RPG Illegal File Sharing Hurts the Hobby

[Jeff M. Hopper]

I ran across an excellent article by Andrew Bernstein of Polymancer magazine about illegal file sharing and its effects on the RPG industry. Its worth a read.

http://www.polymancerstudios.com/index_files/Page3251_w12_part1.htm

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Ok, so i've read the article too now -it sure was well written and he described reality (how it is and how it should be) well. I would like to make one comment though.

"You like the law? well then, enforce it."

(or rather, make sure it is enforced by the government)

here comes another one.

"might makes right."

 

[Theo D Lite]

I, too, have read the article and can sympathise with the view.

Can I also, for the sake of ballance, publish a link to an alternative point of view:

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html

 

[Tobias]

I think that everyone can agree that obtaining unpaid PDFs of products that are still in print, or to be reprinted, by companies, is hurting the gaming industry. I'll also say that the gaming industry has a much better point to make here for unlike the music and movie industries, who collect royalities for sold tapes, CD-Rs etc., they don't get a penny per download of Acrobat Reader or something ludicrous like that.

However, I would like to tackle one of the points made in the article: '"Out of print" does not matter legally.' While it is true that it remains illegal to distribute copyrighted material as long as the copyright holds (= several decades), it is likewise true that in case of products that are not in print and are not going to be reprinted, the damage to the copyright holder is not there. It is also true that situations in which legal copyrights are not enforced and free distribution is tolerated - without making the work PD - exist in other fields, namely "Abandonware" entertainment software. Ubi non accusator ibi non iudex.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Tobias:
I think that everyone can agree that obtaining unpaid PDFs of products that are still in print, or to be reprinted, by companies, is hurting the gaming industry.

I respectfully disagree.

1. 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.

2. In order to “hurt” the creator or copyright owner, you need to remove something from them. I don’t believe that income that they never got is something they lost – you can't lose what you never had.

 

[RandyT0001]

I like this idea of not having to pay for books or songs. Why can't I just copy one of my friends CD's or books? Why shouldn't it be free to file share music and books?

Hey! Here's an idea why not make cars free, when I need a new car I just go to the dealership and take one. Or when I need some electrical work on the house done I get an electrican to come over and fix the problem for free. If I really like the car I could send the manufacturer say a reasonable amount for it's value, say $5000 (if I have it to spare) or give the electrican $10 for fixing my wiring problem (if I have it to spare at the moment). I could go to the grocery store and take the food I need without paying, fantastic idea! Hell if we made everything free I wont have to work (of course if everything is free I wouldn't get paid for my work) then I could spend all my time playing games on the computer or sleeping in late.

Yes I like this idea of free, via file sharing, music and books.

Gnusam Netor (and others with similar views) what is your job? How do you earn money to live on? Would you do it for no pay? Why do you expect somgwriters, musicians, singers, authors and game designers to accept file sharing of their work without compensation? How would you like it if someone came to your house and borrowed your vehicle who loaned it to another, then another, etc. for weeks on end until somebody finally returns it to you only to have it borrowed the next day and the process repeats? Would you feel as if taken advantage of, exploited, abused? Don't you think the musicians, authors, etc feel that way when some one copies their work through file sharing?

And this comment:

"You like the law? well then, enforce it."

(or rather, make sure it is enforced by the government)

What keeps you from commiting murder, vigilant law enforcement or a sense of self responsibility and respect for your fellow man? Why not show that respect for another human by not file sharing?

 

[RainOfSteel]

Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tobias:
I think that everyone can agree that obtaining unpaid PDFs of products that are still in print, or to be reprinted, by companies, is hurting the gaming industry.

I respectfully disagree.

1. 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.

2. In order to “hurt” the creator or copyright owner, you need to remove something from them. I don’t believe that income that they never got is something they lost – you can't lose what you never had. </font>[/QUOTE]Under US law, this is a rationalization to support theft.

The whole point of copyright law is to prevent what you are suggesting.

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tobias:
I think that everyone can agree that obtaining unpaid PDFs of products that are still in print, or to be reprinted, by companies, is hurting the gaming industry.

I respectfully disagree.

1. 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.

2. In order to “hurt” the creator or copyright owner, you need to remove something from them. I don’t believe that income that they never got is something they lost – you can't lose what you never had. </font>[/QUOTE]Oh boy, do I disagree with Gnusam Netor here.

Now, one thing that I have learned from the Internet is that gaming is a cottage industry for most people, the profits are very marginal. If they are making any money off of their intellectual property, it is because people have to pay for it. If they were not interested in making money off of their intellectual property, then they would not be asking for money in exchange for that intellectual property. By illegal file sharing, you are saying that a RPG writer's hard work is worth nothing through your actions. If enough RPG writers find that they are not making any money at what they do, then they will go and do something else in order to make money - leaving being an RPG writer behind. As this happens, the source material for the RPG which is so desireable that you find it necessary to steal dries up - leaving nothing eventually.

In short, illegal file sharing of RPG material is robbing from the poor. Why do that and damage an already marginal industry?

 

[parmasson]

Granted that the 100 year rule in US copyright law is a bit whacked but if that author is alive we really need to be sure that we compensate them for their work. Even if it is out of print we owe it to the author to pay them for their work.
It is how they make their living.

 

[Straybow]

2. In order to “hurt” the creator or copyright owner, you need to remove something from them. I don’t believe that income that they never got is something they lost – you can't lose what you never had.

They have a right to make money from their intellectual property. If you don't pay them, it is no different from your employer failing to pay your wage or salary by saying "it isn't that hard to show up and sit on your arse."

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:
Under US law, this is a rationalization to support theft.

Well, theft is a problematic term in my opinion. It isn't theft. Theft is to illegally take someone's possession, which isn't the case here. It's a breach of copyright laws.
To a degree, I realize where Gnusam is coming from. The rationalization is as follows:
1. I wouldn't or couldn't spend money (at least not the asked amount) for the product in any case, but I would take it as a freebie.
2. Ergo, the producer isn't missing a sale.
3. Ergo, I do not hurt the producer.
But simply, society and law do not and cannot work with each citizen weighing off the pros and cons of laws by himself. The authority in this matter is the copyright holder (or the author rights holder, depending on the legal system.) If she deems a certain price fair, her wishes have to be respected in this regard. I can see a different situation when the copyright holder has vanished, or doesn't care, but with a copyright holder who is actively marketing her copyrighted work and who explicitly forbids distributing PDFs of it, the case is pretty much clear.

It is equally unfeasible for the buyer to determine a fair price by himself (maybe it would be feasible in Zhodani society.) A few weeks ago, one of the book peddlers making open air sales on our campus started a little experiment (or maybe it was a sociology student.) He just put up a table with books, a bag (for money) and a sign saying: "Just take any book you like and please pay as much as you think is fair."
This experiment was not repeated.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[Pickles]

Personally, I would feel bad about ripping off Marc Miller, but good about stealing (non-Firefly) files from Fox

. Nobody likes companies that make lots of money out of crap entertainment while stifling real talent. I think that's what this "It's morally ok to steal from big corporations" attitude comes from (but that's not the point I'm going to make).

Without going into the rights and wrongs of the situation, I can see a valid reason to share OOP-but-copyrighted material: without file-sharing, such material may be lost forever. Rare recordings of music and film are frequently found in the attic of a (often deceased) lawbreaker. Knowledge comes before legality in my book of human values.

Secondly, file-sharing may be having an unforseen side-effect. Has anyone noticed the proliferation of free RPGs and settings on the web? What's more, these author-driven productions are showing a rapid improvement in quality of content and presentation over the comittee-designed mainstream commercial games.

This may be correlation rather than cause-and-effect, but it amuses me to think that RPGs could be going back to what they were (for me, in their hey-day): a few commercial products and 99% homebrew.

I still wouldn't rip off Marc Miller, though.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:

And this comment:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"You like the law? well then, enforce it."

(or rather, make sure it is enforced by the government)

What keeps you from commiting murder, vigilant law enforcement or a sense of self responsibility and respect for your fellow man? Why not show that respect for another human by not file sharing? </font>[/QUOTE]What keeps me from committing murder?
it's a bit funny that you seem to think murder is good for comparison with "theft" and "copyright infringement".

(it's not really funny)


edited for clarity

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by RainOfSteel:

The whole point of copyright law is to prevent what you are suggesting.

That's probably right.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Jeff M. Hopper:
Oh boy, do I disagree with Gnusam Netor here.

That is acceptable

In short, illegal file sharing of RPG material is robbing from the poor. Why do that and damage an already marginal industry?

Is it possible that you misread my previous post?
In any case you are not the only one it seems, it makes it more likely that I “scrambled” my position unfortunately.

I will try to explain better.

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.

Sorry have to break here, i'll be back later

 

[Hemdian]

Originally posted by Tobias:
Well, theft is a problematic term in my opinion. It isn't theft. Theft is to illegally take someone's possession, which isn't the case here. It's a breach of copyright laws.

Well the theft isn't of the item, per se, as it is a copy. The theft is in any lost revenue. But how much revenue is lost? This is where IMHO the music/movie industries, et al, do themselves a disservice: they report a grossly inflated figure for illegal downloads and polorise opinion instead of recognising there are gray areas (like what is "fair use", etc).

Hypothetical example: "Joe" has a family to support and a low income job, he has maybe £30 a month for entertainment. He spends it on buying cheap illegal copies of DVDs and gets the equivalent of about £150 worth of DVDs. The movie industry would count this as £150 worth of theft, but if there were no illegal copies to buy and Joe was forced to use legitimate sources only then he'd still spend £30 a month. Is what he's doing illegal? Obveously. Is he wrong? Sure. But there's a difference between stealing £30 and steeling £150.

Gray areas include: lending a book to a friend, having friends round to watch a movie, region coding on DVDs, making legitimate backup copies, transfering a copyrighted item from one media to another, browsing a website, time-delayed or deferred viewing, selling secondhand, abandonware, try before you buy, derivative works, buying the copyright to competing works just to supress them, and how long should copyright be for away.

Having said all that, in general I don't accept the "it's alright because I wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument. "Try before you buy" is one thing, but if you are going to use it you should pay for it.


Regards PLST

"Opinions expressed here are my own at time of writing and may change in the future."

 

[Andrew Boulton]

How about these cases:

- you've bought the CT reprints but want a copy on your computer?

- you want - and would willingly pay for - the old DGP books, but the owner refuses to make them available?

- it's a book that Drivethru have - and probably will again - given away for free?

 

[Tobias]

Originally posted by Hemdian:
Well the theft isn't of the item, per se, as it is a copy. The theft is in any lost revenue.

Well, but this under the legal definition is not theft, at least as I understand the term. The definition of theft includes deriving the rightful owner of the use or possession of his property.

But how much revenue is lost? This is where IMHO the music/movie industries, et al, do themselves a disservice: they report a grossly inflated figure for illegal downloads and polorise opinion instead of recognising there are gray areas (like what is "fair use", etc).

They also do themselves a disservice with what in my opinion is an outrageous double standard: They collect royalities from tape/CD-R production because these are used to copy their products, and yet see fit to pursue legal action against all who actually do use them in this way. In short ways, you have to pay them for a something they will sue you for.

Gray areas include: lending a book to a friend, having friends round to watch a movie, region coding on DVDs, making legitimate backup copies, transfering a copyrighted item from one media to another, browsing a website, time-delayed or deferred viewing, selling secondhand, abandonware, try before you buy, derivative works, buying the copyright to competing works just to supress them, and how long should copyright be for away.

Dunno about British or US law, but under local law, most of these aren't gray areas, but squeaky-clean legal. Well, at least they still are. Who knows what EU meddling will bring.
One experience with one of the usual EULA documents for some MS software: It was the typical "By signing this document, you become our bitch" stuff, and just for sport I was actually viewing it this time. And you know what? At the end there was a postscriptum: "If you are German, we are obliged to inform you that none of the above is legally binding to you."
That made me grin.

Regards,

Tobias

 

[RandyT0001]

Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Randy Tyler:

What keeps you from commiting murder, vigilant law enforcement or a sense of self responsibility and respect for your fellow man? Why not show that respect for another human by not file sharing?

What keeps me from committing murder?
it's a bit funny that you seem to think murder is good for comparison with "theft" and "copyright infringement".

(it's not really funny)


edited for clarity </font>[/QUOTE]So murder is too extreme to compare. Here are some other examples then:

1. What stops you from purse-snatching, the security guard?
2. What stops you from shoplifting, the security cameras?
3. What stops you from submitting a copy of a friend's thesis, term paper, etc. as your own?
4. You and your friends want to go to a concert but there is only enough money to buy one ticket. Do you attend the concert, record it on a tape recorder and after the concert make copies for all the friends who didn't attend, even those who didn't contribute money for the ticket? (Do you do the same for movie using a camcorder?)
5. Your employer schedules a meeting to discuss new revenue ideas, with the best recieving a reward bonus, for the company in a week. You and a co-worker talk about ideas and she comes up with a great one. On the day of the meeting she is sick and absent. Do you present her idea as you own gaining the bonus? If so how do you think she will feel about it? How will you justify your actions to her?
6. After your accountant fills and files your taxes do you refuse to pay him?
7. After the tree doctor trims your trees do you pay?
8. After your lawyer has filed papers with the courts for whatever reason do you deny him income by not paying?
9. You go to your job, work hard for the week(s) and when payday arrives your employer tells you he's not paying, you how do you feel? Sure you can sue the employer for your wages but filing a suit takes money (do you have some savings to use for this purpose and still live on until you recieve your due?), it's an added expense and time consuming. After the litigation is settled and you recieve your wage the employer repeats it the following month, he doesn't pay your wage. How do you feel? Do you sue again or quit?

Why deny income to the copyright holder by illegally copying his work? Why not show respect for the author, songwriter, or musician's work by not denying him income but refraining from copying his work?

 

[Jeff M. Hopper]

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.

OK, I understand your position a bit better now, but I still disagree with it.

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.

There are several examples given about how file sharing is not bad as long as you do it from large corporations and it is done by people whose income does not allow them to get the intellectual property any other way. This is obfuscation of the highest order. We are not talking about record companies or movie producers (who admittedly, do have access to large monetary resources), we are talking about RPG writers - who are usually freelance workers of RPG companies and maintain other jobs in order to make a living. The difference is night and day in terms of income level. A record company may have hundreds, if not thousands, of employees while a RPG publisher is lucky to have a permanent staff numbering in the teens, some are even nothing more than guys working alone in their basements to publish stuff electronically.

Comparing the two different types of entertainment producers is a fallacy, especially when it comes to profit and loss for each.