Quote from: HinterWeltIt is simply immoral to take the work of another and decide to distribute it however you please. Both as a consumer of P2P networks and as a host of one. It amounts to stealing and nothing less. If you are doing your won mix tape that is made from music you legally purchased and for your personal use, this perfectly acceptable. If you want to make a thousand copies of an album for personal use, again no problem.

Unless you're talking about a P2P program that CHARGES people for its use, that's exactly what P2P does, and nothing more. Its not real Piracy.
Its definitely not stealing. Again; if someone copies the D&D PHB, it doesn't make a D&D PHB on a shelf somewhere magically disappear and become unavailable for sale.

RPGPundit

Quote from: flyingmiceI'd be happy to. Tell me how, and it will be done. I answer PMs if you'd prefer.

-clash

Well, I've made a point of saying that any publisher who sends me sample copies of their products, I will put up a review of that product on my blog.

That's over 1200 people a day's worth of publicity.

Of course, the review might not be positive. It will be my honest opinion, and I usually try to point out the good and bad (unless a product is irredeemably bad). But regardless of good or bad it will still be attention.

PM me if you're interested.

RPGPundit

Those fat fucking parasites paid for a lot before Sgt Pepper hit the streets.  They paid for recording time.  They paid for practice time.  They paid for promotions.  They paid for production.

Ask any band who's still running off their own onesheets how much all that would be worth to them.  If the recording companies were nothing more than parasites that KILL our FUCKING SOULS MAN, then why are so many indie (real indie, still playing bars for free beer) bands cutting their fucking throats trying to get contracts?

Record companies are mostly fuckheads, and greedy fuckheads at that.  But they make their investments and are as entitled to the returns as anyone else who pours cash into a successful venture.  Doesn't make them nice, just makes them capitalists.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe point is we don't really know; we don't know with the music industry, so we sure as hell don't know with the gaming industry.

Given that we don't know one way or another, why should the default assumption be that it doesn't?

I mean, if we really want to do the right thing, and there's room for reasonable doubt, shouldn't we assume for the time being that it does have a negative effect, and act accordingly?

Quote from: RPGPunditUnless you're talking about a P2P program that CHARGES people for its use, that's exactly what P2P does, and nothing more. Its not real Piracy.
Its definitely not stealing. Again; if someone copies the D&D PHB, it doesn't make a D&D PHB on a shelf somewhere magically disappear and become unavailable for sale.

RPGPundit

I would include P2P networks that charge to be even more immoral than those that don't but both are in the wrong. IANAL so I do not care if I am using the proper terminology, Stealing/Copyright Infringement/Illegal Distribution. It does not matter what you call it. I will admit that others may wish to argue the semantics but it is of little import to me.

It boils down to if an artist makes a piece of art, it should be up to them how it is distributed. To make it personal, if I write a book about Roman History and you upload it to a P2P network, it is the same thing as taking my software I work on and distribute and sending free copies to all your friends. In essence, it is abridging my right to control my creation and that is terribly wrong in my book.

Downloading from such networks is only slightly less a transgression. It is the age old debate of "Is it wrong to buy stolen goods?" In this case, the downloaders know very well the sources of the files they download. Knowingly infringing on another persons rights is immoral IMHO.

Bill

Quote from: RPGPunditExcept file sharing doesn't do that. The fact that Jim has downloaded a copy of the D&D PHB onto his computer doesn't mean that there's suddenly magically one copy LESS of the PHB in someone's local gaming store, or even that the Wizards Online store now must sell one less copy of its PDF legally.
Contrary to what the parasites of the RIAA try to tell you, it is NOT theft. Its (illegal) reproduction. Which is different from theft.

Well true, but how does that change the fact that Jim now has a copy of the PHB he didn't pay for?

Quote from: RPGPunditHere in the third world, where its virtually impossible for most of the gamers I play with to get games, because (unlike me) they don't have an international credit card, and don't have the money to spend on shipping books from the states even if they did, file sharing is endemic. There's even a REAL piracy industry, not in the sense of just downloading, but dudes downloading the games and offering printed versions of the books for sale.

I don't consider that "wankery", I consider that a MASSIVE failure of the gaming industry to capitalize on a potentially huge market that is starved for gaming books.

RPGPundit

If they start selling those copies overseas for half the price, I'd bet that would wake some people up. :cool:

Quote from: fonkaygarryThose fat fucking parasites paid for a lot before Sgt Pepper hit the streets.  They paid for recording time.  They paid for practice time.  They paid for promotions.  They paid for production.

Ask any band who's still running off their own onesheets how much all that would be worth to them.  If the recording companies were nothing more than parasites that KILL our FUCKING SOULS MAN, then why are so many indie (real indie, still playing bars for free beer) bands cutting their fucking throats trying to get contracts?

Record companies are mostly fuckheads, and greedy fuckheads at that.  But they make their investments and are as entitled to the returns as anyone else who pours cash into a successful venture.  Doesn't make them nice, just makes them capitalists.

They're entitled to returns. They're not entitled to 1700% returns for all eternity while the artist earns peanuts, and then to subsequently complain when people aren't buying as much as they used to.

RPGPundit

I have purchased a hard, physical, bound copy of every book I've ever used in a game.

With that said, I do grab the odd PDF to check out a book a little bit before making a purchase.  I won't use it for a game.  Not only do I find that impractical, but it tweaks my (admittedly weak) moral compass.  If I find it to be pretty damn cool, or plan to read more than a few pages of it, I'll order a copy off Amazon or whatever.  I know the legalities of the situation, but to me this feels like paging through a book in a bookstore before buying it.

I'll also download PDFs of books I legitimately own.  That way, I can do my game prep on the road with my laptop, or even at work during downtime.  I find it useful to have access to that information all at once without lugging around 20 lbs of books.  Ethically, I see no difference between this and scanning in my own electronic copy (which is permissible under fair use).

-O

In my experience...

1. Filesharing (and other means) seem to keep some old games alive that would otherwise disappear.
2. IP laws are fucked. I think we've pretty much entered the point where nothing can enter the public domain any more and even if stuff does someone who has staked a claim can wave the money bat around and act like they own it anyway.  The international complications despite the Berne convention are still nightmarish.
3. It's going to happen anyway.  I think the growth of the PDF movement shows some understanding, by some parties, that there's a demand there and some people can be won over to paying (less).
4. Most of those that download this stuff won't look at it too much, won't print it and probably won't use it.
5. Most of these people wouldn't pay for this stuff anyway.
6. Those who would might get exposed to something interesting.

My stuff has turned up on filesharing before and if anything it has brought me customers.  I have a paragraph about this piracy in anything I self produce.

Quote from: palehorseGiven that we don't know one way or another, why should the default assumption be that it doesn't?

I mean, if we really want to do the right thing, and there's room for reasonable doubt, shouldn't we assume for the time being that it does have a negative effect, and act accordingly?

Because most of the players involved equate "acting accordingly" with either trampling the rights of consumers with nonsense garbage like DRM, or persecuting soccer moms with 12 years in jail for having a spice girls song on her daughter's PC.

That's not accordant action, that's repression and abuse.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditBecause most of the players involved equate "acting accordingly" with either trampling the rights of consumers with nonsense garbage like DRM, or persecuting soccer moms with 12 years in jail for having a spice girls song on her daughter's PC.

That's not accordant action, that's repression and abuse.

RPGPundit

I'd like to think that "acting accordingly" could also include things like simply not doing it until we can find out with a little more certainty whether or not it's impacting sales one way or another.

Quote from: HinterWeltI would include P2P networks that charge to be even more immoral than those that don't but both are in the wrong. IANAL so I do not care if I am using the proper terminology, Stealing/Copyright Infringement/Illegal Distribution. It does not matter what you call it. I will admit that others may wish to argue the semantics but it is of little import to me.

Only its not a "semantic" difference. Its a REAL difference.

If Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa, and someone robs it from the Louvre, that's THEFT.
If Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa, someone else paints a copy and tries to claim its the original, or sells said copy without paying Da Vinci for it, that's PIRACY.
If Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa, and an art student comes up to the painting and copies it with no intention of selling it, that's reproduction, NOT theft or piracy; EVEN if said art student then gives away that copy to a friend.

QuoteDownloading from such networks is only slightly less a transgression. It is the age old debate of "Is it wrong to buy stolen goods?"

Sure, its exactly like that; except that they aren't stolen and no one is buying them.
So its actually nothing like that at all.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Mystery ManI won't condem nor condone file sharing. It seems a lot like jerking off to me. Everyone does it at least once, but they never talk about it.

If you've only jerked off once, you were doing it wrong.

Quote from: RPGPunditOnly its not a "semantic" difference. Its a REAL difference.

If Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa, and someone robs it from the Louvre, that's THEFT.
If Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa, someone else paints a copy and tries to claim its the original, or sells said copy without paying Da Vinci for it, that's PIRACY.
If Da Vinci paints the Mona Lisa, and an art student comes up to the painting and copies it with no intention of selling it, that's reproduction, NOT theft or piracy; EVEN if said art student then gives away that copy to a friend.

Except that Da Vinci isn't selling multiple copies of his Mona Lisa.

BIG difference.

Quote from: JongWKExcept that Da Vinci isn't selling multiple copies of his Mona Lisa.

  It's a completely erroneous set of comparissons.  The whole point about file-sharing and the current debate about copyright is that the details of the activity are completely different.

  In traditional theft you have someone making something and then someone else coming along, stealing it and not only making money out of it but depriving the person who put the effort into making something from the money that they are due.

  In the digital world, someone makes something.  It is then replicated and some people acquire replicated versions rather than buying the original.  So the person doing the acquiring is not making any money from the process and the original person who put the effort in is still free to sell what they made.

  The whole POINT is that 17th century conceptions of private property don't apply in a world where ownership is not a zero sum game.

  I've used P2P to acquire digital copies of games I've already owned but I don't go looking for things online because they never have anything interesting and besides which I've got better things to do with my time than read RPG material.