Quote from: Thanatos02So, 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.

I can't speak for anyone else, but as I said, all of our print products also come with free PDF downloads.  I personally don't think it's immoral to download or accept a copy of something you already own.  In fact, if people adhered to the model you described above (download and then pay or delete), I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that.  

The problem is that most people won't do that and you know that as well as I do.  Once something is on your computer, the incentive to pay for it immediately lessens, and it decreases the longer it's there.  The sheer number of great RPGs out there means you probably _won't_ be able to pay for those you like after downloading them.  Paying $5-10 dollars for a single PDF won't hurt anyone's budget.  Paying $100 or more for a whole PDF product line is going to be a tougher decision to make.  And there are about 3-4 game lines out there that I would like to own, so I'm looking at a whole car payment.  If I downloaded them and waited until I was better off financially to pay for them, they would probably never get paid.  Downloaded PDFs are never going to be high on anyone's priority list when it comes time to pay the monthly bills.  

So, the system, as it stands, keeps honest people honest, if that makes any sense.  What you propose won't work, but again, I wish it would.  It would make things a hell of a lot easier.  

Pete

Quote from: Thanatos02If 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.

These are the same questions that many, many people in the file-sharing debate are asking. It boils down to this:

1) Copying something without permission of the creator (unless the copied content qualifies as Fair Use), whether any money is made or not, is illegal in the U.S. The reason it is illegal is that copyright laws are intended to protect the content creator. The degree of violation is dependent on the number of copies distributed. Making 10000 copies of The Transformers Movie and selling them will get you a stiffer fine (and jail time) than copying the DVD at home.

2) Concern about "casual copyright violation" is nothing new - i.e., recording a song off the radio, photocopying a magazine article, borrowing a computer game from a friend. The RIAA crippled DAT and minidisc techology in the 1990s with demands for ways to restrict recording - yet they embraced CDs because it was believed home CD recorders were not possible. While many of us might know someone who photocopied the entirety of the Fiend Folio from the public library, the vast majority of people probably wanted the real thing.

3) The Internet and peer-to-peer filesharing has changed all of this. Now, if someone shares copyright material, there is no telling how many people ultimately access that material as a result of that sharing. This throws a wrench in enforcement, because there is no way to assess monetary damage done and you can't sue or arrest a quarter to a third of the U.S. population (despite what the RIAA thinks...).

4) There's no guarantee that someone who samples a product via filesharing will buy it. It's a non-argument - intent is a nonfactor. However, network factors are an important factor. There is a correlation between those that sample products illegally and financial success (even if the overall impact is not actually large).

Let take the music industry as the best example. Surveys have shown that while a teenager might download an album illegally and not purchase it, there is still a stigma against giving copied content as formal gifts. This leads to the "sampler" potentially downloading songs or albums, deciding that they are suitable for people they want to give gifts to, and then purchasing the albums legally. It still has a very small (but still measurable) effect on album sales.
 
Songs that do not get "buzz" on filesharing networks may do well for a few weeks on the music charts but they fall into obscurity quickly; similarly, albums that are perennial favorites on filesharing networks stay on the charts much longer and see increased album sales. It's even been shown that the top 25% best-selling artists are most negatively affected by filesharing, while the lower 75% see no negative effect or even a positive one.

If you combine that with how filesharing affects a song or album's time on the charts, you can see that the "pump and dump" method of recording industry marketing, where they make tons of money on pumped up and overhyped pop music, isn't working so much anymore. Artists that have not had hit albums in decades have seen slight increases in album sales due to P2P exposure. In fact, it is estimated that only 10% of all recorded music is commercially available. P2P may be the only way that young listeners can experience many classics.

Even then...those network externalities are no guarantee. Whether monetary damage or gain was done is a non-point. Currently fielsharing in most forms is illegal. The morality of it is entirely dependent on the individual. Personally, I believe that the entire concept of copyright - and the laws - need to be reexamined. Loopholes need to be closed, things that work fine need to be left alone. You can't put filesharing back in the box - every time someone tries, it gets back out again.

Quote from: WilWhile 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.

Well, that's kind of like saying that kids won't be affected by watching people have sex or getting murdered on TV since there's no evidence that it has any effect (outside of speculative studies).  The effect of piracy is not really something you can measure.  And it obviously DOES have an effect on the creator if there unhappy about it and decide producing more games is not worth it.  I'm glad you at least agree that priacy is wrong.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnWell, that's kind of like saying that kids won't be affected by watching people have sex or getting murdered on TV since there's no evidence that it has any effect (outside of speculative studies).  The effect of piracy is not really something you can measure.  And it obviously DOES have an effect on the creator if there unhappy about it and decide producing more games is not worth it.  I'm glad you at least agree that priacy is wrong.  

Pete

So what, we should legislate based on your personal feelings now?  What the fuck kind of idiotic nonsense is this?

"There's no evidence whatsoever, but I feel bad, so it should be illegal."  

Wow.  Grow a pair, dude.

Quote from: WilThis throws a wrench in enforcement, because there is no way to assess monetary damage done

We agree on that point, too.

QuoteYou can't put filesharing back in the box - every time someone tries, it gets back out again.

And this one.  

Unless someone develops a magical uncrackable PDF that deletes itself 30 days after download unless a unique code is inserted and that can notify the creator if the file has been copied or deleted, the only way to reduce file sharing is to find a happy medium with the customers. I'm still trying to figure out what that might be, though.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnWell, that's kind of like saying that kids won't be affected by watching people have sex or getting murdered on TV since there's no evidence that it has any effect (outside of speculative studies).  The effect of piracy is not really something you can measure.  And it obviously DOES have an effect on the creator if there unhappy about it and decide producing more games is not worth it.  I'm glad you at least agree that priacy is wrong.  

Pete

Actually, I only agree that piracy is not so cut and dry. I haven't purchased a CD in years, beyond stuff from independent labels. The RIAA's behavior has convinced me that their entire business model needs to be razed to the ground and rebuilt with useful, value-priced digital content at its heart. I won't download rpgs or similar small-press product, but I have no issue with grabbing the latest copy of Electronic Gaming World or even a PC game from BitTorrent. I set my "morality meter" differently depending on the content involved.

As for the content creator's themselves being unhappy, there are quite a few musicians on record saying that they want kids to pirate their music. A Microsoft exec basically said, "We don't want people pirating our software, but if they pirate anything we'd prefer it to be ours."

Like you said, the system should be designed to keep honest people honest. Current copyright law is actually designed to keep rich people rich. The explosion of filesharing is, I think, a symptom of and reaction to that.

Quote from: J ArcaneSo what, we should legislate based on your personal feelings now?  What the fuck kind of idiotic nonsense is this?

"There's no evidence whatsoever, but I feel bad, so it should be illegal."  

Wow.  Grow a pair, dude.

Heh, heh.  I was wondering how long it would take for J Arcane to reply to my post.  Thanks.  

And to answer you, I'm not talking about legislation, obviously. Legislation won't work.  What I stated above were just my personal views in response to Thanatos02's questions and Wil's comments.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnUnless someone develops a magical uncrackable PDF that deletes itself 30 days after download unless a unique code is inserted and that can notify the creator if the file has been copied or deleted, the only way to reduce file sharing is to find a happy medium with the customers. I'm still trying to figure out what that might be, though.

Actually, take the "unless someone develops a magical uncrackable PDF that deletes itself 30 days after download unless a unique code is inserted and that can notify the creator if the file has been copied or deleted" out of your statement. The ONLY WAY to reduce filesharing is to give the customer what they want. Time and again - regardless of medium - consumers have rejected restrictive DRM. So this means that various industries need to work out how to distribute digital content that is useful to the consumer. This means the ability to copy it, move it from device to device, use the content as many times as they want to. EMI has a good lead on this sort of thing - make your entire catalog available as inexpensive, DRM'd content but then offer premium, non-DRM content for a higher price. We'll just have to see if it works.

Quote from: WilAs for the content creator's themselves being unhappy, there are quite a few musicians on record saying that they want kids to pirate their music. A Microsoft exec basically said, "We don't want people pirating our software, but if they pirate anything we'd prefer it to be ours."

And that's fine for musicians, but you don't hear RPG writers/publishers saying that so it's a bit different.  As I pointed out before (and was called a pretentious nit , the biggest advocates for piracy seem to be those who have not published/written anything and then tried to sell it.

Pete

Quote from: WilTime and again - regardless of medium - consumers have rejected restrictive DRM.

If that was all that was available, however, they wouldn't reject it (not that I'm saying it would work--fighting tech with tech is a losing battle; there's always a bigger code).  

Pete

Wil, there's one thing to bear in mind, beyond all the legalese and the idiocy of corporate suits.

Let's divide the music industry into three parts: a) labels who only produce mass-appeal shit, b) indie labels broadly conceived, c) the in-between.

File sharing will hurt a) a lot (so what), and b), not so much if at all (good). But c)--mid-sized labels with a great A&R dept that takes care to discover and then feed valuable bands--is going to suffer. I don't know the scene any more, but there must be contemporary equivalents of what Factory or Creation Records used to be. Even early Virgin or Geffen would somewhat qualify.

Those labels are bound to get hurt on the profitable part of their catalogue, and they're going to be tempted to take it out on the unprofitable one. Simply by taking less risks. By not hiring this band but rather that one, because that one sounds a tad more like what we already know. By kicking out the other one, after their first CD, while promising, kinda flopped.

That sucks.

Quote from: pspahnIf that was all that was available, however, they wouldn't reject it (not that I'm saying it would work--fighting tech with tech is a losing battle; there's always a bigger code).  

Pete

That'd go over like a lead balloon. "If all people have to eat is cake, they won't reject it." Give the customers what they want. If they want a DRM-free PDF with the book purchase for a slight price increase, then that would seem to be the best business plan. If finding the PDF on P2P networks is a concern (which I think is a misplaced concern), then reduce the PDF's content somehow. Make it just black and white text with no art or prose. If someone pirates that PDF, if they believe they'll find value in the full-blown book they have more incentive to legitimately purchase it.

Quote from: WilThat'd go over like a lead balloon. "If all people have to eat is cake, they won't reject it."

It's true, though.  If there's no alternative, people learn to accept it (however grudgingly).  You pay for gas every week.  You don't _need_ to drive to all the places you drive to, but you do and you might gripe about the prices, but you keep paying for gas even when it gets over $4 a gallon.  

If you consider that too much of a necessity, look at VCRs when they first came out.  Top loaded, weighed a ton, $1000 each, but people still bought them (or wanted to).  They didn't reject them because they were the only things on the market.    

Again, I'm not saying piracy countermeasures are the way to go, I'm just saying if there were NO alternative people would accept it.  It might "go over like a lead balloon," and they might not like it, but that's not what we're talking about.  And this is all hugely hypothetical, so we're kind of getting away from the issue.  

QuoteGive the customers what they want. If they want a DRM-free PDF with the book purchase for a slight price increase, then that would seem to be the best business plan. If finding the PDF on P2P networks is a concern (which I think is a misplaced concern), then reduce the PDF's content somehow. Make it just black and white text with no art or prose. If someone pirates that PDF, if they believe they'll find value in the full-blown book they have more incentive to legitimately purchase it.

The only problem is you neglect a lot of foreign customers and people who can't afford/have access to printed books that way.  I don't think the way to stop filesharing is by making the files less appealing, but I could be wrong.  

Pete

Quote from: pspahnThe only problem is you neglect a lot of foreign customers and people who can't afford/have access to printed books that way.  I don't think the way to stop filesharing is by making the files less appealing, but I could be wrong.

So offer a full-blown premium PDF with whatever DRM is deemed necessary separately. That's the same model some music companies are adopting.

Quote from: WilSo offer a full-blown premium PDF with whatever DRM is deemed necessary separately. That's the same model some music companies are adopting.

I just don't think advanced tech is the way to go, though.  It just creates a tech war with software designed to counter software that counters software.  A lot of people use DRM, though, so it must be doing something right.

Pete