As Phil Reed once quipped on rpg.net: One reason minis are so profitable is that you can't download them from the internet. It's true!

On a possibly related note, surprisingly many storygames publishers *don't* go the pdf route. Instead, they go out of their way to put out a (given the price) handsomely designed printed book.

That may be one way to solve the filesharing issue: make the book so pretty that people crave a physical copy of it.

You need words which describe the actual thing, not some vaguely similar thing.  Reproducing and/or altering and distributing an original work is not "stealing", it is violating copyright or patents, violating a person's right to control what is done with their original work.

That's not a dissertation, and can be understood easily by any literate adult.

You need words which describe the actual thing, not some vaguely similar thing. I'm glad that you don't take this approach with your rpgs, otherwise you'd get pointless confusion. "I could call it "intelligence" or "education", but instead I'll call it "IQ" then spend years online explaining that it's actually not an IQ test mark at all, it's something else."

Sometimes using a word to describe something which seems like a close enough match, that causes pointless confusion. You don't do it in your game rules, why do you have to do it here? Use words that fit.

Copyright violation is not stealing, it is copyright violation. They're different things. Calling it "stealing" means that people can fairly argue, "well there was no loss to you, so it doesn't matter." Calling it what it is - copyright violation - means that people can't make that argument. If you don't want semantic arguments, the best way to avoid them is to use the right words to describe things. "I'll deliberately use the wrong word, but I don't want semantic arguments" - that's just stupid.

You write very clearly in your rpgs, and use suitable words. Why not here?

Quote from: Pierce InverarityThat may be one way to solve the filesharing issue: make the book so pretty that people crave a physical copy of it.

That's a very good idea. I mean, who pirates pdfs of Nobilis?

Quote from: HinterWeltI do not have the time to go into my moral set and what I determine is right and wrong so this is the quick version. I believe evil is fundamentally enforcing your will over that of another. A creation, like a book, is an expression of Will. You create because you wish to. What happens to it should be yours to control. If that means I give it to everyone in the world, no problem. If you give it to everyone in the world against my will, morally reprehensible.

That is about as clear as it gets. I made a thing. I put my time, creativitiy, money and will into it. How it is distributed should be up to me as well.

Note: If I put it up on a FSN then fine. No foul.

Bill

That's some really tortuous logic.

Where you lose the plot is where you go from "I believe evil is fundamentally enforcing your will over that of another" and " A creation, like a book, is an expression of Will" -- in an absurd conflation between your will (as in free agency) and things produced as a result of your intention.  The book is not your will; it's an inanimate object.  The only "wills" involved are yours (that your book not be copied); the copier's (to copy your book); and the questionably relevant will of yours in the past to create the book (which is not the book itself).

In fact, assuming you actually meant the first thing you said, trying to make someone do or not do anything is evil, because you're enforcing your will on him.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYou need words which describe the actual thing, not some vaguely similar thing.  Reproducing and/or altering and distributing an original work is not "stealing", it is violating copyright or patents, violating a person's right to control what is done with their original work.

That's not a dissertation, and can be understood easily by any literate adult.

You need words which describe the actual thing, not some vaguely similar thing. I'm glad that you don't take this approach with your rpgs, otherwise you'd get pointless confusion. "I could call it "intelligence" or "education", but instead I'll call it "IQ" then spend years online explaining that it's actually not an IQ test mark at all, it's something else."

Sometimes using a word to describe something which seems like a close enough match, that causes pointless confusion. You don't do it in your game rules, why do you have to do it here? Use words that fit.

Copyright violation is not stealing, it is copyright violation. They're different things. Calling it "stealing" means that people can fairly argue, "well there was no loss to you, so it doesn't matter." Calling it what it is - copyright violation - means that people can't make that argument. If you don't want semantic arguments, the best way to avoid them is to use the right words to describe things. "I'll deliberately use the wrong word, but I don't want semantic arguments" - that's just stupid.

You write very clearly in your rpgs, and use suitable words. Why not here?

I am not going to argue this.

Bill

Quote from: hgjsThat's some really tortuous logic.

Where you lose the plot is where you go from "I believe evil is fundamentally enforcing your will over that of another" and " A creation, like a book, is an expression of Will" -- in an absurd conflation between your will (as in free agency) and things produced as a result of your intention.  The book is not your will; it's an inanimate object.  The only "wills" involved are yours (that your book not be copied); the copier's (to copy your book); and the questionably relevant will of yours in the past to create the book (which is not the book itself).

In fact, assuming you actually meant the first thing you said, trying to make someone do or not do anything is evil, because you're enforcing your will on him.

Like I said, that is the abirdged version and it is well outside the scope of this thread for me to discuss what I view as wrong.

The simplest way to put this is, I made it, shouldn;t I get a say in how it is distributed?

For instance, should I want to make a book (say Respublica) and I want to play it with friends but not sell it, give it away or publicly share it. Shouldn't that be my choice?

Now, one of my group say that they do not think it is "My" property and scan it, upload it to a sharing network. That seems o.k. with you? Honestly, I cannot see how anyone could say "Yea, you must share everything you write!" Laws aside, it is an invasion of my space, my creation, my will (in the sense of controlling my creation).

Now, if you want to justify downloading a luxury because you do not have a local store, or it costs too much or its not illegal where you are standing, what ever, then fine, do what you have to to live with yourself. But in the end, you are doing wrong, you know it, and choose to ignore it because you would like some new gaming material.

In the end, from a business point of view, I can't get too excited. From a person being creative, well, yeah, it sucks.

Bill

Quote from: SosthenesSounds like what S. John Ross is doing with Encounter Critical (and Risus, to a lesser degree).

Hey, thanks.  I didn't know that.  I'll have to check it out.  

Pete

Quote from: HinterWeltThe simplest way to put this is, I made it, shouldn't I get a say in how it is distributed? . . . Honestly, I cannot see how anyone could say "Yea, you must share everything you write!"

There are two flaws with this.  First, what is the "it"?  This is clear in the example you give, which is a game you wrote.  The uploaders aren't making any significant changes, simply copying it.  But copyright restricts a far wider range of activity:  it could also prevent them from playing a game, writing it up, and uploading the result.  Your argument, which takes for granted that your creation is entirely original but anything based on it is entirely derived, supports a regime which prohibits a wide range of speech.

Second, it is not you who prohibits distribution of your work.  It is all of us.  The legal and social machinery that defends copyright is enacted, paid for, and enforced by everyone else.  You are making a claim on society to actively ensure your "say" in how your work is distributed.  I can say, "shouldn't my lover be faithful to me"?  Probably she should - but it's a big step to then claim that society guarantee her faithfulness.

Finally, of course, your claim is hyperbole:  no one is forcing you to share anything.  If you don't distribute your work in the first place, it will never be shared.  And I don't think the law is the place to resolve the problem of dishonest friends in the scenario you envision, any more than it is with a cheating lover.

I say all of this not to defend piracy.  The ability to get entertainment for free is not something I care to argue.  But that's a small concern compared to the huge social and financial costs of constructing complex and pervasive legal and social machinery which criminalizes a large proportion of the population while also prohibiting a wide range of speech, much of it creative.  Nor do I intend a blanket attack on copyright:  only on certain justifications for it.

Quote from: GeofThere are two flaws with this.  First, what is the "it"?  This is clear in the example you give, which is a game you wrote.  The uploaders aren't making any significant changes, simply copying it.  But copyright restricts a far wider range of activity:  it could also prevent them from playing a game, writing it up, and uploading the result.  Your argument, which takes for granted that your creation is entirely original but anything based on it is entirely derived, supports a regime which prohibits a wide range of speech.

Second, it is not you who prohibits distribution of your work.  It is all of us.  The legal and social machinery that defends copyright is enacted, paid for, and enforced by everyone else.  You are making a claim on society to actively ensure your "say" in how your work is distributed.  I can say, "shouldn't my lover be faithful to me"?  Probably she should - but it's a big step to then claim that society guarantee her faithfulness.

Finally, of course, your claim is hyperbole:  no one is forcing you to share anything.  If you don't distribute your work in the first place, it will never be shared.  And I don't think the law is the place to resolve the problem of dishonest friends in the scenario you envision, any more than it is with a cheating lover.

I say all of this not to defend piracy.  The ability to get entertainment for free is not something I care to argue.  But that's a small concern compared to the huge social and financial costs of constructing complex and pervasive legal and social machinery which criminalizes a large proportion of the population while also prohibiting a wide range of speech, much of it creative.  Nor do I intend a blanket attack on copyright:  only on certain justifications for it.

Dude, did you bother to read this thread? Honestly, you sound like you have a canned response, which really I should have by now.

I am not asking anyone to do anything. I made a subjective value evaluation, distributing my work without my permission is wrong. I have tried to state that several ways for people who seemed confused by a simple concept. My work, my decision on distribution. It is precisely like my example. Replace friend with "guy who bought my book".  How it is distributed is my decision. IF you buy something, I have no problem with you making backups or even scanning it for personal PDF convenience but you should not upload it to be shared by everyone. That should be my decision. I am not asking society to bear the cost. As I have stated, the reality is that people do immoral things all the time and rationalize it. Piracy is just that, an evil we must live with. Where I can, I fight it but honestly, I truly believe the only way to really change this is by changing people's views on it. I do not hold out much hope due to my view of most people's fundamental nature.

To me, the legality of it is a different point for others to discuss. I was merely addressing the OPs question on morality.

And yes, I was purposely vague initially because I was stating it in general. In specific, I have a game called Respublica set in the Roman Republic that I roll out every couple of years to play.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltI am not going to argue this.

Bill

That's fine, since you're wrong, and all.

Quote from: HinterWeltLike I said, that is the abirdged version and it is well outside the scope of this thread for me to discuss what I view as wrong.

The simplest way to put this is, I made it, shouldn;t I get a say in how it is distributed?

For instance, should I want to make a book (say Respublica) and I want to play it with friends but not sell it, give it away or publicly share it. Shouldn't that be my choice?

Now, one of my group say that they do not think it is "My" property and scan it, upload it to a sharing network. That seems o.k. with you? Honestly, I cannot see how anyone could say "Yea, you must share everything you write!" Laws aside, it is an invasion of my space, my creation, my will (in the sense of controlling my creation).

Now, if you want to justify downloading a luxury because you do not have a local store, or it costs too much or its not illegal where you are standing, what ever, then fine, do what you have to to live with yourself. But in the end, you are doing wrong, you know it, and choose to ignore it because you would like some new gaming material.

In the end, from a business point of view, I can't get too excited. From a person being creative, well, yeah, it sucks.

Bill

That's well and good.  You crave control for easily-understandable reasons.

Just don't write silly things like "imposing your will on another is the definition of evil, therefore copying works without authorial permission is wrong."

Quote from: HinterWeltThat is about as clear as it gets. I made a thing. I put my time, creativitiy, money and will into it. How it is distributed should be up to me as well.

So if I buy a book, an actual physical book from you.... you get to tell me whether I can re-sell it on the second hand market?

Quote from: HinterWeltI am not asking anyone to do anything. I made a subjective value evaluation, distributing my work without my permission is wrong. I have tried to state that several ways for people who seemed confused by a simple concept. My work, my decision on distribution.

You are entitled to feel that way, and would be in good company.  American copyright law was economically motivated, but the European tradition recognizes the kind of inherent author's rights you claim.  I think this is a grave mistake, for it creates (at least) two classes of creator - one of which is protected, one of which is hindered.  The players of the game in the example I gave fall into the second category.

As I stated, I realize I'm not directly addressing your concern, which is that piracy is wrong.  I am disagreeing with your arguments, not your conclusion - because the implication of your arguments is, in my opinion, disastrous for society in general and for RPGs in particular.  One of the reasons I am attracted to RPGs is that they are active and participatory;  copyright has grown to the point that it threatens these qualities (witness Issaries' demand that Glorantha fan sites to register themselves).  A significant portion of the creativity in all RPGs is the product of the "audience";  to that extent, your game isn't entirely yours.

Quote from: HinterWeltPiracy is just that, an evil we must live with. Where I can, I fight it but honestly, I truly believe the only way to really change this is by changing people's views on it. I do not hold out much hope due to my view of most people's fundamental nature.

Unfortunately, the self-interest of piracy and commercial gain undercut disinterested principled arguments.  You can try to change people's views, but what I see coming out of this is two nihilistic and selfish positions:  first, that ideas are property and creators have a right to control the speech of others;  second, that because you can get away with something, it must be OK.

Keep in mind that piracy is a very recent concept.  (I believe Sosthenes is mistaken about early storytellers - they would not have claimed authorship of stories, for in oral societies knowledge was the living product and possession of the culture, not of individuals.  The fiction of individual de novo creativity and the artificial distinction between idea and expression were enabled in by writing - specifically, by printing.)  Your moral position can only exist in the context of the modern social contract between artists and society:  a contract that is currently being violated willy-nilly on both sides.  Claims to inherent rights will do nothing to repair the contract because they grant no legitimacy to the other party.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkSo if I buy a book, an actual physical book from you.... you get to tell me whether I can re-sell it on the second hand market?

No. Note, operative words I have used. Distribute. You buy a copy of one of my books, resell it. Heck, as far as I am concerned, you buy one of my PDFs, you can resell one of my pdfs. The key point is, you can't resell multiple copies of my pdf if I do not give you express permission.

Come on guys, this is not that hard. I am not trying to trick you or something.

Bill

Quote from: hgjsThat's well and good.  You crave control for easily-understandable reasons.

Just don't write silly things like "imposing your will on another is the definition of evil, therefore copying works without authorial permission is wrong."

Dude, this is not the thread for a discussion of my moral outlook. In fact, judgments like yours are one of the reasons I generally do not discuss my philosophies on line. I did not call your moral structure silly based on a few sentences, I would appreciate the same consideration.

Thanks,
Bill