Quote from: StormBringerPrecisely.  I was already had too many points I was addressing, but this is what I was getting at.  Thank you for clarifying this part.

No problem.  

It's a tricky place to be.

When I see the people on the "Yes!  Let's all download everything!  Make it all free no matter what the creators think!" side, I want to cuss at them; they're sabotaging the ability (and desire) of people to be professionally creative online.

Equally, when I see people going "Downloading must be stopped, and pirates are evil!", I feel the need to shake my head.  Because such a stance means they're likely not attending to embracing the potentials of a low-to-no-scarcity marketplace, and want to treat it as if it was the same as a full-scarcity marketplace.

Quote from: HinterWeltMind, it does not keep me up at night but threads like this are just sad.

Are you telling us you've never infringed on anyone's IP yourself? Or have never committed any other crimes?

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...Both of these things are conflicting pressures.  The morality of the situation is still fluid.

Snipped, but the entire post was well said.

Quote from: EnlightenedRidiculously low or high?

Sorry, should have made that clear.

It seems very low to me for an editor. For the game designers, I would have no idea however. I suspect most of them make less.

Again, I can't really say because I don't know the US all that well, nor what the living costs are, etc...

To complicate matter, the salary discrepancies between two countries will vary from field to field sometimes.

I think Levi summed up the situation rather well.

It's really not black and white. This is why I respect the stances people might take as individuals but frown at accusations of theft.

My opinion in this matter is that each individual should examine whether there is a chance he's doing some harm or some good, on an individual case basis. This is what I do. I sleep very well at night and I do my best to support creators.

I can only speak of me and my own habits. I'm just a guy who got tired of getting ripped off and is now making better consumer choices.

Quote from: StormBringerAre you saying I have no social mores and I am a thief?  Since there is no censorship here, just come out and say it.  It would be libelous, because I don't download music or books without paying for them, but you are under no compunction to skirt any kind of personal attack rules here.

No, I was using the generic you but English does not support this well. I do not know what you (Stormbringer) did. However, if a person does download (as others in this thread have admitted too) then you (generic) are a thief.

Quote from: StormBringerOf course, your statement begs the question of 'societal morals', as thought they are unchanging through the millenia.  

What?!? No, as they stand right now. Generally, I can't really think of a place, currently, on Earth, that stealing is thought to be a good action. I could be ignorant of such a location and would love to hear of the society that believes it is right and good to take what does not belong to you.

Quote from: StormBringerThe concept of IP is one of those grey areas where interesting discussion can be had.  For example, let's look at your second bolded definition:

2.   to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.

So, by downloading mp3s or books, I am not appropriating anything without right or acknowledgment.  

Que paso, el Skipper? As a downloader you may not but as a distributor you most definitely are.

You pick through the definitions to find the one that allows the justification of theft.

Quote from: StormBringerWhat your definition here is referring to is plagiarism.  If I take one of your games, and either put my name on it, or copy it wholesale and present it as my own, that is what that definition of 'steal' refers to.

In fact, you will be hard pressed to find a definition that includes downloading media.  That is why this particular discussion is still debatable.  If you check the first part of what you quoted by me:  "If the buyer were to then take the product and leave the premises, they have stolen it."  I am not debating that materially depriving someone of a physical item resulting in the loss of a sale is anything other than theft.

You ignored the first definition I listed.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right

You are taking my property (my book) without my permission (I own it) or right (I have not licensed it to you).

Quote from: StormBringerHowever, if I have no interest whatsoever in anything by HinterWelt Enterprises, but in the process of transferring some vacation photos, I end up with a copy from a friend.  Are you saying I am morally obligated to destroy that copy?  

Interesting scenario. So, lets say you accidentally put a candy bar in your pocket while shopping. Your friends or children distract you as you finish your shopping and you walk out the store. Are you a shoplifter? But it was an accident. Are you obligated to return to the store and pay for the candy? One candy bar surely cannot be that significant to the retailer. It does not cause him any hardship in the practical sense, possibly not even in a measurable sense. Have you done wrong?

Quote from: StormBringerThat by keeping and reading it, I am morally equivalent to a mugger or burglar?  

Depends on your moral measuring stick. I choose not to play the "How bad is bad game". You have done wrong, you have stolen. Is it as bad as stealing medicine from a dying man? I believe that is an answer only the person involved can answer.

Quote from: StormBringerOr, perhaps, I have no interest in your products, but someone said there were a few clever designs, and gives me a copy to peruse while working on my own game mechanics.  Am I now, according to you, no better than a pickpocket or shoplifter?

Umm, you can give someone your copy.

Quote from: StormBringerKeep in mind that in this hypothetical situation, there was an exactly zero chance of your product being purchased by me, but I still have a digital copy of (let's say) a PDF produced by your company.  No one else will ever get a copy of that from me.  Describe how that is 'theft', as defined by material harm to you, or loss of a salable item.

See, again, you tell me to define a definition then tell me the definition I must use. No, the dictionary is our guide here.
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right
You have taken my property without my permission.

Quote from: StormBringerQuite honestly, as a businessperson, I would think the legality is the only case you should care about.  You can rant and rave about the morality until you are blue in the face, no one will bring a case before any court over that.

So do you deal with business at all? My concern is legality as it affects me. Piracy is illegal. I do not engage in piracy and have little hope of prosecuting under the law those that do engage in it. Legally, it is a wash.

Much more important to me is how I can use the existing market to my advantage. I have done that rather effectively and continue to do so. Dealing with the reality of the market is very different from how I morally feel about the act of piracy.

Quote from: StormBringerHave you considered that most statistics show 'theft' as a relatively minor issue, while 'pilfering' accounts for the majority of inventory loss?

In other words, if you have a half dozen employees with access to your products before you watermark them or whatever, that is where most of your problem would lie.  Not that I am accusing your employees of any such thing, but should be of larger concern than copies out in the wild.  Didn't someone mention that several of the torrents of the 4e books still had printer's marks all over them?  Someone leaked that on the way to the printer, or once it got to the printer.  No tearing out pages and scanning them in one at a time.  It was pilfered between WotC and the printer, then uploaded.

Well, I don't think highly of printers or employees stealing either. That has to do with business relationships, trust and contracts. I actually have far more legal recourse with a printer distributing my property than some customer taking it and distributing. It also is far more traceable.

Quote from: StormBringerIf it were a crime, the RIAA/MPAA wouldn't be having a difficult time prosecuting people.  Naturally, they went overboard in the beginning, and still tend to be overblown, but not every case is a matter of balancing their hype.  Some courts are finding problems in the claims about 'stealing' music.  Of course, some of those problems are in the technical structure and wording of the claims, but even that shows there isn't a clear picture of how much 'theft' there is in 'piracy' when it comes to IP.

Again, I am not discussing the legality of it. I am not a lawyer. I am saying a person is a thief if they take what does not belong to them.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltInteresting scenario. So, lets say you accidentally put a candy bar in your pocket while shopping. Your friends or children distract you as you finish your shopping and you walk out the store. Are you a shoplifter? But it was an accident. Are you obligated to return to the store and pay for the candy? One candy bar surely cannot be that significant to the retailer. It does not cause him any hardship in the practical sense, possibly not even in a measurable sense. Have you done wrong?

Of course that's wrong.

I have one more candy bar, and he has one less.

Which is the point where the social confusion enters the picture.  If I were to download one of your books illegally (I have not), I would have one more book - but you would not have one less book.

That doesn't justify the action.  

But what I'm depriving you of is not a resource that you would have less of; it's the wrong analogy.

Quote from: GoOrangeAre you telling us you've never infringed on anyone's IP yourself?

Not that I am aware of. If I did become aware of it I would make restitution.

Quote from: GoOrangeOr have never committed any other crimes?

See, here is your problem with me at least. I am not talking about crimes. I am talking about what your momma taught you was right and what was wrong. Stealing is wrong. Stealing is taking something that does not belong to you. Hard to mess with that definition.

That said, I will admit, I think less of the distributors of pirated material. If it was not for them, most folks would have significantly less opportunity for participating in the theft of a creators work. However, at some point, you are deciding "Should I do this thing?" and you either answer yes or no based on what you think is right or wrong. I do not argue that there are people, probably most who engage in the activity, that rationalize that their actions are somehow "good". The man who steals bread for his starving children would proclaim his righteousness but he would still be stealing and wrong.

Bill

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOf course that's wrong.

I have one more candy bar, and he has one less.

Which is the point where the social confusion enters the picture.  If I were to download one of your books illegally (I have not), I would have one more book - but you would not have one less book.

That doesn't justify the action.  

But what I'm depriving you of is not a resource that you would have less of; it's the wrong analogy.

But if is a penny candy ( yeah, I now, no such thing nowadays) it would be rounded off. It could even be totally overlooked effectively making it "No harm done". I have run a retail business, a successful one, and it happens.

I personally believe the rationalization of "it does not harm" is a dodge. You are still morally wrong and should be ashamed. Either that, or a brazen thief and proclaim your daring act. I can respect either position (not agree with it) but not the "It is not wrong because it does not hurt anyone". You are stealing a person's property. Taking it without their permission. You are stealing.

Bill

Edit to add: I think it is an apt analogy because it shows how something could be nearly worthless and thus doing "no harm to anyone" but still a wrong action. My whole point is that this is a morally reprehensible action.

Quote from: HinterWeltI personally believe the rationalization of "it does not harm" is a dodge.

And I agree.  "It does no harm" is a dodge.  It does do harm.  It is harmful.

However, comparing it to theft of physical materials is also a dodge.  The materials are neither physical nor scarce.

I'm not in the corner you seem to think I am.

EDIT: Just caught your edit.  Changes things.  Will re-reply.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd I agree.  "It does no harm" is a dodge.  It does do harm.  It is harmful.

However, comparing it to theft of physical materials is also a dodge.  The materials are neither physical nor scarce.

I'm not in the corner you seem to think I am.

And neither am I. I tried to explain my analogy. I do think it is apt, if you understand shrinkage in a retail business. Perhaps that was my mistake.

To take it another direction, the point to my analogy was to say, if your action is accidental and results in a wrong action, does that excuse the wrong action? If you cannot guess, my answer would be no. You would still need to provide restitution.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWhat?!? No, as they stand right now. Generally, I can't really think of a place, currently, on Earth, that stealing is thought to be a good action.

This is true and pretty much black and white. The problem lies in your very next sentence:

Quote from: HinterWeltI could be ignorant of such a location and would love to hear of the society that believes it is right and good to take what does not belong to you.

The "take what does not belong to you" tends to change with time and places throughout history, especially when it comes to intellectual property.

That's where you get a lot of shades of gray.

Quote from: HinterWeltMy whole point is that this is a morally reprehensible action.

I'm tempted to get into a semantic debate on "morals", "mores", and "ethics".  It would suck.

Let me sum up a bit more.  If this comes across as mean at any point, I am sincerely sorry.

Most game companies are concerned with being ethical; they work really fucking hard to give value for the money people give them.  So, when people take that value and don't give out the money, they feel seriously cheated - and rightly so; that's measurable, significant work, right there.

Almost all game companies operate their online sales of PDFs in much the same fashion as they operate their dead-tree sales.  No shock there; that's just how business is normally done, simply put.

However, by doing so, they're setting themselves up in a seriously problematic position.  Such companies, like yourself, may have ethics on their side.  But practical concerns are arranged against you; by treating the digital marketplace as being the same as the physical one, you (without realising it, maybe) stack the deck and require your customers to decide between ease and ethics.

This is a rather awful thing.  It's especially awful because when people went into digital sales and PDFs, nobody realised that this was the case.  Not a single one of the already overworked and underpaid people was told "Hey, look, the marketplace you're about to get into is arranged to devalue your stuff if you treat it in the same way" - because nobody knew.  We still have trouble talking about it, and thinking about it, because people that work hard are getting fucked, and they're mad about it.  But it's something that we, online gamers and game-makers, must address eventually.

Now, if I was a jackass, I'd say something like "It's the job of a businessman to find a way to work with their market, a business model that lines those things up more clearly, so you should do that".  And I'll admit to having thought that quite a few times; sometimes, I am a jackass.

But the truth is, it's not just their problem.  It's our problem, collective, gamers and game-makers together.  We need to reshape our relationship in a way that doesn't have this strain.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm tempted to get into a semantic debate on "morals", "mores", and "ethics".  It would suck.

Let me sum up a bit more.  If this comes across as mean at any point, I am sincerely sorry.

Levi, it may seem that I am heated on the subject but I am not, really. I hope I have not come across as such. I am confident in my beliefs but open to be persuaded otherwise. I doubt you (or anyone) will be able to do so but I am willing to listen.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenMost game companies are concerned with being ethical; they work really fucking hard to give value for the money people give them.  So, when people take that value and don't give out the money, they feel seriously cheated - and rightly so; that's measurable, significant work, right there.

Almost all game companies operate their online sales of PDFs in much the same fashion as they operate their dead-tree sales.  No shock there; that's just how business is normally done, simply put.

Wow, Levi, you are ignorant of my practices. I mean ignorant in the dictionary sense not as an insult. Where do I start. This is really beyond the scope of this discussion but in brief.

HinterWelt has its books, in toto, free for download. That is my choice. I have given refunds. I have gone out of my way to make sure someone who pays money for my books are as informed as possible before doing so and is not disappointed afterwards.

It may seem that I am a small minded bigot bent on wagging my finger at all those people stealing money out of my pocket while only vaguely understanding the internets but really, I think I know a few things and more than that, I know when to say "I don't know".

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHowever, by doing so, they're setting themselves up in a seriously problematic position.  Such companies, like yourself, may have ethics on their side.  But practical concerns are arranged against you; by treating the digital marketplace as being the same as the physical one, you (without realising it, maybe) stack the deck and require your customers to decide between ease and ethics.

This is a rather awful thing.  It's especially awful because when people went into digital sales and PDFs, nobody realised that this was the case.  Not a single one of the already overworked and underpaid people was told "Hey, look, the marketplace you're about to get into is arranged to devalue your stuff if you treat it in the same way" - because nobody knew.  We still have trouble talking about it, and thinking about it, because people that work hard are getting fucked, and they're mad about it.  But it's something that we, online gamers and game-makers, must address eventually.

Wow, I do not treat my digital sales like my print sales. For one thing, my print sales are orders of magnitude more profitable.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNow, if I was a jackass, I'd say something like "It's the job of a businessman to find a way to work with their market, a business model that lines those things up more clearly, so you should do that".  And I'll admit to having thought that quite a few times; sometimes, I am a jackass.

And I have...are you talkign about HinterWelt still? Cause your statements sure seem like it but the content does not jive.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenBut the truth is, it's not just their problem.  It's our problem, collective, gamers and game-makers together.  We need to reshape our relationship in a way that doesn't have this strain.

Oh, like providing rules for free download?

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltWow, Levi, you are ignorant of my practices.

No, I'm aware of your free download stuff (at least in part).

My idea of "treating the market differently" is a far more radical departure than the one you're talking about.