intellectual property is just that - property. And, many folks credit intellectual property protections (immediately after real property rights) as the prime factor in the growth of the "information age" that is the West's economic engine right now. If you justify theft of it, you're not really any different from any other moral relativist - no matter how drastic a comparison you may think it.

I grew up (back in the Atari/Apple user group rivalry days) around some who thought it was OK to buy one copy of a program and make multiple copies (for everybody that pitched in to buy the original). At least it was if the original was "unreasonably expensive". Of course, these folks got paid very well (engineers) to produce their own intellectual property.... I have since grown out of that conceit.

I will admit to having a photocopy or two back in the bad old days (the only one I have left is my Advanced Melee from The Fantasy Trip - I haven't been able to win a proper copy for a decent price on eBay yet). But, no more.

I also freely admit to having a few copies of free stuff from DriveThruRPG.com that I wouldn't have even looked at if they weren't free. And, I have some of the Traveller stuff that isn't CT/MT because it was free for a bit on DriveThruRPG.com. But, I certainly wouldn't have gotten it in any other way for free. And, yes, I may buy more stuff because I got those free. But, don't count on it from many folks (or me).

On the "let information be free" side, though, Sony's newest Digital Rights Management snafu on their CDs is just one more example of why some people won't buy from "Big Music".
 
"Intellectual propert is just that - property." -- Fritz88.
Click to expand...
.... and copying that property is stealing, unless the owner states that it can be freely copied. Otherwise, it is up to the owner to decide and clearly state that an article is protected under copyright laws. That way, potential thieves are warned that action will be taken to protect the interests of the author. This is the Ideal situation -- the way things should be.

In the real world, when people publically post articles in their entirety without engaging any safeguards (not even a copyright notice), and then complain that thieves are copying those articles... it's as if they're leaving their homes unsecured and then complaining that they've been burglarized.

If the owner of the material says that it's free for the taking, then it's not stealing to take it. The same goes for items that have expired copyrights or have otherwise passed into the public domain.

If instead the owner wants to have his articles and publish them too, then it's up to the owner to protect his or her property. It is not enough to tell the thief that he's stealing; he already knows it. He's also likely to have rationalized the theft, covered his tracks, and made up an excuse to tell any authorities that may (or most likely not) show up at his door.

There are thieves out there. Thieves steal -- it's what makes them thieves. It's up to the author to protect his or her property from thieves. They should not expect anyone else to do it for them, and they should not expect anyone else to jump to their aid when it happens.

I've been ripped off, too. I submitted my very first article to a popular fantasy role-playing magazine, only to see the same article appear in that magazine under someone else's byline (albeit with added details) about a year later. It was my word against the 'famous staff writer' and I had not the resources to pursue the matter. The magazine has since changed hands and the writer no longer works there.

Tough coprolites. Now I know better.

When I post something, then it is either a watered-down version of an original idea of mine, or an obvious extrapolation of someone else's. I try not to post something that belongs to someone else without giving due credit, but I've sometimes posted in good faith that an excerpt is public domain, only to remove the post or acknowledge the original author when challenged. It's just the right thing to do.

Also, when I submit an article to a publication, I make certain to take steps to secure a copyright to that article first, and I only submit articles in hardcopy format.

BTW: Here's my interpretation of a copyright notice given with regards to a website and it's owners:

"Permission is given by the author of this posting to copy and distribute this posting freely, provided such actions do not violate the copyright of this website and the copyrights of those who own or administrate this website. Permission to copy or distribute this article may be revoked at any time by the owners of this website or their designated agents."

What do you think?
 
Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Actually, the owner has lost something. The owner has lost the opportunity for a sale and thus the chance to profit from his own work.
Click to expand...
Assuming the owner didn't lose anything, you say he still lost something? I don't know how to answer that, sorry. </font>[/QUOTE]He's lost the control over who is allowed to copy it, if nothing else.

A few game designers have persued Copyright Infringement in order to keep a dead game OFF the shelf.
 
Originally posted by Aramis:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Actually, the owner has lost something. The owner has lost the opportunity for a sale and thus the chance to profit from his own work.
Click to expand...
Assuming the owner didn't lose anything, you say he still lost something? I don't know how to answer that, sorry. </font>[/QUOTE]He's lost the control over who is allowed to copy it, if nothing else.
</font>[/QUOTE]I guess I could banteringly (word exist?) respond with:
"Assuming the owner didn't lose anything, you say he still lost something?"


But in reality I see your point, and to some degree that is a loss for the owner - the loss of control over his property. I believe that that loss is acceptable, since the current value and the future value of the property to the owner is not harmed by the outsider's actions.

I'll try to construct a comparison.

Lets say you are the king (and thus the law) in Aramon, among your many possessions is a forest, it's big and you cannot guard it all the time. The only thing you are interested in from the forest is the timber, you don't care about the deer that live in the forest nor the beautiful scenery. One day, one of your subjects - the angry bard Jim - wants to walk trough the forest, he doesn't damage it in any way since he actually wears anti-grav shoes. Remember, since you are the king you can decide about everything's legality. We are only talking about the "higher values" here.

Is that ok? I think so.
(But I believe you lost some control because of the bards actions.)

Let's say angry-bard-Jim writes a poem of your forest while inside it (he's wearing his anti-grav shoes) and you are still only interested in the timber.

I think it is ok.

He earns money from selling the poem about your forest. You wouldn't write poems yourself - because your time is better spent with organizing the timber-cutting.

Is it ok? I'm not sure, but I think so.

Angry-bard-Jim builds a little poetry camp and starts taking rent from other bards but luckily no trees are damaged, although some grass is. They complain to you that their scenery is damaged because you cut down the trees, this takes some of your time.

Not ok, you should evict them and possibly demand compensation.

Now if you can't - because your army is elsewhere fighting the evil demon Gnusamanetor and his minions - you have to chose, fight the demon or police your forest. Ultimately you might very well decide that the demon is a bigger threat.

Let's say you do.
So, what do you do, the mighty king? Do you bitch about it: "Stop it, it's my forest!"? Or accept that there are more important things to fight in your land, namely the demon, and that bitching about the things that you choose to not control just makes you look silly. When you look silly your subject are more likely to rebell because they respect you less.


edited several times, mostly for language
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Play by Mail, and programs in magazines
Replies
4
Views
227
Straybow
Straybow
Timerover51
Jungle in Traveller
Replies
4
Views
388
Diveguy
D
C
Gauss weapon speculations
2
Replies
28
Views
1K
infojunky
infojunky
A
76 Situations: 01 - The Riddle of the Universe and Its Solution
Replies
3
Views
387
AlHazred
A
C
Mid-crunch space combat system for Traveller
Replies
5
Views
345
infojunky
infojunky
Back
Top