Quote from: Pierce InverarityTime, a limited resource, that was spent purposely toiling away on making a living.

To steal a book, to pirate a PDF, is to steal labor value. Irrespective of the the physicality of the commodity in question.

So if you spend ten hours baking your shit into a pie, that's just as good as if a skilled chef spent ten hours cooking a banquet?

Right on.

Enjoy your "labour value", and stop making gross simplifications.

Quote from: HinterWeltNot copy right infringement.

I didn't ask if they were copyright infringement. I asked if you had done any of them. If you had, I would then point out how they could be construed as copyright infringement and then how that makes your very strongly worded remarks hypocritical. I could make an argument that each and every one of those is a form of stealing and then go back to your various comments on the subject.

QuoteYou don't understand how the internet works do you? Not being mean, just saying, that your browser does this already.

Statements like "You don't understand how the internet works" despite CYA disclaimers to the contrary, come across completely as mean-spirited. Which seems extremely ironic based on your earlier posts about morals and things one's mother has taught them.

QuoteAnd you are talking about the law. I was talking about ethical behavior. The two over lap many times but not always and are not equivalent.

You are talking about technical and legal distinctions between what is and is not stealing. I'm not debating that stealing is or isn't wrong. I would argue that there are instances of downloading stuff that might not constitute stealing. Your original post painted with a broad brush and carried a tone of moral superiority which seemed inappropriate.

(Again, I probably agree with a vast majority of your opinions on filesharing. I strongly disagree with all-encompassing remarks and sanctimonious behavior.)

QuoteAs to taking the high road, defensive much?

You continue to make offensive statements and now are further trying to place yourself on a higher pedestal by labelling me as defensive. Unfortunately, I fail to see any high road being taken by you; quite the opposite in fact. In my opinion, sanctimonious behavior is the low road. Your assuming moral superiority is not the high road, and is offensive.

(I give you credit for the attempt to craft a sentence t to turn the issue around. On a first read it comes across as a powerful statement, implying you are completely in the right taking the "high road" and that I am the one at fault for being "defensive". Well played.)

QuoteYeas, this is close to home and a point of interest to me.

I can certainly understand that and honestly, truly feel bad if pirating or filesharing is cutting into your profits at all. Honestly. (No sarcasm or anything else intended.)

QuoteI am not saying I never break the law but I do my best. I also will not say I always do the ethical thing, I am human but I do my best and more importantly, I own my transgressions.

Yet you find nothing wrong with loudly denouncing the transgression of others?

QuoteI am not accusing "everyone who has ever downloaded" of being unethical. Just the ones who do so from unlicensed distribution networks.

Finally we are getting somewhere. You're starting to add stipulations (and legal ones like "unlicensed".)

QuoteDoes that make you wrong? Hard to say but you are enabling the distribution by participating.

Spot on. "Hard to say". It's not all black and white. Now it's hard to say, but before you were using harsh, definitive and accusatory language.

QuoteBut I am listening, what are the "grey" areas?

You just pointed out a gray area yourself and admitted it was "hard to say if something was right or wrong."

QuoteYou, know, all I read here is you being deeply offended because someone has pointed out that what you have done is unethical and you are having problems with that. You seem to be saying, as someone directly affected, that I have no right to say "Nope, that's wrong". I could be misinterpreting you but that is the way you seem to be reading to me.

I am offended that a few (I think there were two or three, including yourself) are a taking high-handed approach in calling groups of people immoral thieves. I take offense to comments that someone's "momma" should have taught them something. I find that kind of talk self-righteous BS.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe I have stated here that I have downloaded PDFs of games. I think I've said that I've purchased PDFs from Clash, from RPGNow, from Hero games and other sources, but I don't think I've said that I've downloaded anything illegally.

I've probably said that I didn't think it would be wrong if I or someone downloaded something in certain circumstances, but I don't recall saying I've illegally downloaded anything.

Now, are you really accusing me of something simply because I am defending someone else's hypothetical behavior?

QuoteMorally, you are wrong. If you were raised with anything approximating normal societal morals you would be ashamed...or you would rationalize it

At the end of the day I find this statement offensive, judgemental, and narrow minded. You are accusing people of rationalizing when they, according to you, should be ashamed. This was targeted at a large group of people that includes some areas that by your own admission are "hard to say" as right or wrong. You are using prejudicial language and making baseless judgments about people's upbringing. You are implying that your morals are superior to others (despite the fact that you later admit to not always doing the ethical thing).

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSo if you spend ten hours baking your shit into a pie, that's just as good as if a skilled chef spent ten hours cooking a banquet?

Nobody would buy your shit pie, Levi.

Enjoy your poo, and stop posting quips in lieu of an actual point.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityNobody would buy your shit pie, Levi.

Enjoy your poo, and stop posting quips in lieu of an actual point.

The point is simple: "Value" is relative.  It is neither fixed nor inherent to the act of "doing labour".

QuoteIntentional downloading or "saving" content from any Web page is the equivalent to making a reproduction of the content, similar to making photocopies of a book. It is logical to presume that by doing so, you will infringe the copyright of the author of that content. To comply with copyright law, you must receive permission from the copyright holder before you download any content. The exception to this is fair use. Just as with copying materials such as library books, a fair-use analysis is necessary to determine if your use may be considered "fair." )

Thanks for the link, the article was very interesting.

By this time we're miles off topic. I can't seem to get the larger point/picture across so I'll just let it go. (This was never about the finer points of fair use but my communication skills apparently aren't up to the challenge of conveying that.)

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe point is simple: "Value" is relative.  It is neither fixed nor inherent to the act of "doing labour".

The point is distracting from the issue in hand. The labor values of different objects are different, duh. However, what is invariant is labor value as such.

No one buys crap. No one wants to steal it either. This discussion is about objects people would buy or steal for the value these objects acquired from the skilled labor that went into making them.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThis discussion is about objects people would buy or steal for the value these objects acquired from the skilled labor that went into making them.

Objection!

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThe point is distracting from the issue in hand. The labor values of different objects are different, duh. However, what is invariant is labor value as such.

No one buys crap. No one wants to steal it either. This discussion is about objects people would buy or steal for the value these objects acquired from the skilled labor that went into making them.

...And?

The value a creator places on their work, in terms of digital media, is only relevant to those that wish to be ethical.  Call it labour value or hard work or whatever you like; it doesn't change the raw practicalities of the situation in the slightest.

People will and do share digital media, whether legally or not, morally or not.  This will not change, it will not go away, and it will only grow easier.  Standard business practices are harmed by this.

Complete solutions, therefore, will not be found in protesting the facts, declaiming the ethics, or arguing terms, but in exploring nonstandard business practices.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen...And?

The value a creator places on their work, in terms of digital media, is only relevant to those that wish to be ethical.  Call it labour value or hard work or whatever you like; it doesn't change the raw practicalities of the situation in the slightest.

Complete solutions, therefore, will not be found in protesting the facts, declaiming the ethics, or arguing terms, but in exploring nonstandard business practices.

"Ethics"? The naivety.

"Value" as used here is not a term from moral philosophy but from political economy. Look it up. It's all about the raw practicalities, turtle boy. It's about clarifying that pirating is theft, for value is being stolen. Theft is punishable by law, no moral ambiguity here.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity"Ethics"? The naivety.

"Value" as used here is not a term from moral philosophy but from political economy. Look it up. It's all about the raw practicalities, turtle boy. It's about clarifying that pirating is theft, for value is being stolen. Theft is punishable by law, no moral ambiguity here.

Great.  And if it's theft, and eeeevil, that doesn't actually change my end point even a little.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenGreat.  And if it's theft, and eeeevil, that doesn't actually change my end point even a little.

I didn't say it was evul. I'm saying it's punishable by law.

Enforceability of that law is another matter and not always unsuccessful.

For the moment, I'm satisfied to have cleared up that PDFs and books are commodities in the same sense, that stealing them is theft, and that calling it theft involves no luddite handwringing.

If WotC did leak the PDFs themselves, would that change the morality (I think so) and legality (no idea!) of downloading the files instead of buying them? :raise:

What if it was someone senior to the project (not just an office temp), but not a decision the company as a whole approved of?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityFor the moment, I'm satisfied to have cleared up that PDFs and books are commodities in the same sense, that stealing them is theft, and that calling it theft involves no luddite handwringing.

*Shrug*

Okay.  Other may want to dispute that.  I'm not worried; that's not the point I was driving towards in the first place.

Justifying piracy isn't on my agenda, though it is on some (and I can understand their positions, too).   Trying to look at it in practical terms of "so what do we do now?" is on my agenda.

Quote from: GoOrangesnip

By the gods, I could respond spot by spot but this thread has been derailed enough.

This is my opinion. You don't like it, you can ignore it. My opinion, in the grand scheme of things, means nothing. I do not make laws nor do I control the internet. So, when you get all defensive, well, yeah, it looks bad. Someone who believe piracy is good and right, or even grey, can download my files and violate my rights.

As to whether you have illegally downloaded or not, as I said earlier, I may have mistaken you for someone else. I apologize if you think I called you a pirate.

Another point, you have made some gross assumptions on my views. Also, you have said "Look at this list of what I believe to be illegal operations. Did you do any?" and my answer is "No, they aren't immoral". Viewing a web page with graphics just is not the same as participating in a illegal file sharing operation. There is an implied contract.

If it makes you feel better, there may well grey areas from a legal point of view. Taking something without the owners permission...implied or otherwise, is wrong. I just can't see how you can argue that in modern society.

Bill

The conspiracy theory that WotC "leaked" the thing themselves is ridiculous.

Why the fuck would they do that?

If they wanted the books available for download, they would would fucking do it properly.

There is no conspiracy theory here. An individual was malicious, fucked up and/or was fucked by someone else. That's what happened.