Quote from: HaffrungWhat about the capitalists who work for small software shops? If enough geophysicists decided they'd rather rip off a copy of our software for free than pay for it, I'd be out of a job. And eventually, they would have an unsupported, outdated piece of software. But people who routinely violate IP protection are demonstrably short-sighted anyway (or have a hatred of all business operations).

But if you charged less for it, you would have more buyers, right?

I mean, I can write a software package for creating... oh, I don't know, say PDFs.  I could charge $450 for it.  I think it would be a bit silly of me to become outraged that people don't assign a value my software the exact same way I do.

Quote from: walkerp...Fair enough.  There are exceptions...

Yeah, I think we're both basically on the same page here.

Quote from: HaffrungThat analogy doesn't hold water, unless you can cite an industry where customers had a choice between paying for a good or not paying for it.

Well, I am speaking in generalities.  With the advent of p2p file sharing and such, however, don't consumers have the choice of paying for a good or not right now?

QuoteWhat about people who will pay for a good if there's a way to compel payment (ie the ticket-taker at a movie theatre) , but will otherwise steal it? If grocery stores left produce unguarded in their parking lots all night, a lot of dishonest people would simply take it. That doesn't mean the produce has no value - it means a lot of people will pay if they have to, and steal if they don't think they'll get caught.

Presumably, the grocery store that leaves inventory unattended overnight is not really expecting it to be there in the morning.

I don't know what you mean by 'compel payment'.  If a shopkeeper has various items of inventory, they are legally owned by the shopkeeper.  If that shopkeeper puts all that inventory in the street, then locks up and flies to Miami, I hardly think there is a reasonable expectation of payment on anyone's part.  Certainly, the police will not place it as a high priority, and good luck collecting insurance.

At this point, however, you are talking about depriving someone of a physical product, which is a lost sale.  What the IP argument tends to get hung up on is that downloading an mp3 or book in electronic form, or even commercial software may not be a lost sale.  That person probably wasn't going to purchase that item anyway.  There is a reasonable argument that a perfect digital copy of a song deprives no one, faceless corporation nor artist.  There is just as reasonable an argument that give-aways promote sales.

QuoteI have a buddy who is a huge Radiohead fan. I think he's bought maybe two Radiohead CDs, and pulled everything else from Limewire. Even when Radiohead put Rainbows up for pay-what-you-want on iTunes, he didn't pay a cent. In fact, he just ripped it off Limewire so Radiohead didn't even get the credit on iTunes for a sale.

So he values Radiohead music tremendously. But he'd rather take it for free than pay.

No, his demand for Radiohead is large.  His judgement of the value of that product is zero, in most cases.  He valued two albums at around $15, which appears to be somewhat below his appraisal of their worth.  The rest of his Radiohead collection has zero value in his estimation.

Quote from: James J SkachAgreed. I'm not...surprised...by that sentiment.

EDIT: I think I initially misread this.  I won't treat a lack of answer to the question I pose negatively, because you may not have been making the comment I think you were:

You will have to expand on why that isn't surprising, or how my assessment is incorrect.  Are you saying there is an unmet demand for buggy whips?

QuoteOK, I'm sure that you can say the demand will be met by other means. First, there have to be other means. Second, those means have to be good enough and less costly enough that they will suffice. Third - and here's the killer - they have to be legal.

The demand is met by other means.  And those other means are more than good enough (perfect digital copies) and free (internet costs notwithstanding, or hit up a public wireless).  Third, they don't have to be legal.  In the Platonic ideal of classroom economics, the black market probably isn't touched on too much.  But the point remains, it will affect the regular market.  In most of these instances, when talking about physical goods, there are the issues of copyright/patent violations, or actual theft of a physical product and re-sale.

QuoteOtherwise, you're skipping an important part of the market. That is, that the owner of property gets a say as well. The problem with the download is that you're not participating int he negotiations of the market, you're bypassing them altogether.

Actually, that is a negotiation with the market.  It is a refusal to participate.  That is a valid choice.  It is, at that point, no different than simply refusing to purchase the product.  If the buyer were to then take the product and leave the premises, they have stolen it.  If they had some device to make a perfect physical copy of the item from a holographic scan, they haven't deprived the owner of anything.  The owner still has the physical item for sale.  It wasn't stolen.

QuoteOwner: "I'm selling my property for X"
Potential Customer: "I will only pay X/2"
Owner: "Nope, sorry."

This is fine. But the potential customer doesn't get to respond, "Fine, I get it for free, then."

When it comes to IP, you will need a stronger argument as to why this isn't a valid market pressure.  You are begging the question that IP 'belongs' to someone.  Certainly an authour or artist has some say in how it is distributed and should be compensated for their work.  But downloads and file-sharing are certainly a market pressure, and a smart company would look at that and find a way to make it less expensive to acquire the works through their own channels.  Granted, a certain legal backup is needed.

According to page 10 of this report[/i], the optimal price range is between $10 and $16 USD for CDs (well, CDVU, which is the product they are hawking).  I would posit that the closer to $10, the more sales would be generated, and the less copying would go on.  Without any numbers to back me up, I would say that iTunes and the like have probably cut file-sharing of music by a pretty large amount.

QuoteIf your argument is that sooner or later the idiots over at teh RIAA, or any of the similar dunderheads will finally wake up and make the counter offer of X/2 + .1X, and reap the profits thereof, or go under - well then I've no problem. But if you're saying that their refusal to do so give the potential customer the right to take it for 0X - well, then, we'll leave it at we fundamentally disagree on how markets work...

In fact, the recording industry is packaging a service as a good.  Access to the artist and the exclusive ability to transfer their recordings is the real item for sale.  That it happens to be on a physical medium is what tends to muddy the waters.  You aren't really buying the CD, you are buying (somewhat un)limited access to the music on the CD.  Clearly, if you were buying the physical CD, people would have stopped paying $20+ years ago.

While I am not touting file-sharing as a perfectly legitimate market pressure, I don't think you can reasonably argue that it isn't an extant market pressure.  Again, in the example you give, if the customer has already decided not to purchase the item, how is the retailer harmed?  I will grant, if they start handing out these perfect copies to all and sundry, that will affect the retailer.  However, it would still have to be shown that the people they give it to would have otherwise purchased their own copy.  At least a certain percentage, which you could translate into damages the retailer would have cause to petition for.

I thought I already explained back on page 2 that illegal copying is not theft?
Anyway I also thought that we had decided that the core books were basically just a loss leader for the mini sales to follow (try downloading those little buggers).

I am interested to see the true economics here. We can assume that WotC spent 2 years and say 20 fully paid up designers/artists/editors on call it 50k a year to save on the maths. That would be $2 million dollars. The production costs of the books have to be say $5 a piece in some print shop in Guanzhou.
Does anyone know how many copies they hope to sell? I mean ballpark. 100k ?
so they print 200k copies for another 1m (hey my maths are just too neat.)

They they have advertising which is very pricy but is going to be limited to trade  magazines (which they largely own) and the internet and mostly word of mouth.
Total investment cost call it 4million....

I think they could have recouped their costs if they had published the pdf for a $10 dowload on their site and a bunch of mirrors with big fat pipes. I think that they could have made 100K download sales at that price point today and  would be looking at 1m sales inside a month (each book of course being a sale).

Now they would still sell books because I for one hate working off pdfs (although a kindle might be able to pursuade me where blackberrys, PDAs and  a Psion have failed)  and I am sure there are enough people actually looking to buy the books that feel the same way. And they would still loose sales cos the pdf would be out in the wild, but it is already so.... for most people the act of tracking down the hosting site and going through that process is worth 10 dollars I am sure that that Phil character that has been knocking about would have done. Hey I might well have done...

You have to think about what people want and how much they want to pay. If they don't want a $40 book but do want a $10 pdf then that is a product you need to create.

But anyway as I say the books are just a loss leader for the minis. They are the printers of the RPG world and the minis are the ink. (in this encounter you will need 340 kolbolds... available at $3 for 2 or $5 each prepainted from all good toy stores.)

Quote from: jibbajibbaI am interested to see the true economics here. We can assume that WotC spent 2 years and say 20 fully paid up designers/artists/editors on call it 50k a year to save on the maths.

Those fuckers are vastly overpaid.  

Quote from: SpikeThose fuckers are vastly overpaid.  

Sorry its only US dollars sorry didn't I make that clear :-)

Quote from: jibbajibbaI am interested to see the true economics here. We can assume that WotC spent 2 years and say 20 fully paid up designers/artists/editors on call it 50k a year to save on the maths.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, but I would be surprised if WotC people were making anywhere near that much money.  

50K a year would mean about $4,000 a month, and assuming a 40 hour work week, that would be $26 per hour.  

I would be surprised if they were making more than $2,500 a month for 30K a year, and even then, that would mean they make about $15 an hour.  And now that I think about it, even that seems a bit high.

Quote from: EnlightenedI would be surprised if they were making more than $2,500 a month for 30K a year, and even then, that would mean they make about $15 an hour.  And now that I think about it, even that seems a bit high.

I'm not in the US so I might well be wrong, but paying that salary to an editor seems ridiculous to me at first glance.

Quote from: StormBringerIf the buyer were to then take the product and leave the premises, they have stolen it.  If they had some device to make a perfect physical copy of the item from a holographic scan, they haven't deprived the owner of anything.  The owner still has the physical item for sale.  It wasn't stolen.

I hate this rationalizing and rewording to make thieves feel justified.

You stole something. Simply, that means you took something without permission. Morally, you are wrong. If you were raised with anything approximating normal societal morals you would be ashamed...or you would rationalize it. And yes, you want to use more precise version of stealing, then fine, but it is still stealing;i.e. pick pocketing is a more precise definition of stealing.

Now, legally is another case that I really do not care about.

As a business man, I plan accordingly and appropriately have measures in place in my BP to deal with piracy.

Mind, it does not keep me up at night but threads like this are just sad. Like someone up thread said, you did the crime, own it.

Bill  

Quote from: dictionary.comsteal    
Pronunciation[steel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, verb, stole, sto·len, steal·ing, noun
–verb (used with object)
1.   to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2.   to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.
3.   to take, get, or win insidiously, surreptitiously, subtly, or by chance: He stole my girlfriend.
4.   to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle (usually fol. by away, from, in, into, etc.): They stole the bicycle into the bedroom to surprise the child.
5.   Baseball. (of a base runner) to gain (a base) without the help of a walk or batted ball, as by running to it during the delivery of a pitch.
6.   Games. to gain (a point, advantage, etc.) by strategy, chance, or luck.
7.   to gain or seize more than one's share of attention in, as by giving a superior performance: The comedian stole the show.
–verb (used without object)
8.   to commit or practice theft.
9.   to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved: She stole out of the house at midnight.
10.   to pass, happen, etc., imperceptibly, gently, or gradually: The years steal by.
11.   Baseball. (of a base runner) to advance a base without the help of a walk or batted ball.
–noun
12.   Informal. an act of stealing; theft.
13.   Informal. the thing stolen; booty.
14.   Informal. something acquired at a cost far below its real value; bargain: This dress is a steal at $40.
15.   Baseball. the act of advancing a base by stealing.
—Idiom
16.   steal someone's thunder, to appropriate or use another's idea, plan, words, etc.

Quote from: Consonant DudeI'm not in the US so I might well be wrong, but paying that salary to an editor seems ridiculous to me at first glance.

Ridiculously low or high?

Quote from: HinterWeltI hate this rationalizing and rewording to make thieves feel justified.

You stole something. Simply, that means you took something without permission. Morally, you are wrong. If you were raised with anything approximating normal societal morals you would be ashamed...or you would rationalize it. And yes, you want to use more precise version of stealing, then fine, but it is still stealing;i.e. pick pocketing is a more precise definition of stealing.

Are 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.

Of course, your statement begs the question of 'societal morals', as thought they are unchanging through the millenia.  The 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.  What 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.

However, 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?  That by keeping and reading it, I am morally equivalent to a mugger or burglar?  Or, 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?

Keep 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.

QuoteNow, legally is another case that I really do not care about.

Quite 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.

QuoteAs a business man, I plan accordingly and appropriately have measures in place in my BP to deal with piracy.

Have 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.

QuoteMind, it does not keep me up at night but threads like this are just sad. Like someone up thread said, you did the crime, own it.

If 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.

My option wasn't listed, so not voting.

'Leaning toward buying, thinks RPG piracy is horrible and wrong and those who do so should burn in the Hell of Demons with razor wangs'

Quote from: StormBringerIf it were a crime, the RIAA/MPAA wouldn't be having a difficult time prosecuting people.

It's a crime in most places (in Canada and a few other places, it's illegal to upload, but not to download - but that still means that P2P sharing is illegal).  That's not the problem they're having.

The problem they're having is that they want to punish it like "stealing a car", while the general consensus in many other places is that it's a crime like "going over the speed limit".

All of which is utterly beside the important point.

The important bit is this:

The vast majority of those doing creative work and selling it online have the expectation that they can charge money for their work, and that others will either buy it or leave it alone.

In any non-digital marketplace, this is a reasonable and intelligent expectation.  And there has been a significant amount of energy and time put into making the digital marketplace agree.  Problem is, in the digital marketplace, that assumption isn't backed up with a scarcity of resources - if I download a copy of book X (legally or otherwise), you don't have one less book.

The presence of the assumption does not make downloading immoral; morals are things that societies decide together, and they change over time.

Equally, the absence of scarcity does not make downloading morally aceptable, for the same reason.

Both of these things are conflicting pressures.  The morality of the situation is still fluid.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIt's a crime in most places (in Canada and a few other places, it's illegal to upload, but not to download - but that still means that P2P sharing is illegal).  That's not the problem they're having.

The problem they're having is that they want to punish it like "stealing a car", while the general consensus in many other places is that it's a crime like "going over the speed limit".

All of which is utterly beside the important point.

The important bit is this:

The vast majority of those doing creative work and selling it online have the expectation that they can charge money for their work, and that others will either buy it or leave it alone.

In any non-digital marketplace, this is a reasonable and intelligent expectation.  And there has been a significant amount of energy and time put into making the digital marketplace agree.  Problem is, in the digital marketplace, that assumption isn't backed up with a scarcity of resources - if I download a copy of book X (legally or otherwise), you don't have one less book.

The presence of the assumption does not make downloading immoral; morals are things that societies decide together, and they change over time.

Equally, the absence of scarcity does not make downloading morally aceptable, for the same reason.

Both of these things are conflicting pressures.  The morality of the situation is still fluid.

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