Quote from: RPGPunditWhat are your opinions on it?

For legal reasons, this site can't allow for information regarding how to fileshare to advertised on the forum, but we can have a robust discussion about the issue, as it pertains to RPGs.

RPGPundit

I am against it, I think it's wrong and it's disrespectful to the designer.  Anyone who uses pirated material (downloaded commercial material that wasn't purchased through rpgnow or drivethrurpg or elsewhere IE isn't legit) isnt welcome at my game table and will be shunned until such time as they purchase a legal copy.

It's 2006, the consumer’s still pissed
Won't take it anymore so I’m writing a list
Don't try to resist this paradigm shift
The music revolution cannot be dismissed
$18.98 Iggy Pop CD?
What if I can get it from my sister for free?
It’s all about marketing Clive Davis, see?
If fans buy the shirt then they get the mp3
Music was a product now it is a service
Major record labels why are you trying to hurt us?
Epic’s up in my face like, “Don’t steal our songs Lars,”
While Sony sells the burners that are burning CD-R’s
So Warner, EMI, hear me clearly
Universal Music, update your circuitry
They sue little kids downloading hit songs
They think that makes sense
When they know that it’s wrong

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

I know I'm rhyming fast, but the message is clear
You don’t need a million dollars to launch a career
If your style is unique and you practice what you preach
Minor Threat and Jello both have things to teach!
I've got G5 production, concept videos
Touring with a laptop, rocking packed shows
The old-school major deal? It makes no sense
Indentured servitude, the costs are too immense!
Their finger’s in the dam but the crack keeps on growing
Can’t sell bottled water when it’s freely flowing
Record sales slipping, down 8 percent
Increased download sales, you can't prevent
Satellite radio and video games
Changed the terrain, it will never be same
Did you know in ten years labels won't exist?
Goodbye DVD’s, and compact disks!

Hey Mr. Record Man,
What's wrong with you
Still living off your catalogue
From 1982
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can't compete
It's the new artist model
File transfer complete
Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

You know, we just wanted a level playing field.
You’ve overcharged us for music for years, and now we’re
Just trying to find a fair balance. I hate to say it, but…
Welcome to the future.

Download this song!
Download this song!
Download this song!

Hey Mr. Record Man
The joke’s on you
Running your label
Like it was 1992
Hey Mr. Record Man,
Your system can’t compete
It’s the New Artist Model
File transfer complete

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.

I believe this is what is called a strawman argument and to be truthful, I cannot believe it is being used.

Simply, DaVinci's dead. I could care less about his works. I am not saying it is illegal, I will let courts decide that. I am saying it is immoral. If you upload, download or host file sharing that supports pirated material then you performing an immoral act. Why? Because you are taking an author's work and distributing it in a manner he does not approve. If the author approves and then uploads his file to the P2P networks there is no piracy going on and nothing is immoral. I would assume in that situation nothing illegal would be happening either but as I said, IANAL.

Now, as to your example. If the art student were to reproduce the Mona Lisa, even as a trace, it would still be his own work. He could distribute it as he wishes. It is different from taking a manuscript that I produce, spend money to put art in, write myself, do layout work, hire editors to proof and find ways to distribute it in a manner that will pay and putting it on a P2P network where anyone can download it. Again, more to my point would be to say I choose not to distribute my work in this manner. It is immoral, IMHO, to violate those wishes of any creator to serve the selfish desire of petty individuals.

Now, whether it is illegal is something I am not prepared to discuss right now.

Bill

Quote from: GRIMIn 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.

My views are much along these lines with the caveat that I do believe it is immoral. I know that may seem contray but it is the difference between seeing reality and what you wish reality was.

Bill

If I'm not mistaken, if you publish a piece of music you do not enjoy the right to prevent it from being performed. Or even performed for recording and then sold. Also, while you are entitled to a royalty in these cases, you have no control over the amount.

I really don't see how creators' rights can be seen as a matter of first principle or natural law, as opposed to contract (though often implied).

Since RPGPundit stole the thread from rpg.net, we may as well have my post again, suitably edited to adjust for the different original post.

People are getting rather excited about the morality and legality of file-sharing. I don't really give a shit about that. Morality is arguable, the law is beyond my control (apart from letters to my MP, which I already wrote), all I care about now is whether it hurts the rpg industry, and stops me and important people like Clash from getting oodles of cash. It doesn't. It's harmless.

The reason is that there are two main types of file-sharing people: collectors, and poor people.

The simple fact is that things which people get for free, they tend not to use much at all. As an example, I had an article On Killing, hosted at a Millenium's End site. In 12 months it was downloaded over 2,000 times, and generated not one single comment or email, except from the site owner. It was free, so they felt they had to take it, along with thirty other files at the site - but they never read it.

I expanded it into Conflict, and a Person's Place In It, took it down from the ME site, and sold the expanded version on RPGNow for five bucks. In month or two it had sold about 50 copies (as far as I recall), and generated comments, reviews, mentions on several rpg discussion boards, several emails, and so on.

When people got it for free, they didn't bother reading it. "Hmmm, maybe later." When they'd paid even five bucks for it, they made the effort to read it because they wanted to get their money's worth.

I know several compulsive file-downloaders. They have entire game lines on their hard drive, and they don't GM, and hardly ever play, and certainly they never print the stuff out and use it in a game session. If there were no file-sharing, would these guys spend money on the things instead? Nope.

A few other file-downloaders I know are simply poor. can't afford a lot of books, but still want to game. Take file-sharing away from them, they wouldn't spend the money either, because they don't have any. These guys are the minority though, there are shitloads more collectors.

None of this has any bearing on whether file-sharing is immoral (I dunno, probably), or illegal (pretty much in all cases, yes). But that isn't relevant to the effects of file-sharing, whether it hurts the rpg industry. It doesn't, because file-sharers are mostly collectors who never read the thing anyway, so wouldn't buy it if there were no file-sharing, or they're poor people who won't have money simply because you stop them file-sharing.

I think file-sharing is probably a different question for the music industry, and I think it almost certainly doesn't help the software industry. But rpgs? Nah. Harmless.

Also, Dana Jorgensen here describes how he's using file-sharing piracy of his stuff as a tax dodge.

Quote from: DJorgensenI've been able to write off the losses at tax time every year for the better part of the decade, and the IRS hasn't had any issue with it thus far. And I've made the point of verifying that each year.

Obviously, the IRS is dumber than dingo shit, and actually believes all those mad collectors of stuff they never read would have bought the stuff if not for file-sharing. What fuckwits! Go Dana! Screw the IRS, screw the public of revenue for services! Woohoo! He must be a fucking libertarian.

I don't believe it costs anyone any money. I also believe that it can make money for a quality product. A gamer might respond so well to a well-done PDF that he decides he wants the hardcopy. He might begin to monitor that creator's other output and later encounter a product that he wants to buy. He might simply decide to give the creator some cash in order to encourage more such work in general.

So economically, I would catagorize its influence as either Neutral or Positive.

As for whether or not it is disrespectful to creators, that's their call. Considering that it's the way of the world now, though, I would suggest that it's probably more productive to not be too insulted by it. Excessive anger over something that can't be changed is immature and without utility. Plus, blood pressure meds are expensive.

As for the rest "Morality is arguable, the law is beyond my control" about sums it up for me, too.

"I know several compulsive file-downloaders. They have entire game lines on their hard drive, and they don't GM, and hardly ever play, and certainly they never print the stuff out and use it in a game session. If there were no file-sharing, would these guys spend money on the things instead? Nope."

I'm one of those, more or less.  I don't game regularly, I'm interested in comparing and contrasting the stuff that's available now with the much smaller set of stuff I could afford/had access to as a kid.  It's interesting, some of it's worth reading, some of it I'll probably never get around to reading, and some of it I like enough that if I see it for cheap I'll buy it even though I already have a printed copy.  I'm pretty comfortable with that approach though, if I'm being completely honest, I'd probably spend a very small amount of extra dollars on RPGs if I didn't have access to free downloads - though even then it would be on the second hand or mark down market, which confuses things.

I think, all else being equal, that I'd be a slightly better person if I didn't download anything, though I'd be less happy, or if I did as I do now but made a point of compensating the most deserving writers whose stuff I've got but never paid for.  Equally, I'd be a better person if I never ate battery eggs and if I sponsored a 3rd world child.  I think downlaoding is probably a small moral wrong, but it doesn't (as I do it) breach any absolute moral prohibition.

On the Beatles: pundit, you're wrong to look at the massive returns on that particular artisit and say that it's sufficiently unfair to justify piracy-  the economic model of record companies is that for every artist who succeeds spectacularly you get a couple of dozen who they loose money on.  Sgt Peppers isn't paying for the money spent on the beatles, it's paying for the money spent on the 29 guys you've never heard of.  You can't treat profits on smash hit records as unearned windfalls in an explicitly hit-driven industry, though that doesn't invalidate your other arguments.

You know, it's an interesting situation. I mean if you cannot afford to buy a game book because the government helped big biz ship your job off to a slave labor camp in china and you're working minimum wage and barely getting enough to eat, then you are not going to buy the game book so if you dl a copy you are not hurting anyone. Sure it's illegal, so fucking what? Slavery was legal once, it was once illegal for women to vote. The law changes at social whim. Downloading something you can't afford to buy doesn't hurt anyone.


And don't give me that conservative bullshit about how if you have the time to download you have time to look for a job, it's a load of bullshit when you live in a town where all the jobs have beren sent to china, india and messico to make a few corporate pigs richer while cutting the throats of tens of thousands of working people and their families.

NOW, if your financial situation improves and you have a book you downloaded and use, and like, you should buy it if you get to where you can afford it.

That's how I feel, no amount of neocon snarling about "If you can't afford it get a better job you bum!" will change it.

What really pisses me off is that the government lets big biz screw people with 4$ a gallon gasoline and that's fine. Big biz rips people off on some many issues I can't even count them all, but let soem kid fileshare in his basement and take a penny out of big biz's pocket and oh lawdy! Here come de police, here come de charges, here come de lawyers and here come de judge! (A minor tribute to Flip Wilson.)

Yeah, big biz screws people on gas, medicine and everthing else, and it's all good with the government. Some kids take a few pennies out of big biz's pocket and it's a fucking crimewave.

That's american justice for you.

QuoteThe simple fact is that things which people get for free, they tend not to use much at all. As an example, I had an article On Killing, hosted at a Millenium's End site. In 12 months it was downloaded over 2,000 times, and generated not one single comment or email, except from the site owner. It was free, so they felt they had to take it, along with thirty other files at the site - but they never read it.

I have to disagree with the idea that free = no perceived value.

X-Ray : Price: $0
Total Downloads: 29,258  —  Downloads this Week: 615
Plus about 5,000 downloads a month from my personal site...

I get a lot of comments and email from people all over the world.  The free articles I wrote for ALA and my site also generate tons on traffic, feedback, etc.

Quote from: HinterWeltSimply, DaVinci's dead. I could care less about his works.

Walt Disney's dead, too, man.

When Gygax and Arneson kick it, can I have all the free D&D downloads I want?

Quote from: YamoWalt Disney's dead, too, man.

When Gygax and Arneson kick it, can I have all the free D&D downloads I want?

Morally and as far as I am concerned, if they are the only creators of the work, yes. Legally, IANAL, I would guess no.

Bill

Quote from: JimBobOzSince RPGPundit stole the thread from rpg.net,

Pundit didn't "Steal" the thread since it doesnt deprive anyone at rpg.net a thread.   He simply shared it

Quote from: jrientsAnd I like it when I can support good designers so they produce more material.  I'm one of those crazy cats who sent Vincent Baker a check during the time when he was sending out copies of kpfs for free with a little note "if you like it, maybe send me a fiver".  Did Baker need the $6.66 I sent him?  Probably not, but if I get to choose I want game designers encouraged by sales revenue rather than discouraged by seeing people swiping their stuff.

Quote from: fonkaygarryHowever, anything that breaks the economic chain for good product is a bad thing in my eyes.  Mike Mearls makes good product (for example), therefore I want Mike Mearls to earn as much money for his efforts as the market will give him, giving him reason to make more good product.

I would be more likely to be willing to pay full price, or closer to full price, if I knew that the extra was going to the writer.  I've picked up a few used books that were good enough that I wished I knew an address so I could send a couple bucks to the writers directly.

Quote from: HinterWeltI believe this is what is called a strawman argument and to be truthful, I cannot believe it is being used.

Simply, DaVinci's dead.

So's Walt Disney, and yet it seems that thanks to him, a massive corporation is making sure that absolutely nothing will ever enter into the public domain again, ever.
So we'll all be expected to keep paying massive corporations billions of dollars so their CEOs can get rich off of the creative genius of people who died decades (and eventually, centuries) ago.
These shitheads shouldn't be complaining, they should be amazed that no one has strung them up by their own intestines yet.

QuoteWhy? Because you are taking an author's work and distributing it in a manner he does not approve. If the author approves and then uploads his file to the P2P networks there is no piracy going on and nothing is immoral. I would assume in that situation nothing illegal would be happening either but as I said, IANAL.

Now, as to your example. If the art student were to reproduce the Mona Lisa, even as a trace, it would still be his own work. He could distribute it as he wishes. It is different from taking a manuscript that I produce, spend money to put art in, write myself, do layout work, hire editors to proof and find ways to distribute it in a manner that will pay and putting it on a P2P network where anyone can download it. Again, more to my point would be to say I choose not to distribute my work in this manner. It is immoral, IMHO, to violate those wishes of any creator to serve the selfish desire of petty individuals.
Bill

What about individuals who couldn't possibly buy your books otherwise?

RPGPundit