Historically, short of revolution, laws are rarely spontaneously changed to be more liberal and egalitarian, they're dragged along kicking and screaming. The country comes to some crisis, and things change, for example the end of segregation in the USA after the clashes with the civil disobedience crowds; or else as society changes, the laws are gradually no longer enforced, then struck off the books as an afterthought, as for example with the laws against male-male sodomy in WA and TAS here Down Under.

I can't really imagine any kind of society-wide crisis which would cause a rewriting of copyright laws. Certainly patent law could face a crisis, in the case of some life-saving patent like a vaccine against a deadly plague. Most Western countries already have laws about life-saving stuff and patents, though. So a crisis about patent law is possible, but not likely. Copyright law I just can't imagine a crisis about, the stakes are mostly personal rights and money, not the stuff of society-wide crises.

The gradual change of society with the law following is much more likely, I think.

The problem is that large corporations have a vested interest in obstructing such change, and also have undue influence on our otherwise democratic governments. No corporation had any particular interesting in keeping segregation in the USA, or keeping homosexuals from consumating their relationships here Down Under, they were indifferent to it. But they have an interest in maintaining copyright laws. Thus we've seen copyright expiry lifted from life of authour + 21 years to life of authour + 75 years in the USA, and by means of international treaties, that's spreading across the world, this is mostly at the behest of Disney.

So while the law eventually follows the public will and behaviour, I think it'll follow waaaaaaaaaay behind in this case.

When wax cylinders playing music were first invented, they were challenged legally by piano players, who quoted copyright laws about music, and complained that their livelihood would be ruined, everyone would just slot wax cylinders in instead of hiring musicians. Most of us here are old enough to remember all the fuss about videotapes. Now it's filesharing.

People and corporations take a while to adjust to new technologies. At first they say this new technology will ruin them, then ten years later they're making millions from it somehow. And the law stumbles along five to ten years behind them.

Quote from: Kyle AaronPeople and corporations take a while to adjust to new technologies. At first they say this new technology will ruin them, then ten years later they're making millions from it somehow. And the law stumbles along five to ten years behind them.

Exactly.  Which is why I don't get particularly uptight about copyright violation.  Technology has re-defined boundaries and it is just a matter of time before corporations figure out the best way to exploit the situation.  Eventually, the laws will be updated to reflect the changes to society (or simply fall fallow).
 
And then we'll look back on this period with the same sort of bemusement that we currently have when remembering things like the advent of video recorders, casette tapes, CD burners and whatever else.
 
Which is why I said, way back in my first post in this thread, that companies need to try and understand piracy rather than condemn it.  That's the fastest way to learn how to profit from the latest trends.

Absolutely. Whether it's "know thy enemy" or "know they customer", it comes to the same thing.

For my part, I respect the intent of copyright rather than the letter, as I do with all laws. For example, legally if I buy a printed book and scan it for personal use that's okay, but if I download a scan from p2p that's illegal whether I've bought the book or not. Somehow the scan I did is different to the one I downloaded. This is the letter but not the intent of the law; so if I've bought a printed book, I see nothing wrong with downloading a copy of it.

But I won't make copies and send them out to my friends - if they want it, they'll buy it; if they won't buy it they don't really want it and won't look at it anyway. I have accepted pirated copies of things, but always deleted them after looking casually through them. I see that as essentially the same as browsing the book at the shop. I'm having a look over it to see if it's worth my buying it.

I think I have a burned CD or two. Sometimes there have been tv series which were shown on free-to-air, and the time changed around without notice and I missed them. Acquaintances have offered to get me copies, but never come through - pirating types are unreliable flakes. Since it's legal to copy for personal use a movie shown on free-to-air tv (record and watch later), I can't really see anything wrong with borrowing a copy of one. But in the end, it hasn't happened anyway so the point is academic.

Otherwise, I respect the spirit of copyright. I do think it's necessary, but certainly the details - how long it lasts, what is "fair use" and so on - those details are quite debatable. There's "what is good" and "what is enforceable", and the law should deal with both.

That's why we don't make it a crime for men to bugger each-other anymore. Because even if we think it's morally wrong (I don't), what can we do, really? How can we stop them? No-one should make laws which cannot be enforced, it's bad for society overall as it lessens respect for the law generally.

I think Kyle's point is well made here.

Is it immoral for me to burn CDs? Maybe (even though I don't think it is). On the other hand, what are you going to do to stop me? It's mostly the same with RPGs, except the profit margins for small press are much lower. Practically speaking, though, it's hardly an issue at all.

Now, we can (and have) get into the discussion on what morality is, and who decides it, but it's largely moot. As Branford says, you can either profit from it or be destroyed. The only thing is, it's not going to be a single person that destroys you but rather a society.

If you've ever worked on a serious, long-term (1 year+ net working time) creative project, and if that is what you do for a living, then you know which side of the debate you're on. So, I'm with Bill.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron

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.

Of course;  there can be no absolute solution - though appeals to moral rights imply that there is.

The question is on what basis the decision is made.  If we focus on the moral rights of an individual author over original work, a certain type of case law results (not only that, certain types of creative works are encouraged while others are discouraged).  See James Boyle's fascinating Shamans, Software, & Spleens, in which he argues that the idea of the "romantic author", whose work is truly original, is the only way to reconcile seemingly contradictory legal decisions.  As a result, certain authors are granted a special status, while sources are effectively invisible.

To recognize the other costs and benefits associated with allocating exclusive control over ideas, we need to step outside the sterile debate over piracy and the rights of creators (which implicitly includes only a certain class of creator), because that only captures a fragment of what's really happening and who's being affected.  That isn't being done in society at large, and it's not being reflected in the law.

Quote from: HinterWeltEssentially, the answer to almost all your points is that I do not think you understand the scope of copyright and trademarks.

Trademark law has been widely expanded in the U.S. (before 1995 it was concerned with preventing consumer confusion;  since 1995 trademark law prevents the meaning of the mark from dilution).  Copyright too has been interpreted quite broadly.  See The Cat NOT In the Hat, whose 30,000 copies were destroyed - apparently because the hat on the cover looked too much like the hat in the Dr. Seuss book.  Or again, The Wind Done Gone - a novel that examined the story of Gone With the Wind from the point of view of a mulatto slave.

Quote from: HinterWeltI 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 believe you're correct.  If you were able to use the word "Kzin" I would have much less problem - at least in the case of written works;  this idea/expression distinction breaks down for other works (e.g. music and film).

Quote from: HinterWeltYou have a much stronger belief in audience participation being a part of creating the work.

Yes.  For two reasons.  First, much of the meaning, significance, and value of successful works is produced by the audience.  Take the Rocky Horror Picture Show or Star Wars - much of the meaning of those films is not inherent in the work itself, but is the result of people incorporating it into their lives.  People talk about music being "their" music because it means something special to them.  If I fall in love to, say, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, the meaning of that music is unique to me and has been produced by me.  And that meaning - that idea - cannot be separated from the expression.  Successful works become symbols with many layers of meaning, only some of which are produced by the author.  Take the American flag:  you cannot allude to its meaning without copying its form.

Second, focusing on the work itself as a static, independent entity is problematic:  in many cases, the act of creativity and sharing with others are more important than any product.  RPGs are a case in point:  the story, acting, and so on of play are often duller than dirt for anyone who isn't a participant.  But the quality of the "work", such as it is, is entirely beside the point.  Creative activity is an exercise of freedom, a way of participating in the larger community or culture, and it's a learning experience.  Reserving rights for the author of a static work based on originality can get in the way of this - something that is happening even more often in an era when sharing and participation are often carried out online.

Quote from: HinterWeltDenying your "right" to perform my play is not censorship, it is business.

Your motivation may not be to prevent me from expressing an idea, but that can be the effect.  So it is censorship.  Though censorship is not necessarily a bad (a little would have gone a long way in Rwanda in 1994, for example), and it must be balanced out against other concerns.  Unfortunately, very little empirical research that has been done to determine the relative benefits of different intellectual monopoly regimes.

Quote from: HinterWeltYour proposed reasoning leads to a world where what ever you write is free for the taking since it is all derivative.

Not necessarily.  The reality is that it *is* all derivative.  Recognizing that, we don't have to eliminate the law if we can justify it in other ways - and there are other good arguments for copyright.  There are also other possible implementations.  Compulsory licensing, for example, as is done with music on the radio.  A reversion to the older practice of copyright as a limitation on money-making publishers, not on the non-profit use of individuals, would also resolve many of the issues.  One thing I would really like to see is simply a narrower copyright that would allow derivative works but not knock-offs.

Quote from: GeofNot necessarily.  The reality is that it *is* all derivative.  Recognizing that, we don't have to eliminate the law if we can justify it in other ways - and there are other good arguments for copyright.  There are also other possible implementations.  Compulsory licensing, for example, as is done with music on the radio.  A reversion to the older practice of copyright as a limitation on money-making publishers, not on the non-profit use of individuals, would also resolve many of the issues.  One thing I would really like to see is simply a narrower copyright that would allow derivative works but not knock-offs.

hmm, I was going to do a point by point response but I just do not have the time.

To sum up, you have some assumptions that I just do not believe. I cannot see, in the way you have stated your position (and this may purely be misunderstanding on my part) that there is any way to have any sort of copyright. I will not argue that all items are derivative or to put it more mildly, inspired by other works. I still view it as definitive, separate from that work and original in its expression (assuming it is not plagiarized). I view the work as separate and complete from the experience of enjoying it. If someone listens to one of my songs and they enjoy the experience, that is theirs but does not reflect on bit on my song writing or performance. You would assign rights on a work because someone taps their toe at a concert. I do not wish to diminish that but put it in perspective. One is active and the later is passive. I create, you experience. Essentially, I believe we have fundamentally different views on the world and specifically, the act of creative works and that is o.k.

So, I apologize for not having more time for the debate but I really need to get printing/writing for my squirrel games for Gen Con.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltSo, I apologize for not having more time for the debate but I really need to get printing/writing for my squirrel games for Gen Con.

Thanks for taking the time to this point.  You've helped me clear up my thinking.  Good luck at Gen Con!

Quote from: PseudoephedrineAs does Stephen King, who published that story ("The Plant") relying on a limited number of microdonations (far inferior to the number of downloads) to fund each installment.

Ah, yes.  Hungry, hungry man, that Stephen King.

Quote from: J ArcaneSome black people really do eat fried chicken and watermelon.  That doesn't mean shit, however.

I take it to mean that they, like I, know that's some tasty eats.

Or they're hungry.  

Hey, that actually sounds good!

Okay, I'm gonna give a serious response.

Let's say I really wanted a copy of Chewy Granola Bar RPG.  If someone said to me, "Hey, save $40 and download it here!" --


I wouldn't.

Because I, personally, would feel bad.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityIf you've ever worked on a serious, long-term (1 year+ net working time) creative project, and if that is what you do for a living, then you know which side of the debate you're on. So, I'm with Bill.

I think that if people work really hard on something that's cool, they should get reimbursed somehow. Since people pretty much have to buy it in this system, then I think that people should go and buy the product if they want it, because that supports the person working on it.

OTOH, the system is fucked up. In fact, the way it's set up may actually be losing developers money, though I don't have any data to back that up. And, in addition, some of it's curiosity. I DL only with intent to check and see if I want to really purchase, same as when I go to the library to check out a book to see if I want it on my shelf, or if I peruse it in a shop. If I don't want it, I delete it. If I want it, I pay for it. Some people see this as totally different then previewing the product legally and fairly, but I don't see the distinction. For the person with a literally photographic memory, it really wouldn't.

I buy because I want to reward, not because I'm compelled to. As Dr. Rotwang suggests, he'd feel bad if he didn't. Maybe his reasons are the same as mine, and maybe they're different, but my actions are only different in that I do download the product because I have no idea what the fuck Granola the RPG even is (though I've heard good things, or whatever). If I never look at it, I'll never buy it, so someone's lost a sale there.

Quote from: ghost ratIs it morally acceptable to download/distribute copies of in-print RPG games via filesharing?

(Just to be clear, I'm not talking about free pdfs or ransom model products or such.)

If you own a hardcopy, it is not only morally acceptable but it should be legal. If not, "morally acceptable" to me is a bit of a strong term. While it is definitely wrong for someone to pirate copyrighted materials, there is absolutely no evidence that the kind of pirating we're talking about has any effect at all on the industry or the creator. Even in the music industry, looking over all of the statistics and evidence shows a much more complicated situation then "everyone loses money" if MP3s are shared.

So, I've got some questions asked in all seriousness, for those people who consider filesharing and downloading to be immoral. (I'm thinking about Hinterwelt and others).

1. Do you figure it's moral (or not immoral) to download or burn information you already own? For example: I have a copy of NIN's Year 0 or a copy of Squirrel Attack!. Is it immoral for me to download or burn a back-up copy?

1.a: If I have permission from the designer?

If not, the rest of the situations are pretty immoral to you too, probably, but if that's ok, is it immoral if there's no other way for me to preview the item, or previewing the item is difficult to the degree that I might as well not bother?

If I download it, and then buy a copy and #1 wasn't immoral, is my downloading retroactively not immoral? Or, at least, is my immoral action stricken from the record, so to speak?

If one's (as in, 'a situation') allowed then suddenly things are cloudy, mostly relying on intention and time-frame to determine immorality regardless of phraseology and law. If none are allowed, (for example, situation 1 doesn't seem to be immoral, because you've already paid for the data) then it seems a bit harsh. I assume there are sliding scales of morality, for example, maybe it's not moral, really, to download something with the intention of buying it later, but no harm is really done. If it's just done to preview, it's really not any different then just previewing it in the already socially proscribed way. Even if it's kept and never used, it's functionally identicle to deleating it right after preview.

And I think most of us can see the difference between looking at it and deciding 'no' and using it all the time without intention of paying. At the same time, not all of us can seem to see the difference between taking it off a shelf and downloading it and using it. The cost of the former, though, is much greater then the latter, and indeed is called something else by US and Canadian law.