Voted that i'd be buying, and not downloading.

I think a lot of the problem with the whole "piracy" argument is that you're (generally) dealing with people with a sense of misplaced entitlement, and that's like trying to talk about responsibility and maturity to a spoiled brat.

I generally like to respond to the "they wouldn't have bought it anyway" argument with "so i'm sure you wouldn't prosecute someone who robbed your house, cause they weren't going to buy any of the things you had anyway, right?" :rolleyes:

My other favorite chicken little attack by the movie industry is the accusation that the majority of pirated movies are from people in theatres with cameras, especially in Canada and particularly here in Montreal.  They actually arrested some guy who was supposed to be one of the best.  It was all made fun of in that Seinfeld episode from 10 years ago.  I can't believe anybody is buying it.  I actually went searching for pirated movies where you could tell that it was done in the theatre.  All I found were excellent copies of the studio originals.

Quote from: BalbinusIt's a factually wrong statement.

The terms are factually useless things to argue over online.  

I can collect evidence for this rather swiftly, in the form of many many flame wars, if needed.

Quote from: James J SkachThe problem is, if you (generic) make the argument that it's not harmful because you (generic) haven't deprived anyone of the physical item, the fundamental concept of the idea itself having value is out the window. That' a moral argument. Not surprisingly (if you've seen me post anywhere on this subject), I fall on the side that see the idea as having a value to be protected.

This is the crux of the matter; what is the impact of intellectual property having dramatically reduced value, and the loss of control over that property by the authors?

Quote from: HaffrungThis is the crux of the matter; what is the impact of intellectual property having dramatically reduced value, and the loss of control over that property by the authors?

Quite, it's the argument we should all be making, instead of arguing theft.

The owner is not deprived of their property.  The owner does however lose control over the dissemination of the work and there is a potential reduction in revenue which can have very real detrimental effects.

My point is that arguing theft clouds these issues, it doesn't illuminate them.

OK, bear with me, I think by the end we may see eye to eye a bit more.

Quote from: James J SkachNot a copyright violation.

And in reply to every single one of your "Again" comments...

I think there are many people in the industry who would argue that it is. They may not choose to do anything about it, but they could present a decent argument of how it is copyright infringement, or a violation of IP rights etc.

QuoteAnd I think those who use examples that are not, in fact, copyright infringement, and them claim others are simple minded are...well...I think you get the drift.

You allusions to me being simple minded based on my accusations of others being simple minded can only indicate that you are...well...I think you get the drift as well. :haw: (Yes, joke) Seriously though, I'll try to clarify the point I was making a bit better.

You can't state as fact that none of those are infringements on copyright or IP (or whatever the exact term is.) You could claim they are and make an argument for your claim, but we can't objectively state it as fact.

The point is that  I think in some court of law that legitimate arguments could be made for both sides of the issue. Perhaps one court favored a certain point of view and perhaps a higher court reversed the decision with another point of view. I think legitimate arguments can be made for the positions that those things are copyright infringement and that those things aren't.

I'm not claiming that all of the things I've mentioned are absolutely, in fact, copyright infringement or that they should be illegal. I am saying that they could be construed as such.

QuoteThere are definitely gray areas in the law. Part of the problem is that "legality" of any of the given acts depends greatly on the intent of the person taking the action.

Yes. I Agree.

QuoteI can convert all of my records to mp3 - for my own personal use.

Disagree. You might physically be able to do it, and you might avoid any punishment or repercussion for doing so, but I think there are many lawyers in the RIAA who would contend that you "can't" do that.

Do you have the expressed written permission of the record label to convert the songs to a digital format? Does it say anywhere on the record, sleeve, or cover that you can reproduce the music for your own personal use?

I think you are unfairly assuming that you have the right to do this by trying to claim "fair use" applies somehow.

For the record: I personally don't think there is anything wrong with copying an old 45 to MP3, or copying one of my purchased CDs to MP3. I do think that those actions could constitute some form of copyright infringement in some people's eyes and from certain legal perspectives.

QuoteIf I upload them to the Internet - it's still not necessarily a violation - unless I have the intent to distribute the material. It's these niggling details that make the issue so difficult for people to wrap.

Agreed. Specifically because you said that it's not necessarily a violation. On the flip side, it's not necessarily not a violation either.

I think you and I are having this huge disconnect because of the niggling details.

QuoteIn fact, the entire argument, which I've had for hours with my older brother, is really, IMHO, not about copyright violation, per se. Instead, it's really a matter of better defining "Fair Use."

Agreed. That is a huge morass.

I guess you could say I'm mostly PO'd about people being sanctimonious painting with broad brushes that what many people would consider "fair use" from a legal or even ethical standpoint, they are blanketing as immoral stealing. I think there are gray areas involved and that these sweeping, judgmental generalizations aren't cool.

QuoteYou seem to be saying that since there are valid ("Fair Use") ways to ignore copyright, all material is free for copyright violation. That's as ludicrous as the perspective against which you appear to be arguing.

Ah, I see where we're having another disconnect.

That is not at all what I am trying to say, and does indeed appear ludicrous.

No, all material is not free for copyright violation.

Yes, there are valid "fair use" ways to ignore copyright, IMO, and more from a "common sense" or "ethical" point of view rather than a strictly "legal" point of view.

What I'm arguing against is the notion that anyone who has downloaded anything is a thief and immoral. That strikes me as sanctimonious BS. I think there are or could be instances where downloading a PDF would fall under the category of "fair use". Much in the same way transferring your old 45s to MP3 might be considered fair use. I think people making the broadest and harshest claims are being hypocritical in the sense that they most likely, have done something that may fall under a gray zone of "fair use".

If someone downloads a game that is available for purchase and plays it without paying, that strikes me personally as wrong. (Although I try not to be overly preachy about it on internet forums).

If someone who owns a print copy of a game (and has no options to legitimately purchase a PDF) then downloads a PDF of the game, I don't see anything personally wrong with that. To a few people here, that's still piracy, still stealing, still morally wrong and is something their momma should have taught them about. This sentiment I take issue with.

Quote from: StuartIt doesn't violate copyright.  Whenever you view a webpage the HTML and images are downloaded (copied) to your computer.  You can browse the cache folder and see the images for all the pages you've visited.  If it were a copyright violation the world wide web would not be possible.

You're changing the argument and missing the point completely. The situation you described is not the one I described.

Also, Just because something is illegal does not mean it is impossible. Your last sentence makes little sense.

Quote from: GoOrangeYou're changing the argument and missing the point completely. The situation you described is not the one I described.

No, he is saying they are equivalent.

That - in my opinion, correct - assessment aside, has there ever been a single case of a website taking legal action to avoid users saving images from the site to their local disks? If so, what was their legal argument?

Quote from: GoOrangeYou're changing the argument and missing the point completely. The situation you described is not the one I described.

Also, Just because something is illegal does not mean it is impossible. Your last sentence makes little sense.

Okay, let me clarify --

Quote from: GoOrangeEver right clicked an image on the internet (one not created by you) and saved it on your computer without asking for the author's permission?

This is not illegal.

The reason this is not illegal is as I posted above -- you automatically save images to your computer whenever you view web pages.  Manually saving images to your desktop by rick clicking and choosing "Save As..." is legally the same.  What *is* illegal would be taking those images and then redistributing them without the authors permission.

Check the Terms of Use on any big website (Disney, CNN, Microsoft, etc) and it explains this in more technical / legal terms.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI don't know that it's your problem, exactly.  But "this can't be sold, so I'll give it away" is only a starting place.

Levi, again, you show some ignorance here of my business plan. Understandable. My games are not "free because I cannot sell them". The ones I sell are available for free as part of my business strategy. It works nicely.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenGah.  At this point, I get fuzzier.

When Wizards of the Coast had the OGL running in full force, with loads of people making loads of stuff, 90% of it junk, they were only halfway to realising one of the the kinds of things I mean.  Because it's not just about consuming and producing.  It's also about platforms for sharing, filtering, and aggregating, and finding a way to make a business of those activities - why didn't they sell a subscription to an "all open content" magazine, and let everyone do the work of creating it for them through aggregating and rating platforms online?

This is a great idea. I think they would have done well with it (problems with mags not withstanding). I can't do it because I am too busy writing about squirrels.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenWizards gave up that effort halfway, and switched to something else; with the digital initiative, they're moving towards selling a service along with a product.  If the product pays for itself, that's enough, if the service is significantly profitable.

I could go on and on and on about different adaptive efforts.  There are fuckloads of them.  

There isn't one way to go, commercially, here.  There are many.  But they are almost all far more deeply transformative than what we're generally seeing now.

I think, from other peoples posts, that I see part of the problem here Levi. I believe that illegal downloading is participating in theft of property. Don't want to call it that, well, I think you are softening the blow but fine. It is wrong/unethical. Then there is the reality of the market and my business. I am not even going to hazard a guess as to whether piracy benefits a publisher or not. I merely deal with it, use it and do my best to get it to work for me. I think folks in this thread want me to somehow admit that piracy is o.k. or at least very grey. I wont, but that is my opinion and it can be easily ignored. I don't put piracy advocates on the same shelf as axe murderers. Illegal downloaders are, IMHO, about the level of the guy who takes charity candy and doesn't leave a quarter. Distasteful but far from Genghis Khan. The truly bad guys are the enablers, the distributors of the material.

Now, I also think some folks are getting hung up on the difference between moral and legal. There are plenty of laws that are amoral (for example, speeding is not immoral, it is amoral) and a few, I believe, are immoral. I am not addressing the law because I am not a lawyer and only have what knowledge in IP law I do to serve me as a publisher.

So, to sum up, I put forward an effort to use all aspects of distribution to my advantage. You seem to think I somehow try to rail against the machine or maybe, use some punitive measures to stop piracy? Piracy is here and real. Just like shrinkage in store, you need to plan accordingly. Turning disadvantage to a positive is an important trait in a business man.

Bill

Quote from: beejazzYou provide free product alongside product that costs money, and the product is similar yes? That is a fine way to go. Give them both a free preview and the knowledge that for a little extra, they could get the same thing but better or covering some other genre. It serves the same purpose as piracy (at least insofar as I'd ever pirate) except that you explicitly condone and direct it.

My problem with the whole "you can't download unless you pay" thing is that it puts PDFs at a marked disadvantage against print. Ever walk into a store, read a book, and decide whether or not the book is for you based on what you see? It's nice to be able to make an informed decision about what you do and don't buy. I'd like an analogous option when I order online (I usually buy solid books, but I do it online and don't get a chance to flip through a book) because I'm poor, and care more about eating this week than paying a game designer if I'm not fond of his product. If I *am* fond of his product eating will just have to wait, won't it?

3x had the SRD. You have promotional product. Some online stores may offer previews (though usually just the first few pages, so they aren't very useful). Those are all great ideas, and I wouldn't torrent anything if any of those options were available for it (I'd still buy or not buy based on what I read).

You want to buy a book without any clear picture of what's in it that's your business. I'm curious to know whether 4e will be money well spent or an expensive bookshelf decoration I'd like but can't afford. So far it looks like the latter, but members of my group seem interested so we'll see.

A good point and one I try to address. I do not wish to force someone to do something unethical just to feel good about purchasing my products. It is one of the big reasons I am so free in giving people copies of my work. This way, should they be interested, they can purchase it with a clear idea of what they are getting.

Bill

Quote from: GoOrangeYou can't state as fact that none of those are infringements on copyright or IP (or whatever the exact term is.) You could claim they are and make an argument for your claim, but we can't objectively state it as fact.

OK, here's a problem. Because I can, of course depending on the jurisdiction (as some wise person pointed out to me that the UK law is a bit different), state objectively what is and what is not copyright violation.

If you want to argue over whether or not any of them should be (or not) violations - well, I'm a bit busy at the moment, but we can certainly take it up in OT over on d20 Haven

The point being that the arguments have been made in the courts of law, and in Congress, etc. and right now, AFAIK, the list you provided are not considered infringement based on Fair Use (again, here in the US). However, downloading a copy of something for which you have not paid, regardless of your purpose, even if it's just to peruse to make a decision if you want to purchase, is currently considered to be infringement (without permission, that is).

See my post on the RIAA wanting you to have to buy multiple copies if you want to have an mp3 on more than one device - sheer lunacy. But if it was law? I'd follow it.

Quote from: HinterWeltLevi, again, you show some ignorance here of my business plan. Understandable. My games are not "free because I cannot sell them". The ones I sell are available for free as part of my business strategy. It works nicely.

Ur, yeah, I overstated that.

The idea I was trying to get at is that things like having an SRD / freebie version are, yes, smart and good ideas.  But these are, firstly, ablative ideas - meant to cope with piracy as a problematic force, and secondly, refocusing ideas, meant to channel some of that sharing towards utility.

In general, I think that the whole tension is still there.  The idea that filesharing is a difficulty, rather than a pure resource.

Another example of a strategy I see as "fully aligned" with the digital marketplace is the (somewhat modified) Ransom model being used for Reign.  And then there's the weird-ass thing I may have sparked up on RPGnet today.

Quote from: EngineNo, he is saying they are equivalent.

That - in my opinion, correct - assessment aside, has there ever been a single case of a website taking legal action to avoid users saving images from the site to their local disks? If so, what was their legal argument?

I could argue that they aren't equivalent in certain key respects. To view an image on the web, it has to get DLed into your cache. Eventually those images get deleted on a periodic basis. The content publisher assumes that you will download this once and it will eventually get deleted. By right clicking and saving, you are creating a second copy of that image on your computer, one that isn't stored in the cache and will not be automatically deleted. This could constitute unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material. You were implicitly granted the right to temporarily download to cache, not to download an additional copy to the image to another folder.

The distinction is so fine that most wouldn't think twice about it, but I contend that a you could make a legitimate argument that right clicking and saving a copyrighted image could by infringement.

I probably should have given a more specific example in that instance. Say, downloading an image to a saved folder on your machine and then later printing it out. Now you've not only made a second electronic copy but have now converted the material to another medium altogether and have produced a third copy. I can imagine a few professional artists would love claim that you stole their work somehow and expect some form of renumeration.

Another point, just because someone does not take legal action doesn't mean they couldn't or that they think the behavior in question is acceptable. Hypothetical: If Hinterwelt doesn't take legal action against a filesharing site that has some of his games listed doesn't mean that he doesn't "have a case".

Just because I personally believe that there is nothing wrong with saving an image off the internet doesn't mean that the image's owner couldn't put together a coherent legal argument against me that contained many valid points. There's a spectrum of what is acceptable and what isn't. A few people here seeme to be only selectively choosing where they are applying their concepts of IP, theft and morals. I'm just trying to point out that it's not as clear cut as two or three posters here seem to think.

Quote from: StuartManually saving images to your desktop by rick clicking and choosing "Save As..." is legally the same.  What *is* illegal would be taking those images and then redistributing them without the authors permission.

Check the Terms of Use on any big website (Disney, CNN, Microsoft, etc) and it explains this in more technical / legal terms.

I think it is not legally the same. I think you are just assuming that it is lgeally the same based on what "seems right" to you.

I probably should have been more specific with the original example, and put in an extra step about downloading and then printing out for example, which would put the action one step further along the spectrum of what is and isn't copyright infringement.

I'd be surprised if any website ToS explicitly stated that you could download images to a second folder on your computer and save them indefinitely. (Which is different from granting you the right to temporarily download one copy to your cache.)

We are really getting miles away from the actual point of the conversation. You understand that personally, you and I are probably 99% in agreement, right? I'm simply playing devil's advocate and pointing out a few possible gray areas (even those that are only faintly gray) to try and demonstrate that sweeping generalizations and blanket statements aren't necessarily valid. At the very least, a few people have agreed with some of my points, which provides some evidence that the larger issue isn't completely clear cut which was my original point way back at the beginning.