RPG Illegal File Sharing Hurts the Hobby

[Klaus]

Actually copyright isn't forever. 50 years for music and films in Europe, 70 years for books. All the big companies are upset Elvis is now, effectively, public domain.

The first Beatles tunes will be coming out of copyright very soon, which is why the record companies want copyright extended to 99 years or some such.

I personally feel copyright should only last the lifetime of the author or authors, rahter than being sold on or owned by descendants. Especially since books, music, films, ideas are our culture, and culture shoudn't be commodified - it isn't copper or OJ.

And I say this as a creator/author myself.

 

[RandyT0001]

Klaus, I think that copyright should extend for twenty years (or until his last child reachs twenty two years of age) after the death of the author if the author has a child or children under the age of twenty-two, at the time of death, otherwise copyright should end with the death of the author. I think the extension of 20 years after death for authors with children provides the children with an stable income for his survivors until they can finish school and began their own careers. After this time it falls into public domain. Heirs cannot reapply nor be granted a new copyright on their parents works.

This means that Walt Disney Company, Sony Music, Random House Publishing, etc. will constantly have to find new talent to provide for material to produce and distribute.

 

[parmasson]

Sorry to be a pest but why treat one type of intellectual property one way and another type so differently? Why is my invention of the Girkur Self Lubricating Widget (early TL8) treated differently than my article about the GSLW? I am not being sarcastic (for a change) I really want to know.

 

[jfetters]

Gnusam said:

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?

Absolutely. My comment was simply a response to you wondering whether reading my post was a waste of time.

Where is this "point" you refer to?

That taking an item or service without paying for it (or having permission to do so) is theft and hurts the people whose livelihoods depend on those items or services. It is pretty obvious.

 

[jfetters]

Klaus and Randy make interesting points about the copyright laws.

With regards to computer software, much of those laws are in some ways a moot point as twenty years would likely make most property irrelevant due to technological advances. (This would definitely not be moot for literature or music, or anything that can endure for years).

Or would it? What about software that is versioned or a game that is re-coded to take advantage of updated graphics?

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Jim Fetters:

That taking an item or service without paying for it (or having permission to do so) is theft and hurts the people whose livelihoods depend on those items or services. It is pretty obvious.

If it is so obvious, why do I disagree and why do (IMO) you yourself disagree...

Klaus and Randy make interesting points about the copyright laws.

It seems that you think that it is ok to "steal" property from someone else under the right circumstances, the creator of the intellectual property is dead or X years has passed since the creation of the property for instance.

Pretty obvious?

 

[Cymew]

This thread is just ridiculous.

Yes, it can be said that downloading a pdf of a gaming book by unofficial channels without paying is a kind of theft. Would that person have bought the book anyway? Nobody knows.

Is thus anyone hurt? Nobody knows.

Is copyright laws ridiculous? Yes, because Disney have convinced the lawmakers to pervert the intent of copyright.

Is patent law ridiculous? Yes, since now you can in some parts of the world patent an idea or a process. It will stiffle creativity and is a purpose built tool for creating monopolies, the antithesis of capitalism which many here probably considers the basis for the wealth of the West.

This subject is so damn complicated is not even fun to discuss anymore...

 

[parmasson]

Digital media today is chaotic but I am sure that as soon as the technology mature we are all in for a new world of fun. The next generation of ebooks, music and video will most likely have a number of “safeguards” that will do things that would amaze us today. I have a feeling that in twenty years it will move from a civil offense to criminal and information will be locked down in a way that will make this discussion irrelevant.

"This subject is so damn complicated is not even fun to discuss anymore..."

I am starting to agree.

 

[jfetters]

Gnusam said:

If it is so obvious, why do I disagree and why do (IMO) you yourself disagree...

OK, I'll bite... What in blazes are you talking about?

It seems that you think that it is ok to "steal" property from someone else under the right circumstances, the creator of the intellectual property is dead or X years has passed since the creation of the property for instance.

Eh??? I said that it was interesting as a point of discussion. I never stated my opinions on royalties. I am not sure I even have one yet.

However, there is a HUGE issue of discussion around out-of-print stuff and publishing that as a downloadable PDF, IMO (and yes, I'm thinking about the DGP stuff here).

Cymew also raises a lot of interesting points, but it is not ridiculous.

Especially for in-print items, people ARE hurt by shoplifting, stealing, whatever else you want to call it. Think I'm wrong? Just pull out any RPG book and look under "Credits." Not only are the authors listed, but those who worked on the art, the typesetting, the editing... in almost all cases, it isn't only one person involved.

But Cymew is also dead on with the ridiculousness of copyright and patent laws - it is insane.

 

[archhealer]

Japan has an interesting take on Copyrights. At least, while the material is in Japan. They exist, but so far as I can tell, nobody cares.

People bootleg and subtitle video stuff all the time. Artists blatantly rip off each other's creations and do their own storylines and plots with one another's characters, without even asking.

Now, I may be mistaken about if they even have copyright laws. I'm pretty sure they do, but I haven't actually researched it.

Thing is, does it matter? The artists and writers still profit from their work. A lot of fans won't buy stuff unless it's the 'real thing', by the original creator.

Is that better or worse than how we do things? Neither, in my opinion. Driven by different motivations. Our laws are designed to protect A. Money, B. People who have money, C. Everybody else, in pretty much that order. We live here. We deal with it.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Jim Fetters:
Gnusam said:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> If it is so obvious, why do I disagree and why do (IMO) you yourself disagree...

OK, I'll bite... What in blazes are you talking about?
</font>[/QUOTE]My bad, I used the old ”jump to conclusion mat”. I think my quote below could have helped clearify things however, you know - to keep things in context n'stuff.

Jims said: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Gnusam said:
It seems that you think that it is ok to "steal" property from someone else under the right circumstances, the creator of the intellectual property is dead or X years has passed since the creation of the property for instance.

Eh??? I said that it was interesting as a point of discussion. I never stated my opinions on royalties. I am not sure I even have one yet.
</font>[/QUOTE]Ok, never mind then.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Originally posted by Cymew:
This thread is just ridiculous.

snip...

This subject is so damn complicated is not even fun to discuss anymore...

"Thank you" Cymew, now you made me feel all deflated...

 

[Klaus]

The really interesting thing is that 3D printers are getting better and cheaper all the time. Desktop versions will be availible within months, and then physical objects can be file-shared: all you need is the 3D file.

Now what will Mattel, Hasbro, Lucas et al say when people stop buying action figures and print their own, with possible better colour and certainly better workmanship (printed whole, no seams).

How will DIY stores survive when you can easily print out their bread and butter trade in things like shower heads or U-bends. Pro ones can even do composite materials so eventually even training shoes might be printed out; what's Nike gonna do then?

We can't just say "It's wrong, it's stealing" as if that were an absolute law. The technology has advanced far beyond what the law envisaged, so are we really going to live with our technological hands tied just because some corporations can't move with the times?

BTW, there are no absolute laws. Even the law against killing has exceptions, ie: war, police duties, self defence etc.

 

[aramis]

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

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.
[snip] </font>[/QUOTE]I lop the bard's head off.

Seriously, IP is more this way:
The king builds a garden, to celebrate his wife.
He invites the poeple to come, to look, to smell, to walk, to enjoy. This garden has value because it is unique, and is the kings. He has the right to shut it off, whenver he chooses. He charges a small fee to pay the keepers. (The IP)

Some yahoo from town takes and sneaks in, makes casts of all of the statuary, takes photos of everything, and snips buds from every plant. Said yahoo then goes to the backwaters, and makes duplcates of the statues, buds from all the plants, and instructions to duplicate it. (The first hacker)

He then tells a few friends, who proceed to offer billboard space to all comers who wish to use the molds, take cuttings off of the now planted former buds, and a board with all the directions to build your own. Moreover, they provide a magic spell so that all you need to is make the space, and your pile becomes identical to the King's, but in your own backyard. Often the spell invokes an imp, who often sends detailed reports on your hobbies, property, and other such details back to it's dark masters (The "free-sharing" site, and it's ads and adware.)

The King often doesn't even know that the materials are out there... and until he does, he can't even convince the generals to mug the cloners.

So the pirate hosts are the ones who make money off the property by their ads, and the author gets none.

Gnusam, if you act on those bizzare beliefs of yours, you will be an IP criminal. Y'see, they criminalized priacy of encrypted materials in the US. PDF's are encrypted.

I am sorely tempted to notify the USSS about this thread; at least one person's admitted to criminal copyright violations in the US. Scotland Yard likewise might find it interesting. Interpol is usually too overworked.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

I think that someone overestimates their importance if they equate themselves with the Swedish justice system, or the US justice system for that matter...

It's possible that i would have discussed the issue with you, but calling me or my opinions bizarre doesn't help my motivation. Not this time at least. Besides, it's been a week since i posted what you respond to, are you in some sort of hibernation or what?

Did I step on your toes by writing my silly story? I’m sorry.

edited to increase friendlyness

ps. we really need a hug-me smiley.

 

[Cymew]

Hey, it's not mandatory to check these boards every day. I find it quite understandable that Aramis might not check in every day to debate.

And now am I going to totally ignore this thread, since it is beginning to not only get rediculous but potentially nasty.

BTW, Aramis. A PDF need not be encrypted, but can be.

 

[aramis]

Cymew:

Dead on- I don't have time to check in every day. Something about graduate school plus working full time.

And, based upon the actual wording, many lawyers have advised that all digital files count as encrypted, since it's not directly readable.

And the PDF specification includes methods of encryption; not all of them are applied direct to the visible content; the positioning tags are a form of encrypted data, as are the text tags, in an effort to compress content.

File compression is, by legal definition, encryption; not all encryption is for security.

Gnusam:
That was the self-edit version; What I really want to say would get me suspended from the boards.

Your piratical approach disgusts me, as a composer, a teacher, and as a performer. You are trying to claim I don't own the work of my mind and hand. You are trying to rationalize criminality for personal gain by self deception. You are trying to spread this vile tripe. You are not suppported by law nor custom, centuries old. All sophistry aside, you advocate breaking the laws of the United States, England, Germany, France, etc., and even of the mainstream religions thereof, and shamelessly claim that they are unjust laws, but fail to provide an argument worth a damn to support that, and whine when your logic is shown to be flawed.

Just because one can do a thing doesn't mean one should do a thing. Nor that that thing is the right thing to do.

Likewise, just because someone else does a thing doesn't mean one should. But if most people are opposed to a thing being done, doing that thing is a risky proposition.

 

[Gnusam Netor]

Nothing is mandatory when you talk to me Cymew, but behaving in certain ways makes it more likely to entice a response from me.

 

[Andrew Boulton]

"And, based upon the actual wording, many lawyers have advised that all digital files count as encrypted, since it's not directly readable."

Then IMHO they're wrong. Digital files are *encoded*, which isn't the same thing.

 

[Captain Zoom]

Andrew, you are probably safe from the DMCA when viewing unencrypted PDFs:

From the DMCA:

a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. - (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

. . .

(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

PDFs are a technological measure, but they do not in the ordinary course require the authority of the copyright owner to gain access to the work. An encrypted PDF (or one using some form of DRM) does require the authority of the copyright owner to gain access to the work and falls under the protection of the DMCA. In other words, a basic unencrypted pdf does not "effectively control access" to the work.

NOTE: I am not saying that PDFs are not protected by copyright, just that opening up an unencrypted PDF is not a violation of the DMCA. If you obtain a PDF of a copyright protected book (assuming no permission from the owner), and none of the defenses (e.g. fair use) apply, then you are in violation of copyright law, but not the DMCA. If you get a DRM-protected PDF of a copyright protected book (again assuming no permission), and you crack the DRM, then you are in violation of both copyright law and the DMCA.

I hope this is helpful.