Quote from: Levi KornelsenDiscussions sell more than reviews, I hear.  Often.

  Depends on the discussion, depends on who does the review.

JimBob, I'm convinced you don't like me.  We always seem to be working so hard not to agree with each other.

But I take your point, to a point.  I apologize if I use shorthand.  It's strange because off the Internet, I'm a stickler for accuracy.  I don't know why I'm so much sloppier here.

But I do have a couple of nits to pick.

Quote from: JimBobOzYou're wrong.

Ideas are not protected by any laws at all.

The particular manner or expression of an idea is protected by the law, in the form of copyrights and patents.

True.  The ideas in my head, right now, are not protected.  Once expressed, it is protected.  It's not just the particular expression.  For example, if I write a song, it doesn't matter if someone comes along later and rearranges it. It's still my song.  The arrangement is theirs, even the performance if it's recorded.  But the song is still mine. (Though I am honestly clueless as to how parodies work with respect to copyright). I think we agree; we're just crossing signals on the "particular expression" definition.

Quote from: JimBobOzIt's not theft. It's copyright violation. That's a different thing. A person can sneak into my house and rummage through my underwear drawers, but take nothing - no material harm was done, nothing was stolen - but it's still a violation of my privacy. However, "violation of privacy" is not "theft." Likewise, "copyright violation" is not theft. Not in law, morality, or logic.

It's a neat assertion, I beg to differ with you. Stay with me, this takes a little work (which is why I use the shorthand):

Quote from: American Heritage Dictionary

theft – the act or instance of stealing.

• steal - To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
• intellectual property - A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

So I get: Intellectual Property Theft = The act or instance of taking a product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes, of another without right or permission.

Now I understand that in a policeman is not necessarily going to show up at my door if I'm file sharing – other than to serve a notice. Copyright Violation is primarily a civil matter – though even that is changing. But I don't think you can assert that copyright violation is not theft with respect to morals, ethics, or logic – perhaps law at his point in time. And certainly using it for shorthand hold up with respect to the definitions involved.

EDIT: Correction, at least here in the US - Defendant Sentenced for First Criminal Copyright Conviction Under the "No Electronic Theft" (NET) Act for Unlawful Distribution of Software on the Internet. Or try US Code Title 18 Part I Chapter 113 Section 2139 – Criminal Infringement of Copyright. Chapter 113 is Stolen Property.  So the penalty for criminal infringement of copyright is handled under stolen property. Is it so wrong to conclude that copyright violation is theft?

Quote from: JimBobOzIf you copy without permission, make a bucketload of money and give it all to the copyright owner, you are still committing a crime - violating their copyright. "But I made him extra money!" Doesn't matter. Suppose you sneak into my home, rummage through my drawers, from what you find write up a resume for me, pass it on to someone you know, and as a result I get offered my dream job making a quarter of a million bucks a year - you still violated my privacy. That this violation happened to benefit me is irrelevant.

Couldn't agree with you more.

Quote from: JimBobOzWhereas I think we do a disservice to ourselves if we don't clearly understand the concepts involved.

• Ideas are not protected in law, only the particular manner or expression of the ideas.
• Copyright is not about money, but about the right to make copies.
• Violation of copyright is not theft, it is violation of copyright.

We do a disservice to ourselves by having muddled understandings of things which we think are important.[/LIST]

Agreed.  So I'll cop to being wrong on 1, we agree on 2, and you cop to being wrong on 3.  Deal?

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalThe reviews here get 500 views?  I'm surprised, the format of the reviews section is horrible.

Some do. 500 is a lot for a non-d20 books, infact that is the most views of any non-20 book here. Second would be hardnova with 364 views. I'd say the averge number of views for a non-d20 books is 100-150. Some of the d20 books are close 800 views, with the average being book getting about 200-250 views.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIf you're not using the IP and clearly have no plans to do so then it strikes me as a victimless crime if someone else makes that IP available to others.  If you officially release it under a creative commons license then you're a great guy and people will probably want to buy your stuff because you're great... but if it's just some guy who walked past the bargain bin then it's no skin off my nose.  You're not losing any money and he's not making any from your work.

  If in 10 years time someone wanted to collect all of my old writings and distribute them online for free I wouldn't mind it.  In fact, I'd be flattered.  That goes from my reviews to my longer critical pieces to my articles to my academic theses.

  If someone was making money off of it then I'd be pissed but otherwise it wouldn't really bother me.

I have to go with Hinter. Why is it so hard to leave it up to the copyright holder?  I mean, if he refuses, then you can drag his name through the mud and call him a slimy moneygrubber.  But nobody will care much as everyone thought the property so worthless that the copyright holder let in languish.  IMHO if someone is willing to pay for it, the property would not be abandoned.

I understand the allure of ignoring copyright.  But if no copyright rules existed, then someone who did want to protect ownership would be screwed.  This way, people who want to ignore copyright can do so.  No one forces anyone to copyright anything. At any time an author can just publish his works without copyright and everyone can partake at will.  However, with copyright laws, those who want to enforce ownership over a work can do so as well.  This way at least gives the author the chance to decide.

Quote from: James J SkachI have to go with Hinter. Why is it so hard to leave it up to the copyright holder?

  Because once you create something and put it out there there's a sense in which it no longer belongs to you.  The fact that we can now reproduce art infinitely at no added cost just makes that idea much more substantial and real.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalBecause once you create something and put it out there there's a sense in which it no longer belongs to you.  The fact that we can now reproduce art infinitely at no added cost just makes that idea much more substantial and real.

And this the pervasive perception I think needs to be altered. If I leave my garage door open, does my car not belong to me any more?  I mean, it's parked here in the lot at work right now, should I be worried?

Quote from: James J SkachAnd this the pervasive perception I think needs to be altered. If I leave my garage door open, does my car not belong to me any more?  I mean, it's parked here in the lot at work right now, should I be worried?

  Again, you're missing the point.  If someone walked into your garage, copied your car and then drove off, would you really be all that bothered?  The whole point of the argument over digital piracy is the idea that the technology makes traditional property law intellectually unsound.

  Sitting there endlessly repeating the contention that digital piracy is the same as having your car stolen suggests that not only are you unwilling to engage with the argument, but also that you fail to understand it.

The cabinet, and now the car.

If someone came into your garage and took the cabinet and left fifety bucks... that is one thing

If he came into the garage, copied the Cabnet with some sort of cabnet copier and left both the original cabinet AND the 50 bucks? You'd fucking cheer. You just made 50 bucks above and beyond whatever you get for selling the cabinet.

If some guy copied your damn car and drove off in the copy... you would neither know nor care.


But god damn, if it's a product of the intellect you suddenly get huffy and self righteous.

Me? I don't do piracy, I don't do fileshares. Every once in a great while I bum a CD from a buddy and rip the songs off it. If I like 'em enough I'll buy a copy for myself.  Until a few years ago this wasn't even an issue. Borrowing an album to make a tape of it was viewed as fair use if you weren't doing it for profit, not to dissimilar from inviting half the neighborhood to your house to watch Starwars on your VHS... as long as you didn't charge.

At the rate you guys are arguing about it, eventually using speakers to listen to music will be viewed as IP violations, cause all those rat bastards listening to YOUR copy are in violation of the copyright.

I exaggerate, naturally.  But I'm glad the debate is up and running.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalSitting there endlessly repeating the contention that digital piracy is the same as having your car stolen suggests that not only are you unwilling to engage with the argument, but also that you fail to understand it.

You bet i'd be pissed! Someone just WALKED INTO MY FREAKING GARAGE! I'd whack 'em over the head with my walker.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceYou bet i'd be pissed! Someone just WALKED INTO MY FREAKING GARAGE! I'd whack 'em over the head with my walker.

-clash

Ah... but now we're talking about piracy as tresspassing, not piracy as theft...

If we're gonna play the dumb example game, let's play it all the way to the bone.

There was once a monastery which had a unique choral piece of music for which they were famed.  The music had been commisioned, and had cost a lot of money.  The score for this piece was kept under lock and key, and it was performed only once a year.  A significant portion of the income of the monastery came from the performance of the piece - their performers were nothing special, just the music was.  A composer (I think it was Bach) went.  Listened to the performance once, and wrote out the score from memory.  The monastery was closed six years later.

But, y'know, no harm was done.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIf we're gonna play the dumb example game, let's play it all the way to the bone.

There was once a monastery which had a unique choral piece of music for which they were famed.  The music had been commisioned, and had cost a lot of money.  The score for this piece was kept under lock and key, and it was performed only once a year.  A significant portion of the income of the monastery came from the performance of the piece - their performers were nothing special, just the music was.  A composer (I think it was Bach) went.  Listened to the performance once, and wrote out the score from memory.  The monastery was closed six years later.

But, y'know, no harm was done.

Of course, what if the monastary had burned before Bach had visited? We talk of the great tragedy when a peice of art is lost to the world.  Was the monastery affected? Certainly.

Who does art belong to? The creator? The person it's sold to?  These are meritorious arguments, Levi, but taken as absolute truths, as you appear to do, would lead to a cold and dismal world that I for one would not enjoy living in.

Should the world be deprived of appreciation of the Mona Lisa because some rich guy claims exclusive rights to it, based on the money he paid to get it?

Quote from: SpikeWho does art belong to? The creator? The person it's sold to?  These are meritorious arguments, Levi, but taken as absolute truths, as you appear to do, would lead to a cold and dismal world that I for one would not enjoy living in.

Should the world be deprived of appreciation of the Mona Lisa because some rich guy claims exclusive rights to it, based on the money he paid to get it?

The creator of the Mona Lisa is dead.  Mr. Rich Guy can go fuck himself.

I care about the people and their creative efforts.  Just that.  I've said that quite a few times here.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe creator of the Mona Lisa is dead.  Mr. Rich Guy can go fuck himself.

I care about the people and their creative efforts.  Just that.  I've said that quite a few times here.

But in your example, Levi, the monastery could have theoretically lasted up to the modern day, long after the creator had died, and their livelihood would STILL be bound up in that one piece of art they had sole dominion over. If Freddy Mercury had gone there and done as Bach had done, and the monastery subsequently closed down, then you'd be hating him for the same act.

Trying to claim exclusive domain over an expression is futile. It only has value when shared with others. Once you've shared it with them, it gets harder and harder to enforce control.   I wonder how much of it is a 'right' to begin with.

Quote from: SpikeBut in your example, Levi, the monastery could have theoretically lasted up to the modern day, long after the creator had died, and their livelihood would STILL be bound up in that one piece of art they had sole dominion over. If Freddy Mercury had gone there and done as Bach had done, and the monastery subsequently closed down, then you'd be hating him for the same act.

Nah.  Freddy could have at it.

And I'm not calling it a 'right', note.  In my opinion, human beings have no natural rights of any kind.  We do have basic understandings that underly the way we deal with each other, and those change (one hopes) to accomodate the good of us all.

In cases of data copying outside RPGs, I have no idea what hurt it causes.  In terms of money, even inside RPGs, I don't pretend to understand it.  But in the case of RPGs whose creators still produce work, it fucks up that basic understanding - it screws up how they feel they should deal with us.

That's the part I see and understand.  And it is bad.