Quote from: Consonant DudeWhy do you think that leaking them illegally achieves that as well or better than legally?

Look at the poll in this thread.  30% of people are buying.  If they say "It's totally free" they'll probably lose some of that number.  That's bad.

But if they can get some of those "Undecided -> Not Buying" people to look at the books and shift to "yes", that's good.  

I know for a fact that it's not just the little guys who mysteriously find their material on YouTube -- and suddenly people are checking it out, and they have fans for their shows.

Quote from: Consonant DudeBut 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).

Don't rule that out.

Quote from: Consonant DudeWhat 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.

Non-Fans are more likely to grab the PDFs and not care about supporting WotC.  Fans are more loyal and are less inclined to do that... but if WotC says the books are free, but you can pay if you like... well, they're fans, not idiots.

Again, I'm only speculating.  I haven't downloaded the PDFs myself.  If I knew for a fact WotC did this on purpose though, then I probably would.

This is all made more confusing by the... unusual... approach to marketing 4e this year.  

I'm not convinced with the idea that WoTC might have leaked these rules on purpose. But I'm also suspecting that they aren't really loosing a lot of sleep about it being out there either.  Surely, they expected that (like every other fucking RPG product in the world: I mean shit, you could get FtA! from the pirate networks almost right after it had come out; and it certainly wasn't me or clash who put it there), their books would have ended up on the fileshare networks, and almost right away.

They know that its questionable that they'll lose too many sales on this account anyways.  Geeks will fileshare the books, then buy the books anyways.

The D&D Insider business pretty much changes their whole deal now too; their bigger concern will probably be about people hacking into that without paying.

RPGPundit

Again, I should point out something:

Piracy is NOT downloading files without paying for them for your own use.
Piracy IS copying material of any kind without permission for RESALE.  In other words, making profit from copying other people's work without authorization.

Some of you might be too young to remember this, but big business already tried on at least two prior occasions to claim that simple copying was illegal (never mind "immoral") LONG before the intarweb ever existed: They tried to claim that making audio mix-tapes for your girlfriend was illegal "piracy", and that taping programs or movies with your VCR was "Piracy".  In both cases, the result was pretty much the same as it is now; the public in general ignored the stupid fuckers and went on about their business. This is because most human beings still have a clear sense of what is real theft and what isn't.

Of course, this time, thanks to lobbying, the big record business (and movies, a little later) have been more successful at getting the government to try to pass absurdly draconian laws (again, where you can end up doing much more time for having downloaded the latest Eminem single than if you went and raped another human being) to try to force people to go against their natural judgment and all logical thought.

If I were to go and copy, by hand, word for word, the latest D&D manual in a blank book, that would not be theft.  Its no more theft if I use a machine to copy it.
It only becomes theft if no one paid for the original copy, or a different sort of theft ("piracy") if I tried to sell the book in question.

Now, is it immoral? That's another subject. My position is that in this case its not so much about morality as it is about good manners.  If you're going to actually make use of a book and are not in a situation where you couldn't actually afford to pay for it, then don't be an asshole and pay for the damn book. Give the authors of the work the compensation they deserve.

Now, my own feeling is also that if someone honestly cannot afford to get a book, its better that they have and use it any way they can (short of REAL theft), than that they be forced not to appreciate it. Information should be free and not depend on one's level of material wealth; its the particular packaging of that information that should be allowed to discriminate on wealth level (ie. everyone should have a right to read The Sun Also Rises, not everyone should have a right to own a Leatherbound Deluxe Edition copy of it).

RPGPundit

PS: I realize that my view is not shared with everyone on this forum.  But anyways, this is my position and I've given my explanation for it.

PPS: For reasons of practicality first and foremost, my own personal position aside, its strictly forbidden to actually post any kind of information as to where people could download file-shared copies of any copyrighted material on this forum; and going around the forum like an idiot repetitively asking about said subject is also frowned upon very strongly.

Quote from: jgantsThere 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.

Yeah, I was aware of some cases, like the movie Tropa de Elite which has been a sort of success this way. Many indie bands do it too.

It just doesn't seem likely here. It doesn't sound like WotC to me. But I don't think we'll ever have an official explanation because I doubt very much that the leak will be properly identified, at least publicly.

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

Right. The value of the labour of skilled writers, game designers, musicians, etc. should be higher than the value of the amateurs and hacks.

But when you can get the bad stuff for free and the good stuff for free by pirating, then the difference in value paid to the professional is erased. So the professional may as well find some other line of work where his labour value isn't dimished by unauthorized access to the fruit of that labour. Or produce the IP material as an unpaid hobby. Either way, the consumer who values quality loses out because free-loaders have undermined the producer.

Point of clarification for Pierce and Levi: the value of a commodity is determined by several things, including but not limited to the labour-power embedded in it. Unfortunately for Pierce's point, the value of a digital file is easily attenuated by copying (the labour-power that goes into the process of copying is negligible). In other words, the filesharing phenomenon is a glimpse of a post-scarcity world.

The price of a commodity is another thing altogether. If Pierce or Levi can explain the process by which value is transformed into price they will have solved the transformation problem and I think Marxist scholars everywhere will be highly interested.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenThe fundamental source of the problem is that people at large had no fucking clue what the internet was actually going to do.

That's one source. Another one is that people who probably wouldn't steal a bicycle or a loaf of bread will illegally download games and movies without any guilt. The abstraction of intellectual property seems beyond the comprehension of a great many people, and a great many others salve their niggling reservations with self-righteous notions of sticking it to 'the man'.

In any case, the tragedy of the commons has at it roots the unwillingness of people to recognize the damage done by their actions. This isn't inevitable. I don't believe people are hopelessly selfish. Taking whatever you can get away with taking digitally is not an inevitable human norm.

Quote from: droogThe price of a commodity is another thing altogether. If Pierce or Levi can explain the process by which value is transformed into price they will have solved the transformation problem and I think Marxist scholars everywhere will be highly interested.

Oh boy. Go visit some Economics 101. Utility (terminus technicus), my friend is the answer to both things:

The question at hand, as well as why the "Marxist scholars" are still puzzled why even their own theory is collapsing under itself.

Quote from: droogPoint of clarification for Pierce and Levi: the value of a commodity is determined by several things, including but not limited to the labour-power embedded in it. Unfortunately for Pierce's point, the value of a digital file is easily attenuated by copying (the labour-power that goes into the process of copying is negligible). In other words, the filesharing phenomenon is a glimpse of a post-scarcity world.

Unfortunately for your point, you don't have one.

At issue isn't the labor value of the copying but the labor value of the making. As in, like, months and months of writing and thinking.

"Post-scarcity," droog, awesome, have you had a sip of the clueless-tech-nerd cool aid, or do you just love to argue?

Quote from: HaffrungThat's one source. Another one is that people who probably wouldn't steal a bicycle or a loaf of bread will illegally download games and movies without any guilt. The abstraction of intellectual property seems beyond the comprehension of a great many people, and a great many others salve their niggling reservations with self-righteous notions of sticking it to 'the man'.

In any case, the tragedy of the commons has at it roots the unwillingness of people to recognize the damage done by their actions. This isn't inevitable. I don't believe people are hopelessly selfish. Taking whatever you can get away with taking digitally is not an inevitable human norm.

Actually, there's nothing unusally selfish or odd about it.  The entire concept of capitalism is based on this idea (I'll explain below if people would attempt to read the following and avoid the obvious "you're just trying to justify stealing!!!!" retort):

Consumers want goods and services for the lowest possible price (preferably free).  Producers want goods and services for the highest possible price (preferably every last cent the consumer has).  The market balances itself out.

File-sharing is simply a producer that offers a commodity at no price.  Thus, increasing the overall supply in the market.

In the most economic of terms, this is not all that different from shopping at Wal*Mart instead of shopping at some local store.  Both actions cause a "tragedy of the commons", do they not?  But people still do it, don't they?  And surely shopping at Wal*Mart wouldn't be considered "stealing".

Copying isn't theft because nothing physical is being taken from the producer.  There's no direct impact.  There's an indirect impact - but that can be caused by any number of other actions.  It's not stealing to decide to cut back on buying gas and walk more instead, or to stop going to restaurants and instead cook at home.  Yet, economically speaking, those both cause the same effect as getting a file-shared copy - prices are lowered (in this case, demand decreases instead of supply increasing, but the result is the same).  

Similarly, if I suddenly decide to open a bookstore and that causes the other bookstore in town to lose business, that's not "stealing" either.  Paizo's creation of the Pathfinder RPG will likely cause just as many lost sales as piracy will.  Are they stealing?  Will their customers be stealing?

Quote from: jgantsActually, there's nothing unusally selfish or odd about it.  The entire concept of capitalism is based on this idea (I'll explain below if people would attempt to read the following and avoid the obvious "you're just trying to justify stealing!!!!" retort):

Consumers want goods and services for the lowest possible price (preferably free).  Producers want goods and services for the highest possible price (preferably every last cent the consumer has).  The market balances itself out.

File-sharing is simply a producer that offers a commodity at no price.  Thus, increasing the overall supply in the market.

In the most economic of terms, this is not all that different from shopping at Wal*Mart instead of shopping at some local store.  Both actions cause a "tragedy of the commons", do they not?  But people still do it, don't they?  And surely shopping at Wal*Mart wouldn't be considered "stealing".

Copying isn't theft because nothing physical is being taken from the producer.  There's no direct impact.  There's an indirect impact - but that can be caused by any number of other actions.  It's not stealing to decide to cut back on buying gas and walk more instead, or to stop going to restaurants and instead cook at home.  Yet, economically speaking, those both cause the same effect as getting a file-shared copy - prices are lowered (in this case, demand decreases instead of supply increasing, but the result is the same).  

Similarly, if I suddenly decide to open a bookstore and that causes the other bookstore in town to lose business, that's not "stealing" either.  Paizo's creation of the Pathfinder RPG will likely cause just as many lost sales as piracy will.  Are they stealing?  Will their customers be stealing?

So close, jgants. But you make the leap that a file sharer is the same as the producer. In this leap, you miss the other side of the chasm that must be bridged.

I have them preordered and paid for.

buy.com fucked up the release, so I have no qualms or guilt over going out and downloading the pdfs.  It sucks for those who actually are competant at their business, and didn't break street date, but buy.com fucks up everything on a regular basis, so hey.  WTF, right.

I'd likely have downloaded pdf versions anyway, as back ups and portable versions I can plug into a computer at work and read without hauling out big books.

Quote from: jgantsConsumers want goods and services for the lowest possible price (preferably free).  Producers want goods and services for the highest possible price (preferably every last cent the consumer has).  The market balances itself out.

File-sharing is simply a producer that offers a commodity at no price.  Thus, increasing the overall supply in the market.

So is somebody selling hot televisions out of a van.

If you get something of value for nothing (or very cheaply) while other people are paying for it, someone is being fucked. You seem to look at things in terms of 'what should one person to to best suit himself.' I judge each decision by it's collective long-term impact.

Look, you clearly don't understand that using intellectual property without permission can be as damaging to the person who created it as stealing an actual item. If you estimate a market of 100,000 customers for your IP product, and you find out that only 70,000 want it, then you made a bad business decision, and you have to accept the consequences. If you estimate a market of 100,000 for you product, and there really is a market of 100,000, but 30,000 of them take your intellectual property for free, then it's the free riders who are costing you, not a bad market decision.

But ethics aside, take the time to consider this question: What do you think will happen to creative industries when the creators no longer have control over their material, and when unauthorized use of that property becomes so widespread that the market value drops dramatically? In other words, what do you expect creators to do when creating is much less profitable and much more risky? Keep creating things you want and giving them to you for free?

Quote from: HaffrungLook, you clearly don't understand that using intellectual property without permission can be as damaging to the person who created it as stealing an actual item.

It can be, or not.

Quote from: HaffrungIf you estimate a market of 100,000 for you product, and there really is a market of 100,000, but 30,000 of them take your intellectual property for free, then it's the free riders who are costing you, not a bad market decision.

Nobody can demonstrate such correct estimations.

Quote from: HaffrungBut ethics aside, take the time to consider this question: What do you think will happen to creative industries when the creators no longer have control over their material,

In what world do you live?  

A shitload of creators do not have any control over their material. Heck... most of the time it's not even their material even if they create it!

Take a long look at all the creators of D&D, for instance. From originators Gygax and Arneson to Cook (AD&D2nd) to Tweet and co. (3rd) and the new guys like Mearls. They control nothing. Probably not even what they get to say.

How many music artists do you think really control their material and for how long? Most of the artists who "make it" are actually going to end up in the red and infinitely indebted to labels.

The only way I've earned a good living in the music industry is by working on things I don't own. The two projects I am involved with currently give me zilch so far, except in one case I get to drink a barely-decent 9-year old Porto as a "bribe".

Quote from: Haffrung, and when unauthorized use of that property becomes so widespread that the market value drops dramatically? In other words, what do you expect creators to do when creating is much less profitable and much more risky? Keep creating things you want and giving them to you for free?

You seem to think that file-sharing has changed the landscape for creators, providing them with less incentives to create. It hasn't, IMO. Most artists were broke before file-sharing. Most artists are still broke now that files are shared.

An elite was at the top, immensely rich before file-sharing. An elite is still there, immensely rich.

Radiohead made more money off the digital download of "In Rainbows" (a creation they totally own) than 99.99999% of bands can ever hope to make in their career, file-sharing world or not.

When unauthorized use of property becomes even more widespread, the top dogs (and they are companies and corporations, not necessarily creators) will adjust offering more convenience, better service and reliability while using all their skills to always be leaders in market penetration and all that shit.

And to answer your question another way: there will always, always be creative people who get the urge. It is seductive. The roleplaying industry is a good example. Lots of those people could be elsewhere making more money.

Having said that, I don't want creators (and that includes me) to starve. But that's really not what is happening here. The internet has changed the landscape but it's hardly worse than it was before. It's just different as far as I can see.

I can respect a position like Bill concerning IP. We who own work prefer to have complete control over it. There are ethical, moral concerns that I agree with and even feel deeply. But the stuff about downloads automatically = lost sales, or the doom and gloom about creators... I don't buy any of it, sorry.

I still think the best thing for now is for people (like Bill) to share their concerns (although the "thief" accusation is complete bullshit I feel) and educate people. And ask them to make ethical choices.

That is what I do when I use file-sharing and that is what I wish everyone did. I know file-sharing has helped me and I know I'm not screwing anybody. I know some people use it differently than I do. I know some people spend less than they would without it and believe me or not, I know some individuals who spend more than they would have before discovering all that wealth.

I think it's case by case. I think it is legitimate that people like Bill wish they had control, so that this decision was theirs. Sometimes, I feel the same. Why should the creator have to defer to the ethics of the downloader? Why should the downloader have the final say? But on that, I refer to Levi because he's got it right: it's not going away and the best thing is for companies and creators to adapt and offer the right incentives.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAt issue isn't the labor value of the copying but the labor value of the making. As in, like, months and months of writing and thinking.

Months and months of writing and thinking will give your commodity value (comprising use-value and exchange-value). All things being equal, the price ought to hover around its value. Once it can be freely copied, it's limited pretty much to its use-value. At that point the price is what you can get people to pay for it.

Perhaps you and the Settster can explain how it is that 'utility' makes value. Or perhaps you should stick to art-crit.