I've noticed that role-playing games who release their rules online and make them freely available don't really seem to suffer from piracy issues. Furthermore, it appears that these small independent role-playing game publication houses enjoy a lot of feedback and support from the community.
I've seen several Kickstart projects launch and propose to release all of their rules (minus the flavor text) free for use. Lamentations of the Flame Princess comes to mind. The "grindhouse" edition is pretty ugly, but at least it covers the major rules. They weren't the first to do it, but I have noticed a very rapid (and rabid) support community advocating in support of open gaming licenses for indie games. I personally like the "try before you buy" stuff. But some people may be of a different opinion.
As a consumer, are you driven to purchase systems that freely offer their rules online?
So long as the rules arent a pile of shite and the publishers/writers arent completly delusional about the system and willing to accept feedback about why said rules are a pile of shite(so if it was any good in other words) then sure i'd buy a printed copy if it was also available Open Source, afterall you cant really read a .pdf on the bog :)
I prefer rules systems that are open whether by OGL or Creative Commons style methods because I know that if I make something useful for my players I can easily post it online for others to use. For example, if I make a condensed/quick start version of the rules, I could put it up for other groups without worrying about the publisher being angry.
I like the model. It has served Posthuman Studios well with Eclipse Phase. If I like your game I will buy it! I love Stars Without Number and have purchased the Mongoose PDF, Other Dust, and other supplements. After reading the free PDF!
I also think that having the system (perhaps in a standard image free layout) PDF for free before pitching a Kickstarter is a great way to prove the writing is complete. :-D
In a similar fashion, GURPS lite has been a nice way to introduce looky-loos to the system. Every publisher should have a lite and/or free version of their stuff. I think it improves that publishers paying customer base.
Just my two cents...
OGL, Creative Commons and "Freely Available" are entirely different from each other.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566878As a consumer, are you driven to purchase systems that freely offer their rules online?
I do not in the main buy things without reading them first, and in these days of not having a rog shop within an hours commute, that means 99% of my purchases must be well previewed on the internet.
The plan for Hulks and Horrors is that provided it funds, I'll be releasing a rules-only, fluff and art free "SRD" under Creative Commons after the book releases.
I figure this way I can open it up to people who want to work on it, while preserving the value of owning the actual book.
Free release = huge community participation only works when there is a pre existing community of game supporters or designer supporters who pile onto it with gusto, the d20 phenomenon being the definitive example. HP Lovecraft's works would be another. There is a huge, huge list of free RPGs with zero participation and zero interest from the community, some of which are pretty decent. 1kmonkeys1ktypewriters or something is a good resource to find them.
Piracy is a serious issue but I swapped a few PMs with a guy over on rpgnet who claimed to have quashed it almost entirely for his efforts, I'll dig them out if anyone wants them. Basically it added up to active torrent poisoning and tracking, followed by direct complaints to ISPs.
With all that said I not only want to allow the community to officially build on whatevers on my stall, but I want them to profit substantially by their efforts, so it looks like a roll your own licence job. Piracy of any sort is bollocks and should not be supported implicitly or otherwise.
Quote from: The Traveller;566969Free release = huge community participation only works when there is a pre existing community of game supporters or designer supporters who pile onto it with gusto...
Not always. I would say Eclipse Phase was successful and didn't have an existing community behind it until it released. Also, if you want to build a community you have to start somewhere. Getting your core product out there for free couldn't hurt. People will check it out, and buy it and other products based on the quality. This is exactly what roped me into Stars Without Number, et al.; another example that refutes your assertion.
Quote from: The Traveller;566969...With all that said I not only want to allow the community to officially build on whatevers on my stall, but I want them to profit substantially by their efforts, so it looks like a roll your own licence job. ...
Why reinvent the wheel? The OGL can be co-opted to work with any system (see D6, FATE, FUDGE...) or a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (http://creativecommons.org/choose/) would work great as well. This allows publishers to use and modify your works and share them for profit or free as long as they attribute you and share the work under the same CC license.
Quote from: The Traveller;566969... Basically it added up to active torrent poisoning and tracking, followed by direct complaints to ISPs. ...
Way too much effort for so little return. Why? Concentrate on your paying customers and the fan community around your products. Pirates are going to steal your shit anyways and they WILL find ways around your shenanigans.
Again, look at how Posthuman Studios handled this. They seed all their books on torrent sites and give them away. For free. Is this affecting sales? Nope. They are making record sales in both PDF and print runs. Your supporters will pay for your material! There are many posters around the InterTubes who have admitted downloading an Eclipse Phase product and then later purchasing it because of the high quality and how much they loved it.
Don't sweat the piracy thing. If someone is feeling butt-hurt about sales, I would suggest looking at the product not the piracy. Generally, the product is lacking or has a limited focus or appeal vs. "OMFG I could be making thousands right now if only ALL PIRATES DIE!!!".
So far the most successful people selling small print products (IMHO) are creators who have a serious PASSION for their own work. Both Eclipse Phase and SWN have creators who say things like "I do this for the love of it" or "I wanted to create something I would use and feel proud of", or to that effect. I think fellow gamers dig that kind of passion. The products end up kicking ass because they are focused on something besides commercial viability. What's hilarious is that they end up being MORE commercially viable.
Just my two cents...
Quote from: trechriron;567013Not always. I would say Eclipse Phase was successful and didn't have an existing community behind it until it released.
That's why I mentioned designers as well, the guys responsible for it are well known in the community.
Quote from: trechriron;567013Why reinvent the wheel? The OGL can be co-opted to work with any system (see D6, FATE, FUDGE...) or a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (http://creativecommons.org/choose/) would work great as well. This allows publishers to use and modify your works and share them for profit or free as long as they attribute you and share the work under the same CC license.
Thanks, I'll use something along those lines.
Quote from: trechriron;567013Way too much effort for so little return. Why?
Lets say you're Lionsgate, you just released Lord of the Rings. Its not worth your time to hunt down every seeder, and in any case they aren't really substantially hitting your bottom line. You might pay the lawyers to go after them as an aggregate, but thats more the principle of the thing.
A teeny tiny one man publisher can have their bottom line substantially damaged by piracy, when a couple of thousand makes the difference between a loss and a profit. Plus, its his shit, why not.
Quote from: trechriron;567013Concentrate on your paying customers and the fan community around your products. Pirates are going to steal your shit anyways and they WILL find ways around your shenanigans.
Sure, but the damage can be minimised. He said that he got them all eventually except for the collections, and the only reason he didn't get them was because he wasn't willing to pirate other works to protect his own. I checked it out and he does appear to have been successful. Again scale is what matters here, his RPG was so small that it was possible for him to combat piracy successfully.
Quote from: trechriron;567013Again, look at how Posthuman Studios handled this. They seed all their books on torrent sites and give them away. For free.
I did ask them directly whether or not they would have opened it up if it wasn't for piracy, and the response was "that would have to be discussed", but the subscript was "probably not".
Quote from: trechriron;567013Is this affecting sales? Nope. They are making record sales in both PDF and print runs. Your supporters will pay for your material! There are many posters around the InterTubes who have admitted downloading an Eclipse Phase product and then later purchasing it because of the high quality and how much they loved it.
Couple of things here - unless we have access to a parallel universe where they didn't release it openly, its impossible to say what effect it had on sales. The other issue is that while it might work for someone once, making a regular or industry wide thing of it causes the novelty to fade somewhat. Then you're into people downloading things they might only have a vague interest in, or might be only interested in one part of.
Quote from: trechriron;567013Don't sweat the piracy thing. If someone is feeling butt-hurt about sales, I would suggest looking at the product not the piracy. Generally, the product is lacking or has a limited focus or appeal vs. "OMFG I could be making thousands right now if only ALL PIRATES DIE!!!".
Im not really bothered by it, if I met someone in the street and they tell me they pirate, it doesn't affect my opinion of them because piracy is so widespread. Its not much of a reflection on personal character in that way. As an aggregate however I see no problem with combating piracy, pirates are not on the side of the good guys.
With that said copyrights are far too long, if they were reduced to 12 years plus an optional 12 extension, I'd be quite happy.
Quote from: trechriron;567013So far the most successful people selling small print products (IMHO) are creators who have a serious PASSION for their own work. Both Eclipse Phase and SWN have creators who say things like "I do this for the love of it" or "I wanted to create something I would use and feel proud of", or to that effect. I think fellow gamers dig that kind of passion. The products end up kicking ass because they are focused on something besides commercial viability. What's hilarious is that they end up being MORE commercially viable.
See above - keep in mind that many people feel they may as well release their hard work for free purely and simply because of being an easy target of opportunity for piracy, being passionate about your work doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't earn money from other people enjoying it. The one thing has nothing to do with the other.
Yes, I've bought several games that I could have just downloaded the rules for free. If I actually want to play a game, I much prefer having a real book.
Oh and once again, free release is no passport whatsoever to popularity. There are more free RPGs out there than one person could legitimately read in ten years, ranging from notepad page to insanely professional (http://talislanta.com/?page_id=5). Only one in ten thousand of those ever gets popular, and its usually not because of the fact that its free.
Quote from: trechriron;567013Don't sweat the piracy thing. If someone is feeling butt-hurt about sales, I would suggest looking at the product not the piracy. Generally, the product is lacking or has a limited focus or appeal vs. "OMFG I could be making thousands right now if only ALL PIRATES DIE!!!".
The market for indie produced tabletop RPG products is pretty small. I recently attended a round table discussion of publishers at PaizoCon where this was discussed, and having target sales maxing out at around 2,000 (which hundreds being the usual) is quite good.
A product lacking in focus or appeal probably won't sell many copies, but that doesn't mean you are not losing significant numbers of sales from piracy. That's probably increasing as well, since more and more people are fine with PDF (e-readable) products instead of print.
There are plenty of people who self-justify taking a small ticket item for any number of reasons - for example:
1. Its really not very good and not worth what they are asking for it.
2. I am not going to use it very much, so there's no reason to pay money for it.
3. I cannot afford it, but I want it anyway.
4. Its okay to take it because the authors aren't getting justly rewarded.
5. I am sticking it to Corporate (insert nation), so its a political statement.
6. Information should be free, and copyright law is hogwash.
7. Its really so cheap, nobody will care or notice if I take it.
Plenty of others. Same excuses since floppies were still floppy, all of which are the excuses of self-centered, morally weak people. Small crimes of mobs of small people. Some people will commit all sorts of crimes if they know they can get away with it, and piracy is an easy crime to get away with.
My wife and I check out probably thousands of dollars worth of books from our local libraries every year. I'm just glad libraries existed in society long before the copyright police brigade got started. Otherwise you'd hear all these online complaints about the criminals checking out books and reading them without paying for them. Ruining the business those entitled patrons are!
Quote from: ptingler;567296My wife and I check out probably thousands of dollars worth of books from our local libraries every year. I'm just glad libraries existed in society long before the copyright police brigade got started. Otherwise you'd hear all these online complaints about the criminals checking out books and reading them without paying for them. Ruining the business those entitled patrons are!
Cool library you've got there, they post out a copy of any book for anyone in the world to keep for free while giving them the power to do the exact same thing?
You should show your appreciation by working your ass off for six months of your life and spending thousands of dollars you don't really have to spare in creating something, then giving it to that library so anyone who wants to can enjoy your efforts in a similar fashion.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566878As a consumer, are you driven to purchase systems that freely offer their rules online?
Yes, but only if it's good.
Yes, i bought both Eclipse Phase and Stars Without Number, but i also bought the Swords&Wizardry Complete Rulebook by Frog God Games as well.
Actually I do have great libraries where I live, they're often ranked in the top 5, if not #1 in the country. Of the 3 that I use (who also have borrowing rights networked throughout the entire state) the biggest one had a circulation close to 17.5 million a few years ago. Their most recent financial statement (Dec '11) showed over 700,000 registered library patrons.
Quote from: ptingler;567340Actually I do have great libraries where I live, they're often ranked in the top 5, if not #1 in the country. Of the 3 that I use (who also have borrowing rights networked throughout the entire state) the biggest one had a circulation close to 17.5 million a few years ago. Their most recent financial statement (Dec '11) showed over 700,000 registered library patrons.
Unless its a magic library, it doesn't do anything like what I described. I look forward to reading your creative work in six months, it shall be shared with gusto. Try and keep it sub $10k because, yanno.
Quote from: The Traveller;567304You should show your appreciation by working your ass off for six months of your life and spending thousands of dollars you don't really have to spare in creating something, then giving it to that library so anyone who wants to can enjoy your efforts in a similar fashion.
It useful to look at first principles in debates like this.
In the United States copyright exists to promote progress of the arts and sciences.
QuoteTo promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
The founding fathers were leery of copyright and patents as they were abused by the British King and the other crowned heads of Europe to reward favorites, censor works, or suppress inventions.
Without this provision the tendency be would for authors and inventors would be hide their work or work only for commissions by wealthy patrons.
However it not an absolute right. While every creative work is original every creative work is at the same time based on something that came before. Authors build on those that came before and others will build on them.
It is not fair that author can't profit from their work but it also not fair that other can't use their work freely as part of the common heritage of all people. Somewhere there is a balance, a balance I think the founding fathers of the United States did a good job of setting.
I think today the situation is out of hand. Patents are interpreted too broadly, obvious, or poorly written. The duration of copyright are way too long and the added duration creates a lottery atmosphere of striking it rich rather than promoting advancement in the arts.
Even worse the long duration of copyright threatens the preservation of many important works because the legal owners can not be found or are indifferent to their fate. Works that originated in the 1920s and 30 with their original creators long dead.
Fortunately people are figuring out how to route around the damage by creating a variety of open licenses and using them for their creative works. That the stronger and longer they try make copyrights the more useful these licenses become. And if should the opposite occur then they will revert to the public domain. In either case the work is free for everybody to use.
So after this long polemic, yes I am likewise glad libraries exist and would fight for their continued existence in making our common heritage freely available to all.
Quote from: The Traveller;567342Unless its a magic library, it doesn't do anything like what I described. I look forward to reading your creative work in six months, it shall be shared with gusto. Try and keep it sub $10k because, yanno.
I feel sad for people like you who think books only exist to be possessed or profited from. Some people actually read to gain knowledge or for research, but those words are probably an anathema to you. And to meet your idiotic need to make a library let you possess the item, the smallest of the three actually does that with MP3s. When you "request" a song you get a download link to a DRM free MP3 copy of the song which you then legally own. They are at the forefront of library usage.
Quote from: estar;567343The founding fathers were leery of copyright and patents as they were abused by the British King and the other crowned heads of Europe to reward favorites, censor works, or suppress inventions.
Indeed, this makes the irony of China ignoring copyrights and patents in the same way the US did at the start of the 20th century all the more interesting. Even funnier is how Hollywood exists for the same reason, patent evasion, given their ongoing pogroms. Actually now that you mention it, the modern day abuse of patents and copyrights is eerily similar to what happened regarding the aristocracy, the biggest campaign donations get the goose.
Quote from: estar;567343I think today the situation is out of hand. Patents are interpreted too broadly, obvious, or poorly written. The duration of copyright are way too long and the added duration creates a lottery atmosphere of striking it rich rather than promoting advancement in the arts.
Even worse the long duration of copyright threatens the preservation of many important works because the legal owners can not be found or are indifferent to their fate. Works that originated in the 1920s and 30 with their original creators long dead.
Yes, this is why I suggested reducing the length of copyrights drastically.
Quote from: estar;567343So after this long polemic, yes I am likewise glad libraries exist and would fight for their continued existence in making our common heritage freely available to all.
I have no difficulty with libraries. I do have difficulty with someone using the concept to excuse piracy.
Quote from: ptingler;567347I feel sad for people like you who think books only exist to be possessed or profited from. Some people actually read to gain knowledge or for research, but those words are probably an anathema to you. And to meet your idiotic need to make a library let you possess the item, the smallest of the three actually does that with MP3s. When you "request" a song you get a download link to a DRM free MP3 copy of the song which you then legally own. They are at the forefront of library usage.
Whatever gets you to sleep at night. So I take it we won't be reading the collected works of ptingler anytime soon?
Quote from: The Traveller;567348I have no difficulty with libraries. I do have difficulty with someone using the concept to excuse piracy.
I forgot that one on my list :p
Libraries have up until recently functioned in support of authors and copyrights. If you have 5 copies of book x, that's all that can be shared out at one time. Having 5 copies of book x and then digitally sharing 100,000 copies is something else.
It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies. What should that look like?
Quote from: The Traveller;567349Whatever gets you to sleep at night. So I take it we won't be reading the collected works of ptingler anytime soon?
Actually I do plan on releasing the gaming material I make under either OGL or CC license. But I guess the fact I haven't currently published anything and that others have already done so under OGL and CC rights means that you are unable to rationally think that people do indeed invest their own money in such a way. I also see after showing you that the library does indeed freely give you legal possession of some items you still think that only my personal publication of documents means anything.
Quote from: Lynn;567358Libraries have up until recently functioned in support of authors and copyrights. If you have 5 copies of book x, that's all that can be shared out at one time. Having 5 copies of book x and then digitally sharing 100,000 copies is something else.
It's similar to used bookstores.
At any given time there is:
(a) A level of demand for people who want to possess copies of work X; and
(b) The number of copies currently extant
When the level of demand is higher than the number of copies currently extant, more new copies of the work will be sold. If a creator wants to create a market for more new copies of a work, they need to either:
(1) Encourage people to collect their work;
(2) Increase the urgency people feel to consume their work
Both of these are traditionally achieved by improving the quality of their work. More recently, unethical content producers have used DRM to artificially force people to collect their work.
(Slightly different rules apply to live performances, of course.)
Used bookstores, libraries, and similar processes expedite the process by which people can move unwanted copies of a creative work to people who do want them. This is no different than when someone sells or donates the clothes that their baby has outgrown. Sure, Babies 'R Us would love it if everyone bought their baby clothes new, but the self-evident nature of property rights suggests that it would be absurd and unethical for Babies 'R Us to enforce some sort of Clothing Rights Management (CRM) in order to prevent people from reselling their baby clothes.
Piracy, OTOH, operates in a completely different fashion. It alleviates demand by increasing the number of extant copies. This directly undercuts the creator's ability to earn money by selling new copies.
This isn't a problem for Babies 'R Us because anyone selling baby clothes has to bear the same costs that Babies 'R Us does. But pirates don't: It costs time and/or money to create new work. The creators of that work have to pay those costs, but pirates don't. This gives the pirates an obvious and unfair advantage. Without the protections of copyright law, it would actively be a bad idea to create new works (instead of simply pirating existing ones).
Quote from: Lynn;567358I forgot that one on my list :p
Libraries have up until recently functioned in support of authors and copyrights. If you have 5 copies of book x, that's all that can be shared out at one time. Having 5 copies of book x and then digitally sharing 100,000 copies is something else.
And yet the scope of lending that major libraries do dwarfs any downloaded copy of rpg books. A recent Pew study found the average number of e-books borrowed in the U.S. is 29 a year. (Non e-book readers were found to borrow an average of 20 books a year.) Per Public Lending Right in the UK alone the top borrowed author for 2010-2011 was James Patterson at over 2 million copies of his books lent out. But of course, it's okay to read a book for free if you give it back. What if someone downloads James Patterson reads it on their iPad and then deletes it after they've read it? Have they done anything different than the person who borrowed it from the library? Of course not, but you guys already knew that.
Quote from: StormBringer;567360It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies. What should that look like?
Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.
Quote from: StormBringer;567360It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies. What should that look like?
Steam and Kickstarter.
Steam makes it abundantly clear that plenty of people are still willing to pay for creative work if they're sold a product they want in a convenient fashion, at a reasonable price point, without being crippled by DRM, and with a fair share of the revenue going to the creator.
(In a perfect world, Steam wouldn't come with any DRM whatsoever. But at least Steam's DRM generally doesn't reduce the value of the product.)
If that system does, in fact, collapse horribly then Kickstarter is the only option: Ransom the creative work until enough people pony up cash to cover the cost of creating it.
Quote from: ptingler;567383And yet the scope of lending that major libraries do dwarfs any downloaded copy of rpg books. A recent Pew study found the average number of e-books borrowed in the U.S. is 29 a year. (Non e-book readers were found to borrow an average of 20 books a year.)
My wife and I probably borrow 15-20 books a month from the library. Most of those are mysteries for my wife. If we did not borrow them, we certainly would not buy them. They are read once and most would never be read again -- buying them would be a waste of money. We do spend money on non-fiction books, however, but in most cases we've checked the book out of the library and found it useful enough to want a copy of our own.
Quote from: jadrax;567384Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.
Shakespeare is in the public domain. I fully support living artists getting paid for their work, but the current system is falling apart as the big media companies attempt to keep their stranglehold on the supply chain. Getting the artists behind a new scheme is not easy; there are plenty of musicians and authours who are happy to get a "guaranteed" 10% royalty check (after paying back the advance) from a company that allegedly takes on the "risk" and promotes the work, rather than risk getting 80% (possibly more, possibly less) by self-publishing and doing the work for themselves.
RPGs are even worse. A print run of 5000 is a
smashing success these days, but not even worth a second look by a regular book publisher. While many authours are mired in the advance/royalty system, the hobby industry is a good deal more free to innovate, and I think it will pave the way for regular artists and writers to start pulling away from the studios and publishers to make money without a middleman that usually provides very little assistance for what they charge the artist.
Quote from: ZWEIHÄNDER;566878As a consumer, are you driven to purchase systems that freely offer their rules online?
For the past ten years or so, I've been traditionally approached about what this RPG-thing is about and proposed games from there. That's how I got my regular RL groups running. From that standpoint, I'm the one basically introducing the games to the people in my circle, so having the rules free is not really an issue, one way or the other, though being able to tell them "here, you can get the rules for yourself at this website and you're good to go" always helps, right?
Online, it's a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I have noticed it helps tremendously to be able to say "we're playing that game in play-by-posts/over Skype whatnot. You can get the rules there for free." (Cue the Ptolus AD&D game here with the OSRIC rules available for free online right there (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/)).
Quote from: StormBringer;567360It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies. What should that look like?
That's the real disruption of today's technology, I don't think there will be a single model, or even a few models. If there will be any common element it will be based off those people who can make products that attract an audience of consumers that can be cultivated. The "hows" from there could vary widely.
Quote from: JamesV;567436That's the real disruption of today's technology, I don't think there will be a single model, or even a few models. If there will be any common element it will be based off those people who can make products that attract an audience of consumers that can be cultivated. The "hows" from there could vary widely.
That's a good point.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;567382Without the protections of copyright law, it would actively be a bad idea to create new works (instead of simply pirating existing ones).
I've heard that argument before, but I don't think it's a clear cut as that (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/04/french-anti-p2p-law-cut-back-pirating-but-music-sales-didnt-increase/). IMO, it's never been easier to have a shot at a living with or without copyright, because it's never been cheaper or easier to make and distribute just about anything. All you have to do from there is cultivate an audience and find out what they're willing to pay for, because there will always be something they're willing to pay for.
I'll admit that last statement is a little glib, but nowadays it's more than possible, and none of it has to do with worrying about what pirates are doing. Heck you do it right, and those pirates can become customers too.
Quote from: ptingler;567372Actually I do plan on releasing the gaming material I make under either OGL or CC license.
So I guess we'll file that under "any day now".
Quote from: ptingler;567372But I guess the fact I haven't currently published anything and that others have already done so under OGL and CC rights means that you are unable to rationally think that people do indeed invest their own money in such a way. I also see after showing you that the library does indeed freely give you legal possession of some items you still think that only my personal publication of documents means anything.
You appear to be responding to someone else, since what I said and what you are answering are completely unrelated.
At least be man enough to admit that piracy is wrong rather than coming up with ever more elaborate excuses for your behaviour. I particularly like the "human shield" approach you're taking with the libraries, thats classy. Note how I'm still not responding to your mp3 line, since obviously someone with so much to say about licences would understand the concept that libraries are licensed by some producers to do that. And this, of course, does not give you licence to do the same.
Quote from: StormBringer;567360It's been fairly obvious for a number of years that we need a new revenue model for most media; books, music, tv/movies. What should that look like?
Patrons, similiar to how art was produced prior to the institution of today's legal structure. The difference being that it will be far more democratic and accessible than the old aristocratic system.
Why did aristocrats fund art? Because of prestige and because well they like what the guy produced and want more of it. These desires are not limited to humans that are of the upper class with the advent of the Internet and technology like print on demand everybody can participate. Which was not the case before.
In short people will give money to the artist to make stuff they like provided it is straightforward to do and there is a minimum amount of legal protection to ensure they will see something for their money.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;567382Piracy, OTOH, operates in a completely different fashion. It alleviates demand by increasing the number of extant copies. This directly undercuts the creator's ability to earn money by selling new copies.
This isn't a problem for Babies 'R Us because anyone selling baby clothes has to bear the same costs that Babies 'R Us does. But pirates don't: It costs time and/or money to create new work. The creators of that work have to pay those costs, but pirates don't. This gives the pirates an obvious and unfair advantage. Without the protections of copyright law, it would actively be a bad idea to create new works (instead of simply pirating existing ones).
Good points but the issues on copyrights on creative works has unique features that make the situation problematic to deal with.
Theft involves unlawfully deprieving someone of their possession. One reason it is a crime is because the person no longer has the use of the item.
An artist carves a statue of a man staring at an apple. It would be clearly theft to take that statue and sell it. You depriving that artist of his statue. Nobody would argue that is not a crime deserving of enforcement and punishment.
Now another individual see the statue. And is skilled enough to replicate it in every detail. When he does so is that theft? The artist still has the original statue. The artist can still enjoy his statue or sell it as see fit. Should the copist be punished for using an IDEA? Because what happened is that the copyist took the idea of a particular man staring in a specific way at a particular apple and used it to recreate the original statue.
Therein lies the tension and the problem. As a free society do we want to be in the business of punishing people for using ideas? Fundamental to United States is the freedom of speech to express oneself freely without fear of oppression.
However it is desirable to get people to share both the practical and the beautiful. And as subsequent history shown even nessecary as billions are raised out of poverty thanks to the industrial and information revolutions.
These two worthy goals need to be balanced and I think the founding fathers of the United States had it right to include a limited time grant to the exclusive right to copy one's creative work in the constitution. That the old law for copyright where 27 years were granted plus 27 years on a explicit renewal more than adequately compensated artists for their efforts and still allowed work enter into the common heirtage of the people on a timely basis.
Quote from: estar;567486These two worthy goals need to be balanced and I think the founding fathers of the United States had it right to include a limited time grant to the exclusive right to copy one's creative work in the constitution. That the old law for copyright where 27 years were granted plus 27 years on a explicit renewal more than adequately compensated artists for their efforts and still allowed work enter into the common heirtage of the people on a timely basis.
Quite so. I would even support something like a one-time 35 or 40 year copyright. That should be more than adequate to reap the rewards.
Quote from: ptingler;567383What if someone downloads James Patterson reads it on their iPad and then deletes it after they've read it? Have they done anything different than the person who borrowed it from the library? Of course not, but you guys already knew that.
Unless there is some mechanism for it, there's no proof that it was deleted within the set time frame of the lending. Libraries historically track their lends, and fine borrowers for overtime and for the cost of the book. If the book isn't returned, the library has one less book to lend.
Quote from: estar;567486An artist carves a statue of a man staring at an apple. It would be clearly theft to take that statue and sell it. You depriving that artist of his statue. Nobody would argue that is not a crime deserving of enforcement and punishment.
Now another individual see the statue. And is skilled enough to replicate it in every detail. When he does so is that theft? The artist still has the original statue. The artist can still enjoy his statue or sell it as see fit. Should the copist be punished for using an IDEA? Because what happened is that the copyist took the idea of a particular man staring in a specific way at a particular apple and used it to recreate the original statue.
"A man looking at an apple" is an idea, but what his is doing isn't copying an idea.
The exact duplication of the statue is counterfeiting, and that's been a crime in many countries for many years, with somewhat differing penalties depending on what is being copied and if there is any form of transaction involved.
A counterfeiter transacts copies, and that can lower the perceived value of the original goods (through poor quality, missing parts, etc), or it can lower the demand for the original goods (because people can acquire it instead of the original good).
Quote from: Lynn;567567"A man looking at an apple" is an idea, but what his is doing isn't copying an idea.
The exact duplication of the statue is counterfeiting, and that's been a crime in many countries for many years, with somewhat differing penalties depending on what is being copied and if there is any form of transaction involved.
A counterfeiter transacts copies, and that can lower the perceived value of the original goods (through poor quality, missing parts, etc), or it can lower the demand for the original goods (because people can acquire it instead of the original good).
All true, for counterfeiting, but I think that Estar was looking more at the intellectual property aspect of the copyright.
The artist makes a statue of a man looking at an apple, and another artist looks at statue and makes one very, very similar. Artist A then sues Artist B for making something that appears very similar to his without his permission.
In another instance, if I were to go out and using my amazing (ly nonexistent) art skills, created an anime about intrepid heros fighting in transforming jets against giant green alien humanoids, I'm pretty sure that I'd be hearing from Bandai (or whoever owns the rights to Macross in the US this week) within a couple days with a cease and desist order at the very least, even if my storyline had nothing to do with the exact events of the original series and my mecha designs and artwork were noticeably different (especially since they would be pretty badly drawn stick figures...).
It's the interpretation that any similar core concept also becomes the property of the copyright holder that's leading to the creativity blight. And with the primary licenses being snapped up by large corporate entities that have the money and interest to pursue lawsuits, there's less likely to be unchallenged development as time goes on.
Quote from: Lynn;567567"A man looking at an apple" is an idea, but what his is doing isn't copying an idea.
The form and details of a particular statue are still an idea, one that has more specific details than the general idea of a man looking at an apple.
Quote from: Lynn;567567The exact duplication of the statue is counterfeiting, and that's been a crime in many countries for many years, with somewhat differing penalties depending on what is being copied and if there is any form of transaction involved.
A counterfeiter transacts copies, and that can lower the perceived value of the original goods (through poor quality, missing parts, etc), or it can lower the demand for the original goods (because people can acquire it instead of the original good).
One of the elements of Counterfeiting is intent to deceive or confuse. Without that element there isn't a crime. It understandable to associate copyright violations with counterfeiting because under the current law the person doing the copying will try to conceal the fact it was a unauthorized reproduction or face criminal and civil penalties.
However a copyist artist can copy the original statue without deception. Making sure that it is publicly and obviously known that the statue was carved by copier along with the fact it is a duplicate of the another statue.
In this case by punishing the copyist, society is punishing the individual not for fraud but for expressing an idea. Something that western civilization has determined to be a fundamental right.
However the freedom of expression isn't absolute. One doesn't have the right to should "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example. There are legitimate reasons for society to curtail the fundamental freedom of expression that human beings enjoy.
In my opinion the freedom of expression is of far more importance as a right. However as I wrote before there are very good reasons for given people the exclusive privilege to copy the ideas they create. In the United States it is a privilege not a right. Granted by the people to promote progress in science and arts.
I feel that the current laws do not fulfill the goal of progress and needs to be changed. For copyright my opinion is that all that is needed is to limit the term to about two generations (50 years) with a renewal requirement halfway.
Quote from: estar;567581The form and details of a particular statue are still an idea, one that has more specific details than the general idea of a man looking at an apple.
The devil is in the details though. I can take the idea of Star Trek and create my own fiction based on a futuristic republic sending forth exploration ships to strange new worlds, with my own spin on it. I
can't create a work called "Star Track", where Captain John Duke Ricard explores strange new worlds for the Confederation. If the originators feel it is close enough to their original work, I could then be sued and I'd probably lose. Personally I don't see a problem with that system.
Quote from: jadrax;567384Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.
Sir, I tip my virtual hat to you. You're right on the mark.
Quote from: jadrax;567384Plenty of people make a lot of money of works that are not in copyright. If you want to make long-term money, you need to look at how people sell Shakespeare rather than how they sell Disney films.
That's why WotC totally screwed the pooch with 4e. They, as part of Hasbro are more of a IP Brand Management company then anything else at this point. They were trying to manage an IP, when they should have figured out that the OGL meant they were simply the main seller of aspirin.
When you can't stop another company from making your old product, you have to
really make the consumers want your new one instead. They tried very, VERY hard to make people not want older versions of D&D and to be able to acquire it if they did. They played hardball, and in the end, lost.
They needed less Disney, more Bayer (who's still sellin' that aspirin).
I have all the official Eclipse Phase torrent releases and try to keep them seeded. I gave them to a friend, he's buying the hardcovers and is working on getting a campaign up and running. When he does, I'll grab the main rules Hardcover because I hate skimming pdfs for rules at the table.
Mission Accomplished Posthuman Studios
Quote from: Broken-Serenity;566885So long as the rules arent a pile of shite and the publishers/writers arent completly delusional about the system and willing to accept feedback about why said rules are a pile of shite(so if it was any good in other words) then sure i'd buy a printed copy if it was also available Open Source, afterall you cant really read a .pdf on the bog :)
huh...that'd make them different from the biggest players in the industry eh?
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567579All true, for counterfeiting, but I think that Estar was looking more at the intellectual property aspect of the copyright.
Counterfeiting is about intellectual property and copyright (and possibly trademarks too).
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567579The artist makes a statue of a man looking at an apple, and another artist looks at statue and makes one very, very similar. Artist A then sues Artist B for making something that appears very similar to his without his permission.
In another instance, if I were to go out and using my amazing (ly nonexistent) art skills, created an anime about intrepid heros fighting in transforming jets against giant green alien humanoids, I'm pretty sure that I'd be hearing from Bandai (or whoever owns the rights to Macross in the US this week) within a couple days with a cease and desist order at the very least, even if my storyline had nothing to do with the exact events of the original series and my mecha designs and artwork were noticeably different (especially since they would be pretty badly drawn stick figures...).
That would depend entirely on how much you copied Macross trade dress.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567579It's the interpretation that any similar core concept also becomes the property of the copyright holder that's leading to the creativity blight. And with the primary licenses being snapped up by large corporate entities that have the money and interest to pursue lawsuits, there's less likely to be unchallenged development as time goes on.
Create something that doesn't infringe. You can create things which are thematically similar to popularized works without infringing on them.
I agree that copyright terms (and much, much worse, patents) are out of hand. Id be happy with life of the author + X years + 1 renewal for X years.
Quote from: Lynn;567618Counterfeiting is about intellectual property and copyright (and possibly trademarks too).
That would depend entirely on how much you copied Macross trade dress.
No, what I described would be enough, because of the thematic similarities. Orguss, for example, would never be able to come out today in the US, because of the similarities. (I forget which one came first, but that's not the point)
QuoteCreate something that doesn't infringe. You can create things which are thematically similar to popularized works without infringing on them.
I agree that copyright terms (and much, much worse, patents) are out of hand. Id be happy with life of the author + X years + 1 renewal for X years.
Creating something that doesn't infringe is what I'm saying is becoming more difficult.
Quote from: The Traveller;567585The devil is in the details though. I can take the idea of Star Trek and create my own fiction based on a futuristic republic sending forth exploration ships to strange new worlds, with my own spin on it. I can't create a work called "Star Track", where Captain John Duke Ricard explores strange new worlds for the Confederation. If the originators feel it is close enough to their original work, I could then be sued and I'd probably lose. Personally I don't see a problem with that system.
Freedom of Expression give you the right to make your own Star Trek even a duplicate along as no other laws are broken like stealing props, fraudulent representation as somebody else work, a script, or aiding an actor to break their contract.
However this not desirable in getting the original authors to create more Star Trek so a choice was made to limit our Freedom of Expression to promote progress of the arts. The limitation being that the original author will get the exclusive privilege of making copies and derivatives works of their creation for a limited time.
I am calling the kettle black by phrasing it this way. It is a restriction on our inalienable rights and is only granted because it serves a useful purpose.
Remember copyright originated in the 17th and 18th century as a means of censorship and control by the crowned heads of Europe. To tame that pesky device known as the printing press. The Founding Fathers realized that but also realized that the opposite situation was not desirable. Hence the grant of limited time and making sure that the purpose for which it was granted was written down.
This view of copyright was not unique to the Founding Fathers of the United States. It was held by many others in Europe as well. Starting in the late 19th century a series of treaties were enacted creating the modern idea of copyright, so that authors and artist would freely share their work and profit from their efforts. And it worked out that copyrights, patents and other forms of intellectual property proved instrumental in the industrial and information revolutions, lifting billions out of poverty. So it was the right choice despite it restricting freedom of expression.
However taken too far it becomes an instrument of tyranny. And I believe we just stepped beyond that point today both in the United States and the World. And that it time to pull it back.
I also believe that this is inevitable due to the continued development of technology and just as important the idea of open licenses and creative commons. The Disneys of the world will bend or become irrelevant as people find other creative outlets. Just as the aristocrats of old lost their grip when the common man was able to enjoy the good things of life in abundance.
Mind you I am not advocating the abolition of copyright. For whatever time period the artist or author has copyright over their work I expect the law and society to respect that right. That any contribution made under public domain, open licenses or creative commons is to be made freely and without coercion.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567625No, what I described would be enough, because of the thematic similarities. Orguss, for example, would never be able to come out today in the US, because of the similarities. (I forget which one came first, but that's not the point)
Do you have an actual example where thematic similarity (similar to the above) resulted in litigation or even a settlement?
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567625Creating something that doesn't infringe is what I'm saying is becoming more difficult.
Don't try to sell something without doing some research first. It is true you can miss something anyway, but some people find it hard entering key words in Google.
Quote from: estar;567654However taken too far it becomes an instrument of tyranny. And I believe we just stepped beyond that point today both in the United States and the World. And that it time to pull it back.
While philosophically and morally I agree with you, taken from another perspective the situation today might provide an incentive for creators to create entirely new works. I've no difficulty coming up with a selection of fresh ideas, and don't need to mimic some franchise to any great extent (although its impossible to avoid borrowing from many, for identification reasons if for nothing else).
Look at JK Rowling for example, I recall watching a show on TV many years ago, long before she began writing, about a young witch in a stately old school-castle having adventures. JK may not have lifted the idea wholesale but I can see where she might have been influenced by it, particularly since this was broadcast in the UK.
Quote from: estar;567581However a copyist artist can copy the original statue without deception. Making sure that it is publicly and obviously known that the statue was carved by copier along with the fact it is a duplicate of the another statue.
That would also depend on what he does with it, since statues can be copyrighted. I discussed this with the USPTO, because I needed information on copyrighting objects on digital goods that are similar to statues, for which there's a process (submitting a bunch of photos and submitting a rather obscure form).
Quote from: estar;567581In this case by punishing the copyist, society is punishing the individual not for fraud but for expressing an idea. Something that western civilization has determined to be a fundamental right.
However the freedom of expression isn't absolute. One doesn't have the right to should "Fire!" in a crowded theater for example. There are legitimate reasons for society to curtail the fundamental freedom of expression that human beings enjoy.
There are many, many types of expression which are regulated or prohibited, depending on the jurisdiction.
Quote from: Lynn;567676Do you have an actual example where thematic similarity (similar to the above) resulted in litigation or even a settlement?
Sure.
Quote from: FOREST PARK PICTURES v. UNIVERSAL TELEVISION NETWORK INCThe work at issue in this case is Forest Park's idea for “Housecall,” manifested in the series treatment (comprising character biographies, themes, and storylines). This treatment and associated written materials are “works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium.” 17 U.S.C. § 301(a). Although Forest Park's Complaint does not allege that USA Network took its actual scripts or biographies, the subject matter requirement is met because the Complaint alleges that USA Network used the ideas embodied in those written works. That the work contains within it some uncopyrightable ideas does not remove it from the subject matter of copyright. See Briarpatch, 373 F.3d at 305. Moreover, because the ideas that are the subject of the claim were fixed in writing—whether or not the writing itself is at issue—the claim is within the subject matter of copyright. See NBA, 105 F.3d at 849; see also Montz v. Pilgrim Films & Television, Inc., 649 F.3d 975, 979 (9th Cir.2011) (en banc) (holding that an idea for a television show, once fixed in a tangible medium, fell within the subject matter of copyright); Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 455 (6th Cir.2001) (holding that an idea for a character, conveyed in storyboards, scripts, and drawings, was within the subject matter of copyright). Therefore, the first requirement for preemption is met.
This decision is still under appeal litigation, so there's nothing definite on it yet.
Quote from: 17 USC § 102(b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.
However, in 562 F.2d 1157
(Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellees.sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellants) (NO LIE! That's the Case name!) the court decided to further allow a certain expression of similarity of concept in the decision of infringement.
You can read that decision here (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/562/1157/293262/)
So, in my example previously, yes, I would definitely be sued, and they would win.
QuoteDon't try to sell something without doing some research first. It is true you can miss something anyway, but some people find it hard entering key words in Google.
As you like. But please, don't be condescending when you're wrong.
The big problem I have here is, if we're going to make the argument that "Well, since we don't know what would have happened if Eclipse Phase wasn't marketed in the manner it was, we can't really say that this marketing method is really the reason it was so successful", then we can't argue that piracy negatively impacts sales.
I'm not endorsing or condoning the act, but my belief is that piracy doesn't appreciably impact sales of items.
Several examples have been cited in this thread, and, if one has a mind to do so, they can see that there's rampant piracy happening with popular works, such as Pathfinder from Paizo, yet Paizo's continuing to rack up record sales.
No, I can't say that, were piracy eliminated, Paizo would still be at the same level, any more than I can say that they'd be making tons more money.
I just don't think things are as black and white as some try to make out.
I do truly believe that the vast majority of piracy is conducted by those that wouldn't buy the material otherwise, and of the remainder (i.e. those that WOULD buy the material otherwise), I think a large portion of those DO buy the material - witness such success stories like Eclipse Phase. No, not truly piracy, if it was provided for free legally, but the method of access is the same as piracy.
I'll use Paizo as an example again: People are paying Paizo essentially full retail (once you factor shipping in, after the subscription discounts) for books because they get the PDF free (Paizo's subscription service).
Paizo has repeatedly said that subscriptions are the root of it's business - and people are willing to pay full price to get the benefits of those PDFs, rather than saving, on average, 30% to buy from Amazon, and pirating the PDFs.
New subscribers sign up all the time.
Where I take real issue is the complete corruption of copyright, and the support of such a system.
Once again, I'll disclaimer: I'm not supporting or condoning piracy, but I find that I have little sympathy for supporters of current copyright terms/conditions complaining about their works getting pirated. I'd have far more sympathy for content creators who released their work under a custom copyright of a term far closer to the origins of copyright.
Personally, I am almost convinced to follow the Eclipse Phase route for ZWEIHÄNDER, providing I can convince my co-author to support it.
Quote from: kythri;567703Several examples have been cited in this thread, and, if one has a mind to do so, they can see that there's rampant piracy happening with popular works, such as Pathfinder from Paizo, yet Paizo's continuing to rack up record sales.
Paizo is riding on the back of D&D though, the first and hence most popular RPG.
Quote from: kythri;567703I do truly believe that the vast majority of piracy is conducted by those that wouldn't buy the material otherwise, and of the remainder (i.e. those that WOULD buy the material otherwise), I think a large portion of those DO buy the material - witness such success stories like Eclipse Phase.
This is a legitimate point, however it has nothing to do with this:
Quote from: kythri;567703I'll use Paizo as an example again: People are paying Paizo essentially full retail (once you factor shipping in, after the subscription discounts) for books because they get the PDF free (Paizo's subscription service).
Paizo has repeatedly said that subscriptions are the root of it's business - and people are willing to pay full price to get the benefits of those PDFs, rather than saving, on average, 30% to buy from Amazon, and pirating the PDFs.
New subscribers sign up all the time.
Best of luck with your endeavour ZWEIHÄNDER, if you can get a subscription model working in a similar way you should be alright.
I guess we might have something of a live case to see how these things work out:
Limbaugh newsletter shamelessly rips-off D&D (http://io9.com/5931018/rush-limbaughs-newsletter-rips-off-the-dungeons--dragons-monster-manual)
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567701Sure. This decision is still under appeal litigation, so there's nothing definite on it yet.
It will be interesting to see how that sorts out. Usually when presenting a treatment, you end up doing so at the risk of similar ideas already being in production or consideration. That's why a number of writers who submit treatments of shows, etc often end up seeing suspiciously similar shows going into production, some time after pitching their ideas.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567701However, in 562 F.2d 1157 (Sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellees.sid & Marty Krofft Television Productions, Inc. and Sid &marty Krofft Productions, Inc., Plaintiffs-appellees, v. Mcdonald's Corporation and Needham, Harper & Steers, Inc.,defendants- Appellants) (NO LIE! That's the Case name!) the court decided to further allow a certain expression of similarity of concept in the decision of infringement.
You can read that decision here
So, in my example previously, yes, I would definitely be sued, and they would win. (http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/562/1157/293262/)
Thank you for that example, and very interesting indeed! I seem to recall something about this at the time, though not the specifics. My H. R. Pufnstuf interests had moved on at that point...
However my read of that shows that the court found enough (what would later be labelled) trade dress violations to warrant finding for the plaintiff, and that it was very difficult for the court to separate unprotected ideas from protected expressions.
The notes are very illuminating. I also find paragraph 4 interesting in the disagreement over damages.
I agree that the specific expressions were very loose, and that the "total concept and feel" and the Unity of Idea and Expression sections show just how complex this specific case was.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567701As you like. But please, don't be condescending when you're wrong.
Your examples are interesting and thought provoking. I don't believe they completely support the broad generalization of giant robots fighting big green monsters necessarily violating Bandai's copyrights - not without specifics to compare.
I do deal with IP issues with digital goods on an almost daily basis, both on the development side and in dealing with people who rip us off. There are a lot of people who have opinions about IP who have neither experience or any creative properties of their own. If I came off as condescending I apologize - when your creations do get ripped off you feel mightily invested in these kinds of arguments.
Quote from: kythri;567703I'm not endorsing or condoning the act, but my belief is that piracy doesn't appreciably impact sales of items.
Ive heard that said, again and again, but typically supported with research that doesn't entirely support the argument (for example, the report that fewer mp3 transactions on torrent sites into France after passing their three strikes law didn't seem to increase sales of music in France).
Many years ago, when internet based software sales were still relatively new, Adobe found through their own research that while the vast majority of the users of Photoshop were using legal copies in Western Europe and North America, however many users of legal copies also used illegal copies of Photoshop plugins (this is not published anywhere - I got this directly from employees at Adobe who conducted this research for the company). At the time, people who were okay with spending $500-$600 for a copy of Photoshop, would pirate a $49 plugin.
You need to be able to decide terms, pricing and availability. Not all IP is the same in that regard.
Quote from: Lynn;567725Thank you for that example, and very interesting indeed! I seem to recall something about this at the time, though not the specifics. My H. R. Pufnstuf interests had moved on at that point...
However my read of that shows that the court found enough (what would later be labelled) trade dress violations to warrant finding for the plaintiff, and that it was very difficult for the court to separate unprotected ideas from protected expressions.
The notes are very illuminating. I also find paragraph 4 interesting in the disagreement over damages.
I agree that the specific expressions were very loose, and that the "total concept and feel" and the Unity of Idea and Expression sections show just how complex this specific case was.
Your examples are interesting and thought provoking. I don't believe they completely support the broad generalization of giant robots fighting big green monsters necessarily violating Bandai's copyrights - not without specifics to compare.
I do deal with IP issues with digital goods on an almost daily basis, both on the development side and in dealing with people who rip us off. There are a lot of people who have opinions about IP who have neither experience or any creative properties of their own. If I came off as condescending I apologize - when your creations do get ripped off you feel mightily invested in these kinds of arguments.
Ah, yeah, I can understand that [/defensemechanism] That case is actually considered to be an addition to the initial definitions laid out in Arnstein v. Porter 154 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1946) (http://cip.law.ucla.edu/cases/1940-1949/Pages/arnsteinporter.aspx), which was the original decision clearly identifying the access and similarity tests for identifying copyright infringement. I went with the later case because the subject matter and language were clearer in the scope of a copyrighted idea as opposed to a direct piracy issue (such as the majority of the cases you can find).
Also it was TRANSFORMING jets and giant green humanoids, those two details would probably push it right over the edge, especially if there was some kind of hero-ship to tie it off. But it was just a broad example, not something I have any kind of 'look what I did here' displays of. Perhaps FASA's difficulties with unlicensed artwork would be a better example. They even had to pull out artwork that wasn't directly from the various animes in order to comply with the derivative works issue, despite those having been done (i assume) in house by FASA contracted artists.
Now, I don't know all the specifics of that situation, so if there's a detail I've left out of it that nullifies the example, it's not intentional.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;567735Also it was TRANSFORMING jets and giant green humanoids, those two details would probably push it right over the edge, especially if there was some kind of hero-ship to tie it off. But it was just a broad example, not something I have any kind of 'look what I did here' displays of. Perhaps FASA's difficulties with unlicensed artwork would be a better example. They even had to pull out artwork that wasn't directly from the various animes in order to comply with the derivative works issue, despite those having been done (i assume) in house by FASA contracted artists.
Now, I don't know all the specifics of that situation, so if there's a detail I've left out of it that nullifies the example, it's not intentional.
I must have missed the transforming part, but with enough similarities in expression - its possible. Id worry more about Takara Tomy and Hasbro with anything that transforms from a robot into X. Even if there isn't any litigation, that doesn't stop bully-boy corporate lawyers from trying to intimidate you.
Licensed properties are a minefield of trouble. I license to customers one product that is based on a licensed property from Japan (Megurine Luka), and while the owners are relatively hands off, the terms that accompany its use are much more complicated that original IP that we own.
It doesn't surprise me that FASA had problems with IP. What used to get me was how in supplements for FASA's Star Trek they would have pictures of aliens that were famous people that were "aliened". I recall there being a DeForest Kelley Romulan and a Sean Connery Klingon in different books. Then others which were clearly derived from photos of girlfriends and buddies - there were some not very attractive Orion slave girls among them...
Quote from: Lynn;567734Ive heard that said, again and again, but typically supported with research that doesn't entirely support the argument (for example, the report that fewer mp3 transactions on torrent sites into France after passing their three strikes law didn't seem to increase sales of music in France).
But, if, as I posit, the vast majority of piracy is performed by those who wouldn't have purchased the content if piracy doesn't exist, then that's not a surprising discovery.
Where's my incentive to purchase CDs? Where's my incentive to subscribe to the PF stuff to get a PDF? Why don't I just download it for free?
The price for CDs or anything else is what the market will bear, correct? For many consumers, that price is $0. Clearly unsustainable, so can be rejected immediately. However, looking at products like the Humble Bundle, we find that there are a number of consumers that are willing to pay, just not as much as the companies demand. Usually, a Humble Bundle of three or four games and two charities is somewhere between $10-$15 on average. iTunes will often have somewhat current albums for less than $10, and older albums for $7 or $8, and of course you can only buy three tracks if that is all you want.
So, consumers think the 'correct' price is closer to $5 for (rather simple) indie computer games*, and less than $10 or so for albums. In both cases, the cost of the physical media, case and liner notes is less than $.50. Digital delivery eliminates even this meagre cost, so just about the entire price is profit. At those price points, I would be willing to bet piracy would be cut at least in half, as people tell their friends to stop being cheap-asses and get their own copy of the game/song because it can literally be had for couch change.
* Some of this downward pressure is undoubtedly from the pricing of smartphone and tablet apps
I still don't think so.
Certainly, there is a subset of piracy that is performed due to disagreement about the cost/worth/value of the prodcut in question. I just don't believe that it's nearly as big as some want to think.
Even if the cost of a song was a penny, with the cost of the entire album being a dime, I don't think you'd find much of a drop in music piracy.
Conversely, I do think you'll find more sales, but not from former pirates - from folks that weren't pirating and weren't buying.
Quote from: kythri;567786But, if, as I posit, the vast majority of piracy is performed by those who wouldn't have purchased the content if piracy doesn't exist, then that's not a surprising discovery.
Where's my incentive to purchase CDs? Where's my incentive to subscribe to the PF stuff to get a PDF? Why don't I just download it for free?
I believe that many of the discussions Ive read about how pirates don't buy, and therefore were never potential customers is an irrelevant red herring, used often as an argument against DRM or legislation like ACTA or SOPA.
A great deal of piracy occurs in industrialized countries with large middle class populations. We all know that piracy is particularly bad in Russia (and other Post Soviet countries), China, Vietnam, and others, and that economic factors can play into that.
But its still the right of the copyright holder to decide how and where to license their product. If I want to compete in the Russian market for product X, then I have to price and adapt accordingly. If I want to maintain a level of exclusivity or scarcity for product X - I should be able to do that (there are certain types of product such as stock photo licensing where that's important).
Quote from: Lynn;567966I believe that many of the discussions Ive read about how pirates don't buy, and therefore were never potential customers is an irrelevant red herring, used often as an argument against DRM or legislation like ACTA or SOPA.
Conversely, I believe that the claims of rampant piracy affecting sales, and the over-inflated claims of lost revenues are false, and red herrings used to justify overly-restrictive/crippling-to-legal-use DRM and draconian legislation like DMCA/ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/etc.
Quote from: Lynn;567966But its still the right of the copyright holder to decide how and where to license their product.
I don't dispute that - as I said, I'm not endorsing/condoning the act. It is, in most cases, under current law, illegal, and, more ridiculously, now a criminal act instead of a civil issue.
If anything, Eclipse Phase is a perfect example of how a company can openly condone "piracy" by adapting a Creative Commons license, putting it to use for free marketing and a pretty healthy margin. The numbers they've shared with the public are pretty damn good for a first run product.
Quote from: kythri;568039Conversely, I believe that the claims of rampant piracy affecting sales, and the over-inflated claims of lost revenues are false, and red herrings used to justify overly-restrictive/crippling-to-legal-use DRM and draconian legislation like DMCA/ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/etc.
I can't speak to the consumer music or motion picture industries. I believe music and motion picture industries do lose some revenue to piracy because I do know how it works in some other markets.
I have over 20 years of concrete, international management experience in the console game, software and digital media licensing markets. In these markets, piracy has a very direct effect on sales. Its a not so wonderful thing to see what you just finished investing a huge R&D budget on appear on torrent and "download" sites (that generate their revenue through advertising networks) and see your sales drop like a stone shortly thereafter.
Eventually something draconian will pass, because those who supported defeating those bills never come up with a less draconian alternative. Big Music/Entertainment has a deep wallet.
Quote from: StormBringer;567720I guess we might have something of a live case to see how these things work out:
Limbaugh newsletter shamelessly rips-off D&D (http://io9.com/5931018/rush-limbaughs-newsletter-rips-off-the-dungeons--dragons-monster-manual)
Hasbro taking Limbaugh apart, now that would be hilarious.
Quote from: Lynn;568069In these markets, piracy has a very direct effect on sales.
Can you provide documented proof that shows this? Or is is a correlation/causation bit?
I'm not specifically disputing what you're saying, I'm just challenging whether or not this can actually be proven.
Quote from: Lynn;568069Its a not so wonderful thing to see what you just finished investing a huge R&D budget on appear on torrent and "download" sites (that generate their revenue through advertising networks) and see your sales drop like a stone shortly thereafter.
How do we know sales didn't drop because word got out that the product sucked?
Quote from: Lynn;568069Eventually something draconian will pass, because those who supported defeating those bills never come up with a less draconian alternative. Big Music/Entertainment has a deep wallet.
Oh, to be sure, they do, and I'm sure something far more draconian will pass. Additionally, I don't truly hold out hope for real copyright reform.
On games: You can't pirate minis (yet). The cards/minis/subscription models are all in some way an "answer" to piracy. I'm hoping for a combination of open rules, a complete box set core with bits and pieces, and subscription-based adventure content as the new standard for mainstream games.
Quote from: beejazz;568164On games: You can't pirate minis (yet).
It is now possible, its just the technology hasn't become widespread.
Give it twenty, maybe thirty years and Bittorrent will have every toy soldier and Lego brick in existence on it.
Quote from: kythri;568145Can you provide documented proof that shows this? Or is is a correlation/causation bit?
I'm not specifically disputing what you're saying, I'm just challenging whether or not this can actually be proven.
I can't show anything publicly. Sales figures and the like are all confidential data.
Nowadays, with so much out of retail and being sold as a download, its much easier to track. Just as an overview, you can look at the appearance of products on torrent sites, and look at your daily sales reports. Another factor is if you have in-app activations of any kind or apps that "report back" and pass along some sort of unique identifier. There are always hackers who figure out ways to defeat that with a popular application, but it doesn't always happen.
You really don't have any sort of electronic tracking that you can do with content licensing, but you can do your own tracking of sorts, using tools like Google Alerts to figure when and where things are spreading, and also know the habits and whereabouts of your greatest enemies.
The best case is if you are making all or the majority of your sales directly to your customers. I had a content licensing case once where specific products were showing up on warez sites within a relatively short time. Then we analyzed our customer base. The next release, we were able to figure out exactly who was releasing our content to the wild, and dealt with it.
The tricks of tracking are tightly linked to how a company operates internally - its trade secrets. Conceptually I 'get' how movie and music industries work. It is believable they are losing money to piracy. Are they losing as much as they claim? That's hard to say, and they really won't (and its reasonable that they won't) provide information that would truly verify their claims.
You also need to understand product life cycles and how buyers make decisions very well for whatever you are selling, and not mistake the big flappy ear for the entire elephant. What's true for one type of reseller for example isn't necessarily going to hold true for your direct sales - something could get "old" on their shelf, but with direct sales, you can find ways to "freshen" your product.
Quote from: kythri;568145How do we know sales didn't drop because word got out that the product sucked?
If a product sucks...you probably already know it, if you know what you are doing.
Sometimes companies ship sucky products because of bad management decisions, and then someone else gets stuck with making the best of a bad situation. Ive had that. I had a client who had an awesome technology wrapped in an arcane, crappy UI. Basically, it was the underlying technology from the original "Genesis" device of Wrath of Kahn for procedurally based world generation (it came a long way after ST2!). Awesome technology, horrible, horrible UI. I had reviewers apologizing to me!
I've always felt you really need to understand what you are selling (how can you possibly hope to successfully market a product, otherwise?). But a product that may suck for one purpose may actually be a great product for another purpose. Hopefully you can retool your marketing (and your product) before you ship.
Quote from: jadrax;568287It is now possible, its just the technology hasn't become widespread.
Give it twenty, maybe thirty years and Bittorrent will have every toy soldier and Lego brick in existence on it.
If a mini was developed using CAD software, a file can be torrented, then someone could use that with a 3D printer to create knock offs.
To address the OP, it would seem to me that the way to do this effectively is to produce a "no thrills" version that is available free and then a more complete version available in both PDF and print for commercial sale.
RPGPundit