RPG Illegal File Sharing Hurts the Hobby

[Fritz_Brown]

Gnusam, I really don't understand your analogy. The walk through the forest would be at most trespassing (even though he didn't set foot, the king would have rights to the airspace up to and including the tallest object on the property, as limited by the FAA - hey, you mentioned grav boots!). If the bard built a treehouse in one of the trees, it could be considered theft, as he is denying the king the ability to make use of his property (he can't cut down that tree for sale). (And, BTW, that's one crime tree-spikers are committing when they do their protests.)

Now, as to the choice issue: if the person chooses not to enforce their property rights, then you are OK. You are not legally or morally right, but you are safe - for the time being. Depending on the intellectual property laws in your domicile, the failure to immediately enforce a copyright (or patent) doesn't necessarily forfeit that right in perpetuity. The author could decide some years later to go after you, when you have that money you didn't have when you justified the taking of his intellectual property. When the king has dealt with the demon, he can hunt down the bard with his army at leisure. (Cute names BTW! )

Why would I offer stuff up for free? Because nobody will buy my stuff, not knowing who I am or how well I write (or how bang-up of an imagination I have). So, I would offer some free items to build a reputation, then write bigger and better things for a profit (I hope).

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

"So, I would offer some free items to build a reputation, then write bigger and better things for a profit (I hope)." -- Fritz88.

I've tried this, to no success. My products that are just good enough to offer for free are simply not good enough to charge for, and do not attract the atention of those willing to pay for a quality product.

This works for some, although there is a drawback. A person's product or service might be good, but not perceived as 'good enough' due to it being offered for free. Some may take the free offer, but not offer to pay for future products or services. Once the person starts charging for the formerly free product or service, then their customers will go elsewhere.

Reminds me of that old saying; "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?"

Just like there are people who will never commit to a relationship because they are provided with everything that a committed relationship would normally provide (except the committment) and move on when talk of marriage comes up, so there are people who will like your product just fine as long as they can get it for free and seek such freebies elsewhere when you start charging for it.

 

[RandyT0001]

Gnusam, I'm with Fritz on not understanding your analogy. The bard and his friends walking through the forest (to me) is like a person going to a library to borrow a book, one enjoys the scenery and the other a good story.

Let me try to use this forest analog myself.

The king raises trees to sell to maintain the kingdom.
(A game company writes a PDF supplement to sell.)

One of the evil demon Gnusamanetor's minions buys a tree (roots and all) from the king.
(Somebody buys the PDF supplement.)

The evil demon Gnusamanetor uses his "Star Trek replicator" technology to duplicate the the minion's tree in his own yard.
(Gnusam Netor uses file sharing technology to copy his friends PDF game supplement.)

Other minions use the "replicator" technology to make more tree duplicates.
(Other people make copies of the PDF through file sharing.)

The king and his supporters upon hearing of and seeing the tree duplicates complain "You have duplicated the tree that the king wanted to sell. You have denied him income."
(Gnusam Netor makes a post on the CotI forums defending file sharing and recieves numerous arguements against it by fellow CotI members.)

The evil demon Gnusamanetor replies to the king's supporters, "I merely duplicated the tree one of my minions bought from the king. I did not steal any 'thing' from the king."
(Gnusam Netor defends file sharing by stating that a 'thing' was not stolen since it is just an immaterial 'idea' that was copied.)

The kingdom collapses because sales of trees are insufficient to maintain it.
(The game compnay goes out of business due to lost sales because of filesharing.)

Is this an understandable analogy?

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Fritz88:
(Cute names BTW! )

They have no basis in reality, they are purely coincidental - as you will see later.

Originally posted by Fritz88:
Gnusam, I really don't understand your analogy. The walk through the forest would be at most trespassing (even though he didn't set foot, the king would have rights to the airspace up to and including the tallest object on the property, as limited by the FAA - hey, you mentioned grav boots!).

My analogies seldom clear anything, but hey, I felt like writing a story ok? It was for your - CotI's amusement. Although I have to say, it annoys me that I wrote a fantasy story, when it naturally should have been in the traveller setting (atleast I mentioned grav-boots)
Maybe it is on a red-zoned TL 3 planet in the Old Expanses?

I see that coming from a republic softens ones perception of a king's powers. The King in Aramon is the law. Everyone knows that he has a law that it is punishable by death for any bard to trespass in his timber-forest. Further, he will state that this mysterious FAA be heretical and have it chopped to pieces. The king's loyal paladin Fritz will do the actual dirty-work, he will do it quickly and efficiently as that is in his nature. You see, paladin Fritz is extra-holy so he can do all the nasty stuff without getting sullied. We all know that denying oneself stuff makes you morally superior, hence more holy. Paladin Fritz denies himself a lot, unless the king orders him of course.

Originally posted by Fritz88:

Now, as to the choice issue: if the person chooses not to enforce their property rights, then you are OK. You are not legally or morally right, but you are safe - for the time being.

The king's choice is meant to illustrate the government and the property owner aggregate's choice. So although the owner might want to protect its property very much, maybe the Government does not prioritize it.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Randy Tyler:
Gnusam, I'm with Fritz on not understanding your analogy. The bard and his friends walking through the forest (to me) is like a person going to a library to borrow a book, one enjoys the scenery and the other a good story.

The king thinks differently, he believes that it is his forest and his scenery and he takes it very personally.

Let me try to use this forest analog myself.

What, do you STEAL my STORY!?!?!

(I refuse to see any irony… no, nothing ironic whatsoever, move on…)

The king raises trees to sell to maintain the kingdom.
(A game company writes a PDF supplement to sell.)

Alright, I wanted to leave this mysterious “intellectual property” world and enter the realm of touchy-property-thingies, much like trees, with a reason (although, your interpretation is certainly not incorrect). The reason being that what is inspiration and what is copying is pretty undefined and open for discussion (but not by me and not in this thread I hope).

One of the evil demon Gnusamanetor's minions buys a tree (roots and all) from the king.
(Somebody buys the PDF supplement.)
The evil demon Gnusamanetor uses his "Star Trek replicator" technology to duplicate the the minion's tree in his own yard.
(Gnusam Netor uses file sharing technology to copy his friends PDF game supplement.)

The evil demon Gnusamanetor does not buy, nor replicate things, he destroys them – he is a demon after all.

The king and his supporters upon hearing of and seeing the tree duplicates complain "You have duplicated the tree that the king wanted to sell. You have denied him income."
(Gnusam Netor makes a post on the CotI forums defending file sharing and recieves numerous arguements against it by fellow CotI members.)

The evil demon Gnusamanetor replies to the king's supporters, "I merely duplicated the tree one of my minions bought from the king. I did not steal any 'thing' from the king."
(Gnusam Netor defends file sharing by stating that a 'thing' was not stolen since it is just an immaterial 'idea' that was copied.)

The kingdom collapses because sales of trees are insufficient to maintain it.
(The game compnay goes out of business due to lost sales because of filesharing.)

Is this an understandable analogy?

Interesting interpretation, I did not see that coming.

Let me respond by telling everyone who it is that commands the armies fighting the evil demon and his minions, well it’s general Randy of course.

The purpose of the demon in the story was not to say “that’s me, I am powerful”, it was to provide a choice for the King. How he is to protect his forest with limited resources. Let’s assume that someone else replicates the trees.

So…
Angry-bard-Jim replicates the trees and he does that with his magical poems, one reads the poem and a mighty tree appears in front of you. I have to admit that I don’t like the idea of tree-replicators (but I do see some analogy to PDF-file-copying), a tree is easily replaceable with another, a story is not.

But anyway, to “answer” your story, the king is not bothered by people replicating trees as long as no one cuts down his trees in his forest, he couldn’t care less. He would probably want to acquire that technomagic poem himself of course.

Remember that I am working under the assumption that angry-bard-Jims actions do not lower the value of the forest, that is why the king isn’t bothered.

 

[Valarian]

Interesting discussion - but it doesn't really get to the point.

Neither downloading, nor file-sharing, are wrong. If a product is offered for free by the publisher or author, go for it. However, downloading and file-sharing without permission of the publisher and the author is breach of copyright, illegal, and ethically wrong.

Pay for a product, don't pay for it - your choice. But don't say that illegally copying a product doesn't hurt the people supplying the product. It does.

 

[jfetters]

Gnusam said:

Alright, I wanted to leave this mysterious “intellectual property” world and enter the realm of touchy-property-thingies, much like trees, with a reason (although, your interpretation is certainly not incorrect). The reason being that what is inspiration and what is copying is pretty undefined and open for discussion (but not by me and not in this thread I hope).

But that is the problem with the analogy - it really fails to get to the heart of the problem.

Intellecutal property issues have actually been with us for thousands of years. Plagarism has been around since the beginning of time. Whenever books started to be sold for profit is probably when IP issues as we know them today began.

The point is, no matter how you try to diffuse the issue with obtuse analogies, copying information and giving it to someone who has not paid for it is theft.

I can definitely see the other side of the argument - I used to feel that way myself at one time in my life. That is, until I became affected by the illegal copying of media.

Let me put it another way - I have a friend who loves to get stuff for free. This includes software, music, movies - all of which are available on the internet if you want. He works for a restaurant company. The analogy I used with him was pretty straightforward - When you illegaly download a program created by my company, that is exactly like me going to one of your company's restaurants and pulling a dine-and-dash.

After that, he started paying for my company's programs.

 

[Klaus]

A very hirsute gentleman once said, "Property is theft", or something like that.

Another, much less hirsute, much less gentle, said, "Do what thou wilt"

Not that I personally espouse these maxims, my point is that laws are a usually a way of organising situations in a way so they appear fair. What is exactly 'fair' is up to 'the powers that be'.

So in the example, in what way does the king exactly own this forest?
Was it won by conquest over the natives (in which case, that's theft, yes?)?
Or an endowment by a philanthropist (in which case there's probably caveats and conditions)?
Or did an ancestral queen plant the forest for the benefit of the kingdom (in which case lawyers argue for aeons over whether the benefit is cultural or financial, whether revenues go to the king personally or to the people, etc etc)?

In the above example, the King basically writes the LETTER of the law; what is fair could be something else entirely.

Enough philosophising.

Real world situations where 'piracy' is either 'fair' or 'gives benefit'.

Computers and computing, the www, would not be as advanced as they are if people didn't use pirated software. The particular segment of the software industry I have direct experience with, graphics, multimedia, and video, couldn't be what it is if people couldn't get hooky versions of Photoshop, Flash, Premiere, Dreamweaver etc. The companies charge £400-£1000 + for these packages, way above the means of a typical student to purchase legally, especially after buying a computer. The industry depends on this; otherwise there wouldn't be so many proficient users out there. The colleges and the companies must buy legal versions, so the companies make a profit, the purchasers write it off in costs. Win - win. I think this holds true in this particular situation. Otherwise why does Macromedia practically invite you to steal their products: their 30 day trials are fully functional and the security is child's play to get past. Deliberately so, I believe.

Another case study. I love my sf tv, and my Japanese films. The vast majority of Jap films I want to see aren't actually released in the UK, or the west at all. Importing Jap dvd's is pointless as they usually don't have subtitles, so the only option is to find 'unofficial' dvd's on eBay or your local knowledgable dodgy dvd salesman. When it is released over here, I'll pay for the official version. Case in point: Cowboy Bebop is top. But until recently unavailable in the UK. I got a dodgy Chinese version which decidedly 'kung fu' subtitles. So I will purchase the official versions, though at £20 per 2 eps very overpriced so I'll wait for the box set.
Now sf tv. I've got all the Farscape dvd's. That's alot of cash invested. So when I find out I have to wait 6 months after the mini-series is shown in the States to buy it, I find that intolerable. So I pre-order it from Amazon and then download it 4 months early. Having it on Divx is no substitute for the whole dvd package. Similarly with new BSG - I refuse to pay for Sky and give money to Rupert Murdoch, and that's the only place to see it in the UK. I then watch the downloads with lots of friends, making them fans, some of whom will spend currency on these products. So again I feel no compunction about downloading it, as long as I buy the dvd on the day of release in the UK. SF tv especially needs to show it can make a profit, so I'll never refrain from buying the box set, but I don't see I should have to wait 6 months or til never to see it.
I got a rip of Serenity for £3. It's a great rip, possibly the best I've ever seen. It's still on pre-order: no matter how good the rip, it needs support to be shown (and I gotta have those extras). I've stopped lending the Firefly box to a friend and told him to buy it.

I'm not going to obey a law arbitrarily if it's broken or patently wrong, demonstrably unfair. I'll try and do what's right; that's what 'fair use' means to me. And I suspect the big media corps would ultimately would like a situation where we were continually paying for what we already own.

So, there's two real world situations where downloading, file-sharing, are 'of benefit' and 'fair'.

In the case of rpg pdf's, IT's WRONG. The rpg industry is completely unlike the ones I've mentioned above. There's alot of free stuff out there, the downloads to be frank are not expensive, many not more than the price of a pint of beer, and margins are too tight. And the potential consumer base is small. In this case, it's 'unfair' and of 'no benefit'

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Borrowing a line from public-domain politicizing...

"A liberal is a person who has never been mugged, while a conservative is a person who has never been arrested."

... and modifying it for the topic at hand...

"Thieves believe they're justified until they are robbed, while the just believe they're right until they have to steal."

... and they both seem to be trite and over-simplified statements of both sides of the issue.

But there is only one side.

Stealing is wrong.

Don't steal.

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Oh sheesh, somebody else who wants to continue the forest ana-log-y.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Jim Fetters:

The point is, no matter how you try to diffuse the issue with obtuse analogies, copying information and giving it to someone who has not paid for it is theft.

It is not necessarily theft. I think I have shown that too. You are repeating yourself and you are making me repeat myself. Should I consider that theft of my time?

When you illegaly download a program created by my company, that is exactly like me going to one of your company's restaurants and pulling a dine-and-dash.

What you call seem to equate here, was “to diffuse the issue with obtuse analogies” when I wrote my (silly? - i plead guilty to that) forest story, how quaint.

 

[Valarian]

Originally posted by Klaus:
Another, much less hirsute, much less gentle, said, "Do what thou wilt"

The rest of the creed being "... but do no harm".

Originally posted by Gnusam Netor:
It is not necessarily theft. I think I have shown that too. You are repeating yourself and you are making me repeat myself. Should I consider that theft of my time?

No, it's not theft, it's breach of copyright - still illegal, ethically wrong, it harms the publishers and authors, and it makes people less willing to invest in producing future material for publication.

No matter how this is dressed up, it's illegal. If you don't like the law, campaign to change it - don't harm the law-abiding authors.

[The Untouchables - last lines]
Reporter: Word is they're going to repeal Prohibition. What'll you do then?
Eliot Ness: I think I'll have a drink.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Valarian:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Klaus:
Another, much less hirsute, much less gentle, said, "Do what thou wilt"

The rest of the creed being "... but do no harm".
</font>[/QUOTE]No harm is done by copying someone’s work, provided that “someone” doesn’t lose any money or lose any opportunity to earn money in the future from that work.

No, it's not theft, it's breach of copyright

I agree, but the difference between “theft” and “copyright breach” is not important enough in it self to sidetrack this thread – at least in my mind.

No matter how this is dressed up, it's illegal. If you don't like the law, campaign to change it - don't harm the law-abiding authors.

I don’t believe I'm stealing by posting on CotI

- I have actually paid for it (so I can call myself "knight")

 

[hirch duckfinder]

Originally posted by Klaus:
[QB] A very hirsute gentleman once said, "Property is theft", or something like that.

Emile Proudhon was hirsuite?

 

[sid6.7]

i just recently watched a copyright battle take place on a forum of a game maker...he lost and won
i guess...

it came down to stealing an idea or stealing
specific graphics/rules which was okay which was not...
it appears stealing ideas or even titles
is okay...
but not graphics or specifc rules...

so he kept the game and title but altered the
graphics...

i'd be careful people who own things actually are
browsing the internet and do show up once in awhile...

MANY authors allow modding or fan sites
follow that path not the direct copying
stuff...

this is taking place in the U.K BTW...

 

[Fritz_Brown]

Here's one: I had wanted to produce an "alien" race for Traveller based on the Quaddies from LM Bujold's Falling Free (the fourth installment of which I can't find in my Analog collection ). But, I was afraid to do more than post a bit on one of the threads because I appreciate the many hours of enjoyment I have received reading Bujold's stories (many of them in serial form in Analog!). So, I went looking on the internet and found a Bujold fan site. By e-mailing the webmaster (it's the official fan site), I got in touch with Ms Bujold, who very graciously gave me permission to do a formal fan-based bit - even though GURPS has a Vorkosigan book coming out (eventually ).

The point to this story? I got to correspond with one of my favorite authors AND I got permission to use her ideas to enrich my fellow players' gaming experience. It wasn't hard, and I will eventually get it done and ask MWM to upload it to the f-Library. I just have to acknowledge the source and author, and she asked for a link (if web-based) to her site or her books. I will be happy to oblige.

Authors love you using their stuff. They just don't want you making like it's yours.

 

[jfetters]

Gnusam said:

It is not necessarily theft. I think I have shown that too. You are repeating yourself and you are making me repeat myself. Should I consider that theft of my time?

Well, hey, don't get all defensive.

I thought your analogy was bad, ineffectual and overly long. The time I took to read that, I will never have back, so I could consider that theft, too.

Mine was to the point and four sentences long.

 

[Klaus]

"Bill Gates first came to the attention of other hackers when he objected to their taking his earliest Basic programming language and copying it, as they were used to doing. He won, and Microsoft's riches rest on copyright law. But they also depend on its constant violation. Around every legitimate, full-priced piece of software hangs a penumbra of pirated versions. Most of these will be converted, at some time, into legitimate purchases. But the fact that you can use most MS software for free has been an important factor in spreading the habit of using it and in killing competition. The companies that make most fuss about "software piracy" know perfectly well that if it were entirely abolished, they would be less well off."

Quoted from today's Guardian, full article here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1646125,00.html

There are people out there who think they own my genes. Well, they're not having them. Copyright and intellectual property law is going mad, and just because it's on the statute books don't make it right, or even, possibly, legal. They'll be trying to charge us for air next, because they've patented photosynthesis.

 

[parmasson]

“Copyright and intellectual property law is going mad, and just because it's on the statute books don't make it right, or even, possibly, legal. They'll be trying to charge us for air next, because they've patented photosynthesis.”

At least patents expire after 20 years. Copyright is forever.
Say why is that? If intellectual property is real property then why are the two treated differently?

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Jim Fetters:


I thought your analogy was bad, ineffectual and overly long. The time I took to read that, I will never have back, so I could consider that theft, too.

Just like it is my choice reading your post, it is your choice reading my post, so no theft is involved. Don't you agree?

Mine was to the point and four sentences long.

Where is this "point" you refer to?

BTW, if you want to discuss the topic i will still be here.

edited to decrease hostility