Quote from: HinterWeltDude, 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

Dude,

1. You were the one who brought it up in the first place.

2. I didn't call it silly to say "imposing your will on others is evil."  That (or whatever your actual moral outlook is) is a fine position to take.  What I called silly was the way you related it to the issue at hand.

This thread has now gone far beyond the OPs original question and into dissecting individual threads for arguments and counter arguments.  Again, nothing new is being discussed/argued here that hasn't been discussed/argued 1,000 times before.  And just like 1,000 before, there will be no mystical resolution that makes anyone on either side "see the light" and changes his views.  In other words, the horse is dead.  Continue to beat it if you want, but just realize that it's dead.  

Pete

Let me say this off the start, I don't think you are discussing anything with me since it seems a lot of your post deals with items I have not even mentioned. You are essentially, assigning points to me so you may then argue against me. You even state you agree with me but not the way I am arguing it...huh?

If you wish to just make a statement about your views, no problem. Please do not quote me because it gives me the impression you are adressing points I have made.

So, with that in mind.

Quote from: GeofYou 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.

So, you are saying that somehow, my belief of owning what I write, misbegotten though it might be, somehow invalidate the experience of player? Or is it that you think I would somehow shut down a fan who wanted to do a fan site about my games? Or that I would not support a fan (several in fact) who wanted to write a book based on my books? Honestly, I do not understand your point here.

Quote from: GeofAs 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.

O.k. I note that nowhere in your examples does my name or my company's name appear. I have no idea what the company's policies you are referencing could be. I would never stand in the way of a fan site, in fact, I would help with any coding.

That said, my game is entirely mine. You need to do the common decency of asking my permission to use it (outside the OGL aspects of it). If you make a fansite, I would ask you to at least let me know. Then it is my decision. My personal view would be to help in any what I could. However, I think it should be up to the creator. It would seem we differ on this. I, again in my own opinion, do not consider it the end of society as we know it.

Quote from: GeofUnfortunately, 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;

That is actually two ideas right there that you have strung together. implementation of my ideas are my property. Sorry, but that is how I view it. That does not, in any way, allow me to control the speech of others. You want to come up with your own ideas, then great. Heck, under current law, you can even take my idea and write it yourself. I think it is petty but hey, go for it. I am not nearly so opposed to derivative work or ideas being stolen. I am opposed to my creation being used against my wishes.

Quote from: Geofsecond, that because you can get away with something, it must be OK.

Whoa Nelly. I am assuming you are talking about someone else because I have not come close to that. If anything, I have opposed the "Its legal here so it must be right". Again, I get the impression that you are arguing with someone else or copying from some posts you made int he past. This is not me in the least.

Quote from: GeofKeep 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.

Man, you are so off the tracks from what I have been sayign that I fear I have fundamentally miscommunicated. I am not talkign about ideas or derivative work, I am talkign about my book, that I wrote, laid out, bought art for, found distribution for, got printed (all my titles are available in print and pdf), appearing on FSNs. This is not my choice for my hard work, for my creation.

So, I do not even know where to say I have no dog in your hunt.

Bill

Quote from: hgjsDude,

1. You were the one who brought it up in the first place.

2. I didn't call it silly to say "imposing your will on others is evil."  That (or whatever your actual moral outlook is) is a fine position to take.  What I called silly was the way you related it to the issue at hand.

My apologies then. The way you stated it seemed to imply my moral structure is somehow flawed. This based on incomplete information.

I will admit to sometimes rushing through information. I dislike reading long posts and prefer to give condensed versions. I felt a brief explanation of the context I was making my statements in would be helpful. I will refrain from such side tracks in the future.

Bill

Quote from: pspahnThis thread has now gone far beyond the OPs original question and into dissecting individual threads for arguments and counter arguments.  Again, nothing new is being discussed/argued here that hasn't been discussed/argued 1,000 times before.  And just like 1,000 before, there will be no mystical resolution that makes anyone on either side "see the light" and changes his views.  In other words, the horse is dead.  Continue to beat it if you want, but just realize that it's dead.  

Pete

Pete,
Yeah, I have to finish up printing and writing about squirrels. To be honest, my heart went out of it when they started in on the semantics gambit. :rolleyes:

Have fun,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltTo be honest, my heart went out of it when they started in on the semantics gambit. :rolleyes:

Which is what it always devolves into.

I'm off to write about dreams.  See you at the finish line.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnI had asked for comments on the last 5 RPGs someone purchased and the last 5 RPG someone pirated--what made them go one way or the other.  No one's responded, yet, though.  I wish there was some way to comment anonymously, because I think more people would speak up and the answers would be really interesting.  

Pete

The real question would probably be how many of the last 5 or 10 RPGs that people purchased did they also pirate beforehand, or how many of the last 10 rpgs they pirated did they end up purchasing?

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditThe real question would probably be how many of the last 5 or 10 RPGs that people purchased did they also pirate beforehand, or how many of the last 10 rpgs they pirated did they end up purchasing?

RPGPundit

Yeah, those would be a good questions.  Maybe someone neutral like MCrow might want to tackle this like that survey he did awhile back.  People might feel a bit more comfortable contacting him.

Pete

Quote from: HinterWeltNo. 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.

I have a hard drive full of legally purchased PDFs but if I attempt to resell them, I get accused of being a pirate.  Heck, even if I want to give them away, I get accused of being a pirate.  Even if I do the right thing and delete my copy.  Can someone please clarify whether the law is on my side?  It certainly doesn't feel that way.
 

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

Nor am I try to expose you.  I'm playing devil's advocate.

First, thank you for the long reply HinterWelt, and for explaining where my argument is unclear.

Quote from: HinterWeltyou are saying that . . . my belief of owning what I write . . . I would somehow shut down a fan who wanted to do a fan site about my games? Or that I would not support a fan (several in fact) who wanted to write a book based on my books?

I'm saying that the arguments you make inevitably lead to you having that power.  In fact you do have that right under current copyright law.  (I am not claiming that you personally would exercise that right.)  Specifically, if you have a moral right to control distribution of your work, then you also have a right to control the distribution of derivatives.  This is the end point of your moral argument.

I am glad that you would support fan sites, but your right to shut them down at any time is the problem.  Many works are never created because of these rights (few authors would rely on goodwill for the existence of their work);  others are created then censored.  The distinction between expression and idea is artificial (just look at poetry), and while in theory it allows the same idea to be expressed in different words, the distinction is subject to interpretation and in practice ideas themselves are often protected.  See Death by Copyright for some examples;  The Wind Done Gone is a particularly glaring one.

Quote from: HinterWeltThat said, my game is entirely mine. . . . I, again in my own opinion, do not consider it the end of society as we know it.

Every creative work is derivative of what has come before.  If your game is good, it has skillfully incorporated cultural resources produced by other authors and audiences.  Derivation is a good thing.  But this means that you are not the sole creator of your work.  It may be mostly yours, but it cannot be entirely yours.  Where to draw the line between your rights and the rights of others?  The only way to give you complete control over your work is to reduce the control others have over theirs.

The danger to society argument is too big to be made here, but briefly:  All works are, to some degree, derivative (Shakespeare listed Hamlet's plot).  Much (sometimes most) of the value and meaning of art is created by the *audience*, not the "creator".  The exercise of creativity and self-expression is an important form of education and of (democratic) freedom.  Entertainment and art are politically significant.  Control of speech accidentally and deliberately translates into political and social power.

Quote from: HinterWelt

Quote from: Geofbecause you can get away with something, it must be OK

If anything, I have opposed the "Its legal here so it must be right".

I realize that;  I was describing the negative positions of both extreme camps in this debate.  But this is where many arguments in favor of piracy lead.  And they do so in part because the absolute moral arguments deployed by their opponents are just as extreme and unrealistic.  So we end up with selfish disgregard on one hand, and censorship (and selfish disgregard in many cases) on the other.  I am suggesting that your moral position is, to some degree, polarizing and self-defeating.

(Incidentally, I when I said "you can get away with it" I meant illegal copying.  I don't agree with your restatement.)

Quote from: pspahnWhich is what it always devolves into. [semantics]

Yes, that's what happens when people use unsuitable words. Bill calls copyright violation "stealing", Ron Edwards calls a different way of thinking "brain damage", Steve Jackson calls intelligence and education, "IQ", and moving evasively "dodge", and much confusion and pointless semantics result.

If you just call things what they actually are, then there's no need for semantic arguments.

Copyright violation is quite simply distributing copies of someone else's work without their permission. It is not stealing. It is distributing copies of someone else's work without their permission. It may or may not have a financial effect which is like theft, but whether it does or not, it is stealing.

Imagine that someone without my permission made printed copies of d4-d4 and sent them out to game stores, made $1 million in profit and gave it all to me. They violated my copyright. That I made no financial loss from this, and in fact made a gain, is irrelevant. They violated my copyright. Violating copyright is like breaking into a person's home; whether you steal something from them or leave them a gift or touch nothing is irrelevant - you broke into their home. It's their home to open or close to whoever they wish.

Likewise, copyright violation is not necessarily connected to loss of money for the copyright holder. It may even lead to a gain. It doesn't matter. The law protects copyright, in the same way it protects your right to invite and reject who you wish from your home.

We may say that if the law says someone breaking into my home and leaving me money is wrong, then the law is wrong. We may say that if a person views the breaking-in as morally wrong, they're stupid because hey, look at the money they left! Nonetheless, that is the law, and most people would be annoyed at the housebreaking.

You see? We use suitable words, and things become much clearer. Copyright violation is not stealing. It's like housebreaking. What you do with the copyrighted thing you've got illegally, just as what you do once you've broken into someone's house, that may involve effective theft, or it may not. Either way, you have in the first place commited a crime. It's certainly legally a crime, and I think it's morally wrong, as well.

It's a minor sin, though, really, in the grand scheme of things. And not really something for rpg publishers to worry about. Each hour they spend stressing over IP violation would more profitably spent producing more good stuff.

Quote from: Tyberious FunkI have a hard drive full of legally purchased PDFs but if I attempt to resell them, I get accused of being a pirate. Heck, even if I want to give them away, I get accused of being a pirate. Even if I do the right thing and delete my copy. Can someone please clarify whether the law is on my side? It certainly doesn't feel that way.

Yes, you may sell your copy to someone else. The problem is in enforcing the law. If you sell a physical copy of something - like the book AD&D Player's Guide - then the original physical copy is obviously no longer available to you. If you sell a soft copy (scanned pdf), then while in principle you can simply delete your original, it's hard to police that you've done so. It's hard to prove you're not a pirate. In the currently somewhat paranoid world of capitalism, the assumption is that you'll rip people off if you can get away with it. That's just the culture we have.

The law is on your side, our culture is against you.

Quote from: Kyle AaronYes, that's what happens when people use unsuitable words. Bill calls copyright violation "stealing", Ron Edwards calls a different way of thinking "brain damage", Steve Jackson calls intelligence and education, "IQ", and moving evasively "dodge", and much confusion and pointless semantics result.

If you just call things what they actually are, then there's no need for semantic arguments.

Copyright violation is quite simply distributing copies of someone else's work without their permission. It is not stealing. It is distributing copies of someone else's work without their permission. It may or may not have a financial effect which is like theft, but whether it does or not, it is stealing.

Imagine that someone without my permission made printed copies of d4-d4 and sent them out to game stores, made $1 million in profit and gave it all to me. They violated my copyright. That I made no financial loss from this, and in fact made a gain, is irrelevant. They violated my copyright. Violating copyright is like breaking into a person's home; whether you steal something from them or leave them a gift or touch nothing is irrelevant - you broke into their home. It's their home to open or close to whoever they wish.

Likewise, copyright violation is not necessarily connected to loss of money for the copyright holder. It may even lead to a gain. It doesn't matter. The law protects copyright, in the same way it protects your right to invite and reject who you wish from your home.

We may say that if the law says someone breaking into my home and leaving me money is wrong, then the law is wrong. We may say that if a person views the breaking-in as morally wrong, they're stupid because hey, look at the money they left! Nonetheless, that is the law, and most people would be annoyed at the housebreaking.

You see? We use suitable words, and things become much clearer. Copyright violation is not stealing. It's like housebreaking. What you do with the copyrighted thing you've got illegally, just as what you do once you've broken into someone's house, that may involve effective theft, or it may not. Either way, you have in the first place commited a crime. It's certainly legally a crime, and I think it's morally wrong, as well.

It's a minor sin, though, really, in the grand scheme of things. And not really something for rpg publishers to worry about. Each hour they spend stressing over IP violation would more profitably spent producing more good stuff.


Yes, you may sell your copy to someone else. The problem is in enforcing the law. If you sell a physical copy of something - like the book AD&D Player's Guide - then the original physical copy is obviously no longer available to you. If you sell a soft copy (scanned pdf), then while in principle you can simply delete your original, it's hard to police that you've done so. It's hard to prove you're not a pirate. In the currently somewhat paranoid world of capitalism, the assumption is that you'll rip people off if you can get away with it. That's just the culture we have.

The law is on your side, our culture is against you.

WHACK!----Neiiighhh!  

Pete

Quote from: GeofEvery creative work is derivative of what has come before. [...]  Where to draw the line between your rights and the rights of others?  

Perhaps you are unaware that lengthy legal cases are argued before and ultimately decided by courts on this very sort of question. They have to look at, as they say, "case by case." That's the nature of a complex society.

Quote from: Kyle AaronThe law is on your side, our culture is against you.

Aren't our laws supposed to reflect the type of society we wish to have?  If the majority of society says piracy is ok, should the laws be changed?  Not that I think that is currently the case, but I do think it is inevitable.

You have been polite so I would like to respond to your statements. Again, we are at cross definitions. You seem to be arguing on a basis of ideas. I am really talking about the implementation. If you want to write "Roma Imperius: The Latining" then I have no say in it assuming you do not
1. Use my Trademarks
2. Copy my writing word for word
3. I do not defend my IP.

So, yes, you can make derivative works. Now, because I am small press, you will most likely win out on the basis of point 3.

Essentially, the answer to almost all your points is that I do not think you understand the scope of copyright and trademarks. I can only shut a fan site down if it violates my trademarks or if they post my IP (like pirating). A definitive function of this is how much money I have to do that. If I have deep pockets I can crush some lonely fan under legal fees and ruin his life if he does not comply. An unfortunate reality of the world.

As to the derivative nature of a work, I think you overextend your argument to the absurd. Yes, I said RPGs were derivative a long time ago. The line between idea and expression is blatantly clear and defined. I have used a cat race in my game Nebuleon. Inspired by Niven Kzin but different, very different. Can you find an implementation close to mine somewhere? Probably, but it will be worded differently and implemented differently. However, just because it is derivative (meaning derived from or inspired by) does not mean it cannot be original. Implementation, to me, is key. I am pretty sure I could not use "Kzin" or make them a leap and kill cat race...well, yeah, i could make them a leap and kill cat race, just not use Niven's words.

I think I see where we differ on these points. You have a much stronger belief in audience participation being a part of creating the work. I believe it is very different from the individual work. So, I write a play, the actors perform it, the audience interprets it. I have no say over any of them, heck, I will probably not even be there. As long as they gained my permission to perform it, then no problems. However, you see that as a form of censorship. I do not. Denying your "right" to perform my play is not censorship, it is business. I give you the opportunity to read my play in exchange for money, or because I want exposure, or because I like you and you are my friend, or any of a number of reasons. In the end, you do not have a "right" to my work, whether you think I am a hack copying Shakespeare or the most original writer ever.

In the end, I think we are more opposed than you once stated. Your proposed reasoning leads to a world where what ever you write is free for the taking since it is all derivative.

Bill

Quote from: GeofI'm saying that the arguments you make inevitably lead to you having that power.  In fact you do have that right under current copyright law.  (I am not claiming that you personally would exercise that right.)  Specifically, if you have a moral right to control distribution of your work, then you also have a right to control the distribution of derivatives.  This is the end point of your moral argument.

I am glad that you would support fan sites, but your right to shut them down at any time is the problem.  Many works are never created because of these rights (few authors would rely on goodwill for the existence of their work);  others are created then censored.  The distinction between expression and idea is artificial (just look at poetry), and while in theory it allows the same idea to be expressed in different words, the distinction is subject to interpretation and in practice ideas themselves are often protected.  See Death by Copyright for some examples;  The Wind Done Gone is a particularly glaring one.



Every creative work is derivative of what has come before.  If your game is good, it has skillfully incorporated cultural resources produced by other authors and audiences.  Derivation is a good thing.  But this means that you are not the sole creator of your work.  It may be mostly yours, but it cannot be entirely yours.  Where to draw the line between your rights and the rights of others?  The only way to give you complete control over your work is to reduce the control others have over theirs.

The danger to society argument is too big to be made here, but briefly:  All works are, to some degree, derivative (Shakespeare listed Hamlet's plot).  Much (sometimes most) of the value and meaning of art is created by the *audience*, not the "creator".  The exercise of creativity and self-expression is an important form of education and of (democratic) freedom.  Entertainment and art are politically significant.  Control of speech accidentally and deliberately translates into political and social power.



I realize that;  I was describing the negative positions of both extreme camps in this debate.  But this is where many arguments in favor of piracy lead.  And they do so in part because the absolute moral arguments deployed by their opponents are just as extreme and unrealistic.  So we end up with selfish disgregard on one hand, and censorship (and selfish disgregard in many cases) on the other.  I am suggesting that your moral position is, to some degree, polarizing and self-defeating.

(Incidentally, I when I said "you can get away with it" I meant illegal copying.  I don't agree with your restatement.)