Quote from: StuartIf 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?

IMHO, yes, it would change the moral position since the owner chose the mode of distribution.

Legally? I have no idea.

Bill

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.

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.

I agree with you right up until this point:

Quote from: Levi KornelsenComplete solutions, therefore, will not be found in protesting the facts, declaiming the ethics, or arguing terms, but in exploring nonstandard business practices.

I struggle with the default that it's one or the other. I think if you give up trying to explain the concepts that are based on fundamental decision that the idea and its implementation can have value, you lose something beyond just the harm to standard business practices. I think you're right that solutions will likely involve "non-standard" approaches; but to throw up hands in defeat is a mistake, IMHO...

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhy the fuck would they do that?

Get the rules into the hands of people who would otherwise have never bought a book (eg. "Those Internet Kids") while not publicly saying it's free for download and maintaining their sales to current fan/subscribers.  The new people who get the PDFs don't represent lost income and if they become a fan/subscriber they'll bring in additional revenue through the subscriptions to DnDInsider as well as the purchase of DnD Miniatures.

I think we can all finally acknowledge without debate that WoW was a big influence on the new edition.  Well they give away the game for free.  You pay for a subscription to keep playing it each month though.

I don't know if this is the approach WotC has taken - - but it's not wild-and-crazy-insane to consider that they might.

Quote from: StuartGet the rules into the hands of people who would otherwise have never bought a book (eg. "Those Internet Kids") while not publicly saying it's free for download and maintaining their sales to current fan/subscribers.  The new people who get the PDFs don't represent lost income and if they become a fan/subscriber they'll bring in additional revenue through the subscriptions to DnDInsider as well as the purchase of DnD Miniatures.

I think we can all finally acknowledge without debate that WoW was a big influence on the new edition.  Well they give away the game for free.  You pay for a subscription to keep playing it each month though.

I don't know if this is the approach WotC has taken - - but it's not wild-and-crazy-insane to consider that they might.

And....and?

C'mon, man, give me some credit. I hardly ever get credit....

Quote from: James J SkachAnd....and?

C'mon, man, give me some credit. I hardly ever get credit....

I... can't... remember...

:haw:

Quote from: James J SkachI agree with you right up until this point:

I struggle with the default that it's one or the other. I think if you give up trying to explain the concepts that are based on fundamental decision that the idea and its implementation can have value, you lose something beyond just the harm to standard business practices. I think you're right that solutions will likely involve "non-standard" approaches; but to throw up hands in defeat is a mistake, IMHO...

How many hours have been spent on DRM that not only didn't work, but actively pissed off the legitimate users?  How many have been spent on fruitless arguments about morality?

I'm not talking about "giving up the fight".  I'm saying that it's only a fight at all because many really "important" businesses like, say, the RIAA, spent all that time trying find ways to make the digital marketplace act like the physical one, in complete defiance of the basic facts, instead of using it to learn the way it actually functions and working with it.

I really think this entire issue is very similar to what went on at the beginning of the time of agriculture's inception. A hunter-gatherer's good is a agriculturist's evil.
Someone up thread said they were unaware of a culture that thought stealing was good. We're living in one, obviously- it's how we got a good deal of the land we live on, all over the world.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenHow many hours have been spent on DRM that not only didn't work, but actively pissed off the legitimate users?  How many have been spent on fruitless arguments about morality?

I'm not talking about "giving up the fight".  I'm saying that it's only a fight at all because many really "important" businesses like, say, the RIAA, spent all that time trying find ways to make the digital marketplace act like the physical one, in complete defiance of the basic facts, instead of using it to learn the way it actually functions and working with it.

Ooooh....OK...then we are in fundamental disagreement on the source of the problem.

And this is from someone who agrees that the reaction was stupid, short-sighted, and overall a negative impact.

Quote from: StuartI... can't... remember...

:haw:

that is was my batshit crazy idea from the other thread...sheesh...no respect, I tell ya...

Oh yeah! Yes, I think you might be on to something with that.

Quote from: James J SkachOoooh....OK...then we are in fundamental disagreement on the source of the problem.

*Shrug*

The fundamental source of the problem is that people at large had no fucking clue what the internet was actually going to do.

A society that has the internet, and has fully adapted to having it, is different kind of society than one that does not have it.  And we're only beginning to learn how.

But I digress.

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen*Shrug*

The fundamental source of the problem is that people at large had no fucking clue what the internet was actually going to do.

you forgot...

"and then reacted badly when they figured out what it could be used for..."

Quote from: James J Skachyou forgot...

"and then reacted badly when they figured out what it could be used for..."

Oh, my, yes.  Almost all of us, and the companies we work for.

Quote from: StuartGet the rules into the hands of people who would otherwise have never bought a book (eg. "Those Internet Kids") while not publicly saying it's free for download and maintaining their sales to current fan/subscribers.

I'm really trying to understand, out of sheer curiosity and because I like to talk about promotion and stuff

Why do you think that leaking them illegally achieves that as well or better than legally? If we were talking about an underground avant-garde rock band, or an edgy south-american movie, I could see the argument better, I guess.

But it's a mainstream game. Why not make a corporate announcement? They might even have charged a symbolic fee to get the .pdfs (say, 1 or 2 bucks per books).

What makes you think that it will work better with non-fans this way? It seems to me if WotC believes they will lose sales, then they wouldn't release the books at all.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm really trying to understand, out of sheer curiosity and because I like to talk about promotion and stuff

Why do you think that leaking them illegally achieves that as well or better than legally? If we were talking about an underground avant-garde rock band, or an edgy south-american movie, I could see the argument better, I guess.

But it's a mainstream game. Why not make a corporate announcement? They might even have charged a symbolic fee to get the .pdfs (say, 1 or 2 bucks per books).

What makes you think that it will work better with non-fans this way? It seems to me if WotC believes they will lose sales, then they wouldn't release the books at all.

There have been cases of "leaks" being used in the past by TV/movies/music purposely as a way to drum up interest (usually via YouTube or something).  The fact that people think its a leak, and not a corporate release, seems to generate more interest.  It's the whole viral marketing concept - no one listens to company hype anymore, but a lot of people still listen to random guy on the Internet's opinion.

That said, I find it highly unlikely that was the case here.  But, it is not outside the realm of possibility nor would it be unprecedented.