Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Valenor 01-24-08, 09:49 PM	I changed my thread title to what would have been “Piracy: Society’s Cancer,” but I felt “Another ‘Laughable’ Thread” would be more fitting for obvious reasons… Not long ago a store closed on my hometown where they sold RPG stuff, had a nice place to meet and roll some dice, play Magic, D&D and whatnot. And I can’t help thinking piracy was a strong factor (obviously not the only factor) behind such bankruptcy. Nowadays no one gives much thought on downloading pirate copies of books, software or music, thinking “I’m not affecting the author or the giant companies behind this product.” And perhaps they’re right*, but they are affecting pretty much all society, in this case, the shop that had to close. *Expanding on the subject of whom pirates are affecting, some of the authors most probably took into consideration such theft and increased the price of their product to avoid loses. Who will absorb the theft then? Honest people…and people trying to make a living out of selling legit copies. But still, I believe they are affecting the authors as well. Due to past experience, I’m predicting rude replies mocking this thread (hence its title), but if this changes at least one pirate’s way of thinking, I’ll feel it achieved its goal. REMEMBER: Just because you can download at the convenience and discretion of your home, it does not excuse it from being THEFT.
Dragoon_Warrior 01-24-08, 10:54 PM	I'll jump in before the negativity begins (as you are predicting) and agree with you. The music industry took the problem seriously and came up with some solutions then tracked down and punished the guilty parties. I think the community of DnD players may be small enough where the problem will be ignored. I don't know of to many people selling the pdf books instead of giving them away which makes it hard to track.
Valenor 01-24-08, 11:43 PM	I'll jump in before the negativity begins (as you are predicting) and agree with you. The music industry took the problem seriously and came up with some solutions then tracked down and punished the guilty parties. I think the community of DnD players may be small enough where the problem will be ignored. I don't know of to many people selling the pdf books instead of giving them away which makes it hard to track. You'd be surprised, for obvious reasons I'll not mention the websites, but I've reported a few...
OleOneEye 01-24-08, 11:47 PM	I have never known anyone to download a pirated copy of a roleplaying book. Is it truly a significant factor in the industry?
GeeBee 01-24-08, 11:51 PM	The guy who runs the FLGS was telling me that he was actually more worried about Amazon.com than pirates. The way he saw it, a pirate with a PDF still has to put out a good bit of money to make it a print version - and the legal stuff still looks nicer. He's convinced that enough people are willing to pay for a nice copy of a book than some sketchy scan. He's more worried about Amazon taking 33% off the MSRP of those nice books; if he did that, he'd be selling below cost. It comes down, at least in his opinion, to the "pay where you play" attitude disappearing.
GeeBee 01-24-08, 11:53 PM	I have never known anyone to download a pirated copy of a roleplaying book. Is it truly a significant factor in the industry? I don't know about industry-wide, but it's pretty rampant at conventions and other big gatherings like that.
Mock26 01-24-08, 11:54 PM	While I do not doubt that piracy does in fact adversely affect your friendly local gaming shop, I think it has more to do with internet sales, especially from places that buy in bulk and can sell at a much lower profit margin. Even with priority shipping in is almost always cheaper to buy a book online. That, in my opinion, is the primary factor in why small, local gaming shops go out of business these days.
Jaxgaret 01-25-08, 12:02 AM	I'm going to agree that online discount bookstores probably have more to do with it than piracy. Pirates probably wouldn't have laid out much cash on the books anyway, but purchasing from a discount bookstore online is cheaper and more convenient, not to mention the fact the wider selection at your fingertips and the chance to read multiple reviews of books you are considering purchasing without your having to flip through all the books yourself. Of course, any comparison depends on the particular local gaming store's quality of service.
Valenor 01-25-08, 12:05 AM	Even with priority shipping in is almost always cheaper to buy a book online. That, in my opinion, is the primary factor in why small, local gaming shops go out of business these days. I agree with your assessment, but even some of these local gaming shops sell below the marked price (probably getting their books from amazon or some other internet seller) and sell as third party sellers in Amazon themselves, therefore, it is not impossible for them to still compete. There's nothing wrong with some healthy competition like the one Amazon creates, it also makes books cheaper for us. What's wrong is someone not paying for a book they "own" because they downloaded it illegally. Even though this is not D&D related, it's worth a look to see a piracy problem: Call of duty 4 piracy problem (http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2008/01/pirates-plunder-pc-games-call-of-duty-4-and-crysis-feeling-the-pain.php)
Mock26 01-25-08, 12:26 AM	I agree with your assessment, but even some of these local gaming shops sell below the marked price (probably getting their books from amazon or some other internet seller) and sell as third party sellers in Amazon themselves, therefore, it is not impossible for them to still compete. There's nothing wrong with some healthy competition like the one Amazon creates, it also makes books cheaper for us. What's wrong is someone not paying for a book they "own" because they downloaded it illegally. Even though this is not D&D related, it's worth a look to see a piracy problem: Call of duty 4 piracy problem (http://www.gamingsteve.com/archives/2008/01/pirates-plunder-pc-games-call-of-duty-4-and-crysis-feeling-the-pain.php) Even if local stores sell below the suggested price they still can't compete with online stores who can sell hundreds if not thousands of copies of a single book in a month, whereas the local gaming store might sell a dozen or so. It isn't worth it for a local gaming store to buy 20 copies of book and sell them for a $1 profit. Even if they all sell out they will quickly saturate the market and will pretty much stop selling enough of any given book to make a difference in their profits. Local gaming shops just don't have as broad of a market as does an internet store. While it isn't impossible for them to compete, it isn't always easy, and it often isn't worth it for them to do so. As for pirated material, I really don't think that there are that many people out there taking advantage of it. Is it a problem? Yes. Is it a serious problem? I doubt it. Gamers, for the most part, are a peculiar lot. We like to have books that we can actually hold in our hands. We like the feel of the paper as we leaf through the pages. Yes, some don't and will gladly download pirated copies of books, but I really do think that they are a very small percentage. If pirated downloads was a big enough problem to force local gaming stores out of business then it would be a big enough problem to force the online gaming stores out of business. While I have heard of local gaming shops going under, I haven't heard anything of online gaming stores going under, and places like Amazon are still stocking D&D books. If they weren't able to push them out to the populace due to pirated downloads I think they would have slashed their prices long ago and stopped selling the items.
docballen 01-25-08, 08:31 AM	I've related this tale before on these boards; The gaming group that I was just in only had three individuals that had paper and print books; myself, my husband, and one other player. The rest use eTools to make characters and borrow books or use the pdf's on their laptops to check the rules. (I don't know if they have been buying the pdf's... I didn't know that there were any "legal" 3.5 pdf's...) We live in a town with three colleges and no game store. Anything they get has to be online. (I have gone to Waldenbooks and Booksamillion to get the few books that my hubby and I have... he's still in the gaming group, but didn't make the transition to eTools because it has too many errors.)
McPoyo 01-25-08, 09:44 AM	Any PDF's I own I either purchased online (through Drivethrurpg or the like), or I actually own the physical book, and just keep a copy electronically on my Laptop for those times when lugging about 50+ books really isn't feasible (which is admittedly rare) or when I am doing campaign work while AT work (in which case I can't have books strewn about the countertop or my desk, since that looks bad to the employees. Can't have the customers knowing that I actually don't work now, can I? :P ). That being said however, I don't know many people who don't use electronic copies even if they never have owned, or intend to own the book. You can rail at those people all you want, but it rarely seems to make a difference, since they usually stick by a "go mind your own business" mindset :(
Joe Khol 01-25-08, 09:52 AM	I'm not convinced priacy is a major factor in this because I don't think it's unique to gaming stores. I think it's just part of the more general trend of small specialist stores going out of business under pressure of bigger generalist (chain) stores and the ever growing internet market.
lastknightleft 01-25-08, 10:15 AM	Heck in the game McPoyo and I played in we had to players (that I got to join the game and regretted later I'm sad to say) that had no hard copies of the books and had illegally stolen every pdf they did have. I don't think it's the piracy the online selling or the generalist mega-stores alone rather I think it's a combo of all three that are killing the FLGS
lastknightleft 01-25-08, 10:16 AM	by the way how you been Mcpoyo
McPoyo 01-25-08, 10:18 AM	Not too bad. Gonna try to get my schedule shifted around to run something in the Summer. I'll send you an email when I know more :)
Naderion 01-25-08, 11:07 AM	The thing with small shops is, that amazon has everything "on the shelves", is cheaper than shops, and delivers to my home for free. Unless a game shop is also a social place for me, why should I try to find shops that are difficult to reach, to find they don't have what I'm looking for, and if they do, I can get it cheaper somewhere else?
toucanbuzz 01-25-08, 11:13 AM	Piracy is not so much a reason for the small gaming store to go out of business as it is the business practice itself. Heralding from a small town myself, I know my local businesses cannot compete with Wal-Mart's prices, or my local gaming store with Amazon.com. Since the store cannot win on price, they've got to offer the customers something else. A "loyalty" card giving rebates after so many purchases, greeting customers by name, hosting events to expose others to the friendly atmosphere, offering aid once you enter the store....any number of things can make up the difference to the consumer at little to no extra cost. With that said, piracy still sucks and is wrong. I shouldn't have to bear any extra cost because I'm honest, but it happens.
Azuelle 01-25-08, 11:27 AM	I changed my thread title to what would have been “Piracy: Society’s Cancer,” but I felt “Another ‘Laughable’ Thread” would be more fitting for obvious reasons… Not long ago a store closed on my hometown where they sold RPG stuff, had a nice place to meet and roll some dice, play Magic, D&D and whatnot. And I can’t help thinking piracy was a strong factor (obviously not the only factor) behind such bankruptcy. Nowadays no one gives much thought on downloading pirate copies of books, software or music, thinking “I’m not affecting the author or the giant companies behind this product.” And perhaps they’re right*, but they are affecting pretty much all society, in this case, the shop that had to close. *Expanding on the subject of whom pirates are affecting, some of the authors most probably took into consideration such theft and increased the price of their product to avoid loses. Who will absorb the theft then? Honest people…and people trying to make a living out of selling legit copies. But still, I believe they are affecting the authors as well. Due to past experience, I’m predicting rude replies mocking this thread (hence its title), but if this changes at least one pirate’s way of thinking, I’ll feel it achieved its goal. REMEMBER: Just because you can download at the convenience and discretion of your home, it does not excuse it from being THEFT. I spend all my money on entertainment if i download most everything i can get i'm still out there picking up cds' for something new and to form a bond with, i may have all the d&d stuff in my computer but owning it is my first goal (my goal is to buy all the d&d books for my libray) having a digital record of it all incase of fire is another and i never feel ownership with things i download at best i have them. -Azuelle
Edymnion 01-25-08, 12:37 PM	The guy who runs the FLGS was telling me that he was actually more worried about Amazon.com than pirates. The way he saw it, a pirate with a PDF still has to put out a good bit of money to make it a print version - and the legal stuff still looks nicer. He's convinced that enough people are willing to pay for a nice copy of a book than some sketchy scan. He's more worried about Amazon taking 33% off the MSRP of those nice books; if he did that, he'd be selling below cost. It comes down, at least in his opinion, to the "pay where you play" attitude disappearing.And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the real reason that mom and pop game shops are going under. It has nothing to do with piracy (or almost nothing), and everything to do with the fact that you can get the same product somewhere else cheaper and easier, and often times, without the bad attitude. We had our last gaming store in town shut down a few months ago. And you know what? Good riddance, and this has been true of most game shops I've been to. The owners are typically fans and players, which one would tend to think is a good thing. Its not. It means that they bias what they carry towards what they like, meaning anyone that doesn't have the same taste as them is generally out of luck. And should you try to ask them to special order something that they don't like, more often than not you get them telling you why X is better, or why what you want sucks, instead of just getting it for you. Our last one was like. Owner was a diehard Faerun fan, and anything that wasn't Faerun wasn't worth his shelf space. He had *TWO* Eberron products on his shelf. One module, and the character sheets. Thats it. He would say he'd order an Eberron book for you, but you know, it just never quite seems to come in, if you know what I mean. So, long story short, I stopped supporting my local gaming stores when my local gaming stores stopped supporting me. Book chains like Books a Million carry larger selections, at the same price, and I don't have to get "the look" from them every time I buy something they don't approve of, or get lied to my face whenever they don't want to do something. Unless they have a degree in business administration, fanboys make for lousy store owners. They only buy what they want, they only cater to the kind of gamer that they are, and they purposely alienate those they don't personally like. And people wonder why they fail. Bottom line for me: Lower Prices + Better Service = My Business. If the locals can't compete with prices, they can at least try to compete with better service. But when I get better service from the 20 something slacker picking his nose when he thinks nobody is looking than I do from the local gaming store guys, the local gaming guys have struck out.
Wight_Chocolate 01-25-08, 01:02 PM	Piracy is piracy. It is not theft. Theft would be if you went into a gaming store and stole a real, tangible book. In that case the store has actually lost something. If you download a book illegally, what does the store lose then? Nothing, except for your business. A store also loses your business when you just decide not to buy something, so if you want to use that line of logic, everyone who looks at a book, thinks about buying it and then chooses not to is also guilty of theft and contributing to the ramping up of prices for those honest people out there.
Drackthor 01-25-08, 01:11 PM	A store also loses your business when you just decide not to buy something, so if you want to use that line of logic, everyone who looks at a book, thinks about buying it and then chooses not to is also guilty of theft and contributing to the ramping up of prices for those honest people out there. Which is why the general public suffers from Pirates. Nice going, honest working man. >:|
Toran_A_Sunder 01-25-08, 01:28 PM	And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the real reason that mom and pop game shops are going under. It has nothing to do with piracy (or almost nothing), and everything to do with the fact that you can get the same product somewhere else cheaper and easier, and often times, without the bad attitude. We had our last gaming store in town shut down a few months ago. And you know what? Good riddance, and this has been true of most game shops I've been to. The owners are typically fans and players, which one would tend to think is a good thing. Its not. It means that they bias what they carry towards what they like, meaning anyone that doesn't have the same taste as them is generally out of luck. And should you try to ask them to special order something that they don't like, more often than not you get them telling you why X is better, or why what you want sucks, instead of just getting it for you. Our last one was like. Owner was a diehard Faerun fan, and anything that wasn't Faerun wasn't worth his shelf space. He had *TWO* Eberron products on his shelf. One module, and the character sheets. Thats it. He would say he'd order an Eberron book for you, but you know, it just never quite seems to come in, if you know what I mean. So, long story short, I stopped supporting my local gaming stores when my local gaming stores stopped supporting me. Book chains like Books a Million carry larger selections, at the same price, and I don't have to get "the look" from them every time I buy something they don't approve of, or get lied to my face whenever they don't want to do something. Unless they have a degree in business administration, fanboys make for lousy store owners. They only buy what they want, they only cater to the kind of gamer that they are, and they purposely alienate those they don't personally like. And people wonder why they fail. Bottom line for me: Lower Prices + Better Service = My Business. If the locals can't compete with prices, they can at least try to compete with better service. But when I get better service from the 20 something slacker picking his nose when he thinks nobody is looking than I do from the local gaming store guys, the local gaming guys have struck out. Abso-floggin-lutely. The only "gaming" store I actually have shopped at that didn't have this issue was in fact a comic store. I think the only reason they carried RP book (and strangely enough, an exponentially greater selection than the actualy gaming stores) was to keep up with their "yes we're a comic store. yes were geeks" image. But they always had excellent customer service, and they offered a number of "rewards" for shopping with them. And they had what I wanted when I wanted it 9 times out of 10. Gaming stores are slowly becoming a thing of the past. For years they rested complacent in the knowledge that they were it. If you couldn't/wouldn't/didn't get it from them, you didn't get it at all. That mindset contributed to their complete lack of customer service skills. Now they're not the only show in town. If Gaming Store X doesnt have it, I can probably drive down to B&N or Borders or Walden and get what I want. Failing that, there is Amazon.com. As for piracy. Yeah. Its bad. Unless there on big ships with cutlass and rum and parrots. :D
Someone 01-25-08, 01:47 PM	As for piracy. Yeah. Its bad. Unless there on big ships with cutlass and rum and parrots. :DAnd wenches and cannons and monkeys and booty.
McPoyo 01-25-08, 02:00 PM	I second the wenches and booty comment. There's only really been one "good" FLGS around me, and it went out of business when the owner's wife convinced him to move back up north to be nearer family. If you wanted it, it would be ordered and in within 4 days. They carried quite a selection. Best part? If you got together a group of people who all wanted to play the same thing, they would start carrying the stuff for it, with out you even having to order specifically. It was amazing, and they ACTUALLY MADE MONEY DOING IT! I attribute that to the fact that the employees were really helpful, and they sublimated any particular Genre favoritism they had and were more than willing to explain anything about their products. I actually miss the place quite a bit, since I've never been able to find a place that even remotely lived up to the standard they set.
Stardust 01-25-08, 02:04 PM	With regards to PDFs, my general approach is that if there's a new book and i don't know if it's worth buying, I'll tend to download the PDF and take a browse through it. If there's a few things I like the look of, then I'll hop on amazon and buy the book, because I hate using PDFs for any length of time. I basically treat them as an evaluation. If I don't like the book, I just delete the PDF, because I wouldn't use it anyway. I've actually bought a lot more books than I otherwise would have because I've had the chance to download a (technically illegal, I guess) PDF copy beforehand. When I DM, I tell my players they can use more or less any non-core WotC material, so long as at least one player in the group owns a physical copy of the book. It tends to work out alright - we have in the region of 60-70 books between us, which is quite a lot considering they're nearly all 3.5 As for local gaming stores, the one in my hometown didn't even stock anything except 3.5 core last time I went in - the guy behind the counter said there's just no demand for them at all these days. He was good enough to offer to order in a particular book if I wanted it, but the fact is it's somewhere I barely ever go anyway (very small, not really into comics/wargaming, which is their main stock) and I can get everything cheaper online. There's my contribution, make of it what you will.
Thakowsaizmu 01-25-08, 02:25 PM	You know, in my area two of the three local gaming stores (by local I mean within a two county area) have gone out of business. We used to frequent all three because more oft than not if one didn't have what we were looking for the others did. One of the big things was indeed the internet that lead to the fall of two of those mighty RP stores. Sure, they could hold back Goblins, but once the Evil Witch-King Amazon.com came along... well it was a fierce battle... Anyways, inane rambling aside, my Girlfriend and I try not to buy books or dice from the one that is left. We also encourage our friends to only get stuff from there too because they are the only one left in the area, they know us by name and have a great selection. I honestly felt bad buying a book from Borders with a gift card, but the person I got the card from didn't know any better. For me and the rest of my group, we don't think that it is just piracy and internet alone that is killing the stores, we also believe that all of these new editions of things are hurting as well. Since the release of the nWoD from WW the store has sold about none of the new books. They still sell the olde ones, but in this area I guess there is just no interest in the nWoD. With the release of 4e D&D they are expecting to lose more business. They did an informal poll and just about noöne said that they were interested in it save for one extremely inebriated man who was rambling about how if we don't convert to 4e we'll die because survival of the fittest man... you gotta adapt of you'll die... 4e is the future man and you gotta die. We mostly ignored him.
StormKnight 01-25-08, 02:38 PM	Piracy is piracy. To be picky, piracy isn't even piracy. 'Piracy' in this context is unauthorized copying, or possibly copywrite violation. But that doesn't sound as nasty for those who want to complain about it, and doesn't sound as 'cool' for those who want to do it. C'mon all you 'unauthorized copyers' out there (see, just doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?) fork over a coupla bucks - its worth it to have nice professionally printed and bound book. But I agree with others - discount online prices is the real culprit. Plus distribution schemes that make online purchasing much more attractive. (I'm lookin' at you, D&D minis!)
Amon_V 01-25-08, 05:50 PM	Unauthorised Copying... on grounds that when you "OWN" something, you aren't allowed to copy it or resell it, because every time we buy a book, we sign a long contract that spells out what we can and can not do with it, and every purchase expressly prohibits sharing this information. Except that we never sign these kinds of agreements when we buy the hard versions of books. Legally, there are copyright problems if these things are sold for profit--but where's the profit? Sharing books and files through the internet isn't piracy. It's Altruism. Now more people can enjoy the content of the book and more ideas can be shared. Think about it this way; anything that you post on these forums, at any time, can be incorporated into a Wizards of the Coast product, without you getting a dime in compensation, or any involvement that you made the item. So, why not spin it around on Wizards? They use your ideas and don't pay you, you use their ideas and don't pay them. Face it, it only takes one person to share what it takes hundreds to create. A Old-School monopolist is highly resentful of this model. A smart person would see this as an opportunity--place ADs in the online books, and distribute them freely. The Idea that "Piracy" is wrong--the idea that we can't share our property as we see fit is wrong. And Wizards already has a pretty good "Free Game" of their own on the SRD. It's interesting to note that they seem like they are going to screw over everyone with 4th Ed in that regard, but at least for 3rd Ed they made it playable with just the internet. I know that I'm going to get flamed for this post. I'm just pointing out that when you buy a book, you acquire the power to copy it. We can scream over this until we pass out, but that's the way the world works, and decisions need to reflect reality.
Valenor 01-26-08, 12:27 AM	Think about it this way; anything that you post on these forums, at any time, can be incorporated into a Wizards of the Coast product, without you getting a dime in compensation, or any involvement that you made the item. So, why not spin it around on Wizards? They use your ideas and don't pay you, you use their ideas and don't pay them. Why don't you ask that to Brian R. James, the creator of Grand History of the Realms, he did the Grand History, in your terms, in an Altruistic way, and got money (and credit) for it, when he didn't even ask for it.
Valenor 01-26-08, 12:34 AM	Piracy is piracy. It is not theft. Theft would be if you went into a gaming store and stole a real, tangible book. In that case the store has actually lost something. If you download a book illegally, what does the store lose then? Nothing, except for your business. A store also loses your business when you just decide not to buy something, so if you want to use that line of logic, everyone who looks at a book, thinks about buying it and then chooses not to is also guilty of theft and contributing to the ramping up of prices for those honest people out there. Did you even read what you wrote? "what does the store lose then? Nothing, except for your business" THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT, the store is losing money because it just lost your business because you're an inconsiderate pirate. With these replies it makes sense now... pirates don't have enough wit to understand the damage they are doing.
celestialkin 01-26-08, 12:46 AM	The guy who runs the FLGS was telling me that he was actually more worried about Amazon.com than pirates. The way he saw it, a pirate with a PDF still has to put out a good bit of money to make it a print version - and the legal stuff still looks nicer. He's convinced that enough people are willing to pay for a nice copy of a book than some sketchy scan. He's more worried about Amazon taking 33% off the MSRP of those nice books; if he did that, he'd be selling below cost. It comes down, at least in his opinion, to the "pay where you play" attitude disappearing. This is the same reason I miss the printed Dragon and Dungeon. I do not have my own labtop, and even if I did I wouldn't feel like dragging it around when I could have just pictured up a simple magazine. Anyways, I won't lie. Being a college student I often got my books at Amazon, since my local store does not give away $25 gift cards for using a credit card. Then again my local store chain gives you a $10 "stamp card" for every $100 worth of game products you buy, but you need to fill up the stamps one at a time (10 stamps total) by spending at least $10 for each stamp. In the end I prefer to go to Amazon and wait for the mailman than have to buy extra things or wait on certain purchases to "round up" every time I want to buy something.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 02:48 AM	Did you even read what you wrote? Did you? "what does the store lose then? Nothing, except for your business" THAT'S EXACTLY THE POINT, the store is losing money because it just lost your business because you're an inconsiderate pirate. Right. And a store also loses your business if you go in, look at a book, say "Nah, I don't want/don't need/can't afford/ that right now". Heck, you don't even have to say it. You don't even have to look at the book, for that matter. You could be in the store right now buying something, but are you? No. You're depriving them of your business by doing that. How utterly selfish and inconsiderate of you. And such behaviour is hardly limited to gaming stores either. All over the world, even right now, billions of people are depriving stores of business because they aren't purchasing anything at the moment. Believe me, that problem is far, far more widespread than piracy (or whatever you want to call it) is. If you're worried about stores not getting business, you'd better tackle that first.
ChaoticGood 01-26-08, 03:46 AM	Wight, You're correct that copying something illegally is not the same crime as actually walking off with a product from a store. A better equivalent would be this: you go into a barbershop, get a haircut, then walk out the door without paying. You didn't take anything from the barber - in fact, now he has all those great hair clippings for free! And a store also loses your business if you go in, look at a book, say "Nah, I don't want/don't need/can't afford/ that right now". Heck, you don't even have to say it. You don't even have to look at the book, for that matter. You could be in the store right now buying something, but are you? No. You're depriving them of your business by doing that. How utterly selfish and inconsiderate of you. The difference being, if I say "not right now," that implies that I intend to buy it at some point in the future, so that store that carries it, the the publisher that printed it, and most importantly, the author who wrote it, will all receive something in exchange for their work. Whereas if I say, "I can get it for free on BitTorrent," that pretty solidly means I have every intention of using the fruits of those people's labor, with no intention of giving any of those people anything in exchange for their time and effort. That said, piracy isn't killing small game stores; piracy is killing small game authors and publishers. Those are the folks who have put the work into the product, to play-test and proof-read and do layout and get funding for a manuscript before it ever even shows up at your local game store. The game stores are, as many other have already noted, going out of business because of the so-called "unfair" pricing schemes used by large suppliers like Amazon and the "big-box" bookstores. I say "unfair" with quotes though, because to a certain extent, there's nothing unfair about giving a discount to a buyer - be they corporate or consumer - that is willing to buy in bulk. If I win multiple auctions from the same buyer on eBay, I expect a price break on shipping. If I go to grocery store and buy peanuts and candy buy the pound, I get it at the bulk rate. If I am buying three cars at the same time, you'd better believe I expect the dealership to give me a better deal on them! So there's really nothing inherently unfair about a company that intends to sell thousands of copies of your book to expect you to give them a better price than you give to to the FLGS in Podunktown that might sell a dozen copies if you're lucky.
McPoyo 01-26-08, 08:27 AM	If you wanna get technical about it, when you own material like this you have the legal right to maintain a "backup" copy (or twelve, or however many really) for yourself for as long as you own the product. You don't gain the right to distribute or sell that item, however.
Valenor 01-26-08, 10:16 AM	Right. And a store also loses your business if you go in, look at a book, say "Nah, I don't want/don't need/can't afford/ that right now". Heck, you don't even have to say it. You don't even have to look at the book, for that matter. You could be in the store right now buying something, but are you? No. You're depriving them of your business by doing that. How utterly selfish and inconsiderate of you. WTH does this have TO DO WITH ANYTHING on the subject!? is innane babbling part of piratish lingo or are we looking at completely different channels here?
Valenor 01-26-08, 10:20 AM	That said, piracy isn't killing small game stores; piracy is killing small game authors and publishers. :invasion: Thank you!
Valenor 01-26-08, 11:28 AM	I have never known anyone to download a pirated copy of a roleplaying book. Is it truly a significant factor in the industry? I believe it is, take any discussion for example, put your "2 cents" in, then another person, and another, and another and eventually the society would have contributed to thousands... like the immense forums you're reading now. apply that to downloading, and even though "not many" people do it, take a book here, and a book there, and it eventually does add up to quite the loss for the authors/shops/etc...
CryoSilver 01-26-08, 12:34 PM	I changed my thread title to what would have been “Piracy: Society’s Cancer,” but I felt “Another ‘Laughable’ Thread” would be more fitting for obvious reasons… Not long ago a store closed on my hometown where they sold RPG stuff, had a nice place to meet and roll some dice, play Magic, D&D and whatnot. And I can’t help thinking piracy was a strong factor (obviously not the only factor) behind such bankruptcy. Well, we all know and have seen the plight of small businesses in America, but I'm somewhat inclined to believe you, especially since the demographic at which D&D is aimed: the adolescent middle class, is precisely the demographic most prone to Internet usage, both legal and not.
Revenant07 01-26-08, 01:04 PM	Abso-floggin-lutely. The only "gaming" store I actually have shopped at that didn't have this issue was in fact a comic store. I think the only reason they carried RP book (and strangely enough, an exponentially greater selection than the actualy gaming stores) was to keep up with their "yes we're a comic store. yes were geeks" image. But they always had excellent customer service, and they offered a number of "rewards" for shopping with them. And they had what I wanted when I wanted it 9 times out of 10. Gaming stores are slowly becoming a thing of the past. For years they rested complacent in the knowledge that they were it. If you couldn't/wouldn't/didn't get it from them, you didn't get it at all. That mindset contributed to their complete lack of customer service skills. Now they're not the only show in town. If Gaming Store X doesnt have it, I can probably drive down to B&N or Borders or Walden and get what I want. Failing that, there is Amazon.com. As for piracy. Yeah. Its bad. Unless there on big ships with cutlass and rum and parrots. :D Agree with Edymnion, and you. There are 3 gaming shops in 3 different cities that I know. I've found quite the opposite of what you guys explained and these shops have been successful because of it. The 3 stores carry all kinds of products, whether it be the Realms, Eberron, Warmachine, or just general board games. Also, the owners are extremely nice, and all three of them are past their prime. I always get friendly greetings and they never, ever pressure me to buy something else. It is because of service like this that the local gamers don't mind paying full price.
Eldritch_Lord 01-26-08, 01:27 PM	Agree with Edymnion, and you. There are 3 gaming shops in 3 different cities that I know. I've found quite the opposite of what you guys explained and these shops have been successful because of it. The 3 stores carry all kinds of products, whether it be the Realms, Eberron, Warmachine, or just general board games. Also, the owners are extremely nice, and all three of them are past their prime. I always get friendly greetings and they never, ever pressure me to buy something else. It is because of service like this that the local gamers don't mind paying full price. Agree with all 3 of you. There are 2 FLGSs near me, one of which I detest and one of which I frequent. The first one is...well, let's just say the customer service leaves a lot to be desired, shall we? On top of that, the owner plays D&D but hates psionics, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, and all of the, in his words, "alternative crap that comes out of WotC" (up to and including such "crap" as reserve feats and warlocks) and therefore refuses to stock them, order them, or even pretend to order them--if it's not the Big 3 or a Races book, he probably doesn't have it. The second, on the other hand, is wonderful. It focuses mainly on wargamers, so the owners don't have any opinions pro or con towards D&D, but they stock a better selection of D&D books than my B&N (but they get them slower; ah well) and are much more considerate personally. As a matter of fact, when I went in to get Complete Mage, someone who got there just before I did bought the last copy on the shelves. I was sort of bummed (it takes a week or so for them to restock) until one of the staff said that since they knew I had been waiting for it to come in, they had saved a copy for me behind the counter, without my even asking. It is disappointing that so many resort to piracy and that many FLGSs are going out of business. I can somewhat understand the wish to have PDF copies of books, so you don't have to lug around bags of holding full of books, but I don't see why they can't be considerate enough to simply buy off DriveThruRPG or somewhere else instead of jacking up the price for those of use who buy honestly.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 01:43 PM	You're correct that copying something illegally is not the same crime as actually walking off with a product from a store. A better equivalent would be this: you go into a barbershop, get a haircut, then walk out the door without paying. You didn't take anything from the barber - in fact, now he has all those great hair clippings for free! You've taken time, energy and effort from the barber. The difference being, if I say "not right now," that implies that I intend to buy it at some point in the future Ah, right. Because people are all perfectly decisive, and will invariably hold themselves to do something in the future if they decide at one point that they won't do it "for now". Still, I suppose you have a point. All those heartless people who just don't ever buy a product they've seen are the problem. Whereas if I say, "I can get it for free on BitTorrent," that pretty solidly means I have every intention of using the fruits of those people's labor, with no intention of giving any of those people anything in exchange for their time and effort. Let's take your barber example here. The difference between going to a barber, getting a haircut and not paying for it and just not getting a haircut is that in one instance, you are directly responsible for making the barber expend time and effort on cutting your hair, which you then don't pay for. If you just don't get a haircut, however, this doesn't happen. You aren't paying for something he didn't do. Now, let's look at the difference between getting a book (or rather, the contents of a book as opposed to an actual, physical book) without paying for it and just not buying the book. Either way, what happens here is that people just don't get your money. Their time and effort was already spent before you even became part of the proceedings. The book has been written. The copies have been made. If you decide that you aren't going to shell out the cash to buy the book then you've already done the disservice of depriving them of your business, so what difference does it make if you download the book afterwards? WTH does this have TO DO WITH ANYTHING on the subject!? is innane babbling part of piratish lingo or are we looking at completely different channels here? "NO UR WRONG"
Valenor 01-26-08, 02:31 PM	A store also loses your business when you just decide not to buy something, so if you want to use that line of logic, everyone who looks at a book, thinks about buying it and then chooses not to is also guilty of theft and contributing to the ramping up of prices for those honest people out there. Err... no, I don't want to use that logic, because it does not even qualify as logic. It's not even on the same area code as logic.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 02:40 PM	Err... no, I don't want to use that logic, because it does not even qualify as logic. It's not even on the same area code as logic. There you go, then. We've been in agreement this whole time.
Valenor 01-26-08, 02:43 PM	Now, let's look at the difference between getting a book (or rather, the contents of a book as opposed to an actual, physical book) without paying for it and just not buying the book. Either way, what happens here is that people just don't get your money. Their time and effort was already spent before you even became part of the proceedings. The book has been written. The copies have been made. If you decide that you aren't going to shell out the cash to buy the book then you've already done the disservice of depriving them of your business, so what difference does it make if you download the book afterwards? Allow me to explain it with pears and apples... if you want a book, and can't get it from anywhere else but a shop, you'll pay up for it, and their time and effort to get it for the public (that you recognize they spent) will be paid in kind and therefore will have money to buy more books for the public and for them to continue business and make a living... If you download it illegally, then you won't be paying for it at the shop, and the time and effort they have already spent, will remain spent, profitless, helping on the decline of their business. Nice going Mr. Pirate!
Valenor 01-26-08, 02:45 PM	There you go, then. We've been in agreement this whole time. :heehee I really like to believe you're probably on my side, but you just like to create polemic and controversy on the forums, actually, because of you this thread has remained in the top 10, thanks :D
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 02:59 PM	Allow me to explain it with pears and apples... if you want a book, and can't get it from anywhere else but a shop, you'll pay up for it, and their time and effort to get it for the public (that you recognize they spent) will be paid in kind and therefore will have money to buy more books for the public and for them to continue business and make a living... How do you measure whether or not someone has received adequate compensation for a product of the mind, for something you don't actually have to own a physical copy of to use? Suppose someone released a book and nobody in the world bought it. For whatever reason, it just didn't interest anyone at all. The author (or authors) thus completely wasted their time in writing the book, and the printing company completely wasted their money in making copies of the book. Should we then blame all those people who had a chance to buy the book and didn't? Should they be condemned for being so selfish? Have they done something wrong? Nope. Nobody is obligated to buy the book just because you went to the trouble of writing it. Nobody actually owes you a single penny. Let's then say that all those people who didn't buy the book suddenly went and downloaded a copy of it. What difference has this made, exactly? The author and the printing company didn't get paid, and then they...continued to not have been paid. The net loss between the two scenarios is zero. Has any further damage been inflicted here?
Valenor 01-26-08, 03:12 PM	How do you measure whether or not someone has received adequate compensation for a product of the mind, for something you don't actually have to own a physical copy of to use? Suppose someone released a book and nobody in the world bought it. For whatever reason, it just didn't interest anyone at all. The author (or authors) thus completely wasted their time in writing the book, and the printing company completely wasted their money in making copies of the book. Should we then blame all those people who had a chance to buy the book and didn't? Should they be condemned for being so selfish? Have they done something wrong? Nope. Nobody is obligated to buy the book just because you went to the trouble of writing it. Nobody actually owes you a single penny. Let's then say that all those people who didn't buy the book suddenly went and downloaded a copy of it. What difference has this made, exactly? The author and the printing company didn't get paid, and then they...continued to not have been paid. The net loss between the two scenarios is zero. Has any further damage been inflicted here? That's exactly my point that we're looking at completely different channels, either that, or you are using a different theme to excuse piracy. If an author was so mediocre on his/her job, and a publishing company so stupid to publish their book, then they deserve to not get/make money for it. But, as ChaoticGood mentioned, these authors we're talking about have play-tested their books, went through countless hours to provide a quality book, and deserve to get their effort's worth... I half concede your point, but please consider mine: If you download a book you won't even like, chances are you're not going to read it, and even though you illegally downloaded it, you're really not doing any harm (in this sense you are right) If you download a book you really do like, and use frequently, then you've deprived the authors of the payment they deserve for a quality product they worked for. (in this sense, I believe you're wrong).
Mock26 01-26-08, 03:12 PM	Right. And a store also loses your business if you go in, look at a book, say "Nah, I don't want/don't need/can't afford/ that right now". Heck, you don't even have to say it. You don't even have to look at the book, for that matter. You could be in the store right now buying something, but are you? No. You're depriving them of your business by doing that. How utterly selfish and inconsiderate of you. And such behaviour is hardly limited to gaming stores either. All over the world, even right now, billions of people are depriving stores of business because they aren't purchasing anything at the moment. Believe me, that problem is far, far more widespread than piracy (or whatever you want to call it) is. If you're worried about stores not getting business, you'd better tackle that first. :looloo:
Valenor 01-26-08, 03:21 PM	:looloo: :clap: Thank you Mock, I was LOL
Amon_V 01-26-08, 03:22 PM	Look, this whole assertion of Unauthorized distribution = Piracy = Evil isn't fully based in reality. For starters, major businesses can and do copy each other remorselessly, even "Stealing" ideas when they can. You probably use Windows to run your computer, no matter that Windows started out as Apple Piracy. Japan has no claim to making the assembly line, making the first cars, or any of these things, and yet, because they "Pirated" the ideas of auto manufacturing, they are out to dominate the world's Auto sales. So, now, even though corporations have been doing this kind of idea theft for centuries, you are going to side with their silly claims that sharing information for free is somehow morally dubious? Someone's bought the corporate punchline. Hook, Line and Sinker. You OWN your Property. The people YOU BOUGHT YOUR STUFF FROM HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH IT. The only real case against someone is if they are selling the exact works of the authors without royalties. But where is the sales? This isn't a sale--It's no worse than posting a picture of a painting on the internet. Now everyone can enjoy the painting. And the dynamic is a simple one--authors do not and never will control the secondary market (reselling items) or free giveaways. This whole Piracy claim makes no sense.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 03:23 PM	If an author was so mediocre on his/her job, and a publishing company so stupid to publish their book, then they deserve to not get/make money for it. Who said it was a bad book? I can see why you might have got that impression though, so alright. Scratch that part. Our hypothetical situation is that we have a really, really good book, but for one reason or another, nobody ends up buying it. Does that change what follows at all? Doesn't seem like it. People still aren't obligated to buy it, the company still doesn't get paid, and the fact that they all go and download it afterwards still doesn't result in any additional losses.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-26-08, 03:25 PM	I would bet dollars to donuts that people who spend any amount of time trying to excuse why it's ok for them to pirate books or music or DVD are, in fact, pirates themselves, who think that the rules the rest follow somehow don't apply to them. It's childish really. You can sit there and come up with every excuse in the book you want as to why you think piracy is ok. In the end, you are wrong. Sure, you may eventually come up with a semi-valid point or two, but in the end the law is the law. Rules are rules. And while I do believe some rules/laws that are created are rather arbitrary, some are there to genuinely protect the people. You can put whatever theme/spin on it you like, in the end it doesn't take away from the fact that you are doing something illegal.
Edymnion 01-26-08, 03:25 PM	If you wanna get technical about it, when you own material like this you have the legal right to maintain a "backup" copy (or twelve, or however many really) for yourself for as long as you own the product. You don't gain the right to distribute or sell that item, however.The emphasis there is on "YOU have the right to MAKE a backup copy". Just because you own the book does not make it legal for you to download the PDF of it. The only way to legally get a PDF of a book you own other than buying the thing is to rip the pages out of the hardcopy you own, and scan them in yourself. The very act of downloading the PDF is illegal, regardless of if you own a hard copy or not.
Valenor 01-26-08, 03:35 PM	Look, this whole assertion of Unauthorized distribution = Piracy = Evil isn't fully based in reality. For starters, major businesses can and do copy each other remorselessly, even "Stealing" ideas when they can. You probably use Windows to run your computer, no matter that Windows started out as Apple Piracy. Japan has no claim to making the assembly line, making the first cars, or any of these things, and yet, because they "Pirated" the ideas of auto manufacturing, they are out to dominate the world's Auto sales. So, now, even though corporations have been doing this kind of idea theft for centuries, you are going to side with their silly claims that sharing information for free is somehow morally dubious? Someone's bought the corporate punchline. Hook, Line and Sinker. You OWN your Property. The people YOU BOUGHT YOUR STUFF FROM HAVE NO RIGHT TO TELL YOU WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN NOT DO WITH IT. The only real case against someone is if they are selling the exact works of the authors without royalties. But where is the sales? This isn't a sale--It's no worse than posting a picture of a painting on the internet. Now everyone can enjoy the painting. And the dynamic is a simple one--authors do not and never will control the secondary market (reselling items) or free giveaways. This whole Piracy claim makes no sense. But you're leaving to the side the actual effort that deserves to be paid. Yes, we've heard Bill Gates is an Epic cross class of Satan-Pirate (hey, I'm a geek and need to express myself in D&Dish) and how he stole the windows idea from Xerox or whatever. But... Take it from the World of Warcraft perspective... they are almost entirely based off D&D rules, still, their game took 7 excruciating years to develop. In the past, TSR tried suing people using their "created rules" and ended up losing because rules cannot be patented/copyrighted, and thus the OGL was born. Does this make Blizzard pirates because they didn't create all the cool D&D rules? No, because they knew how to sell their game because, again, they put 7 YEARS OF WORK BEHIND IT and knew hot to SELL the idea.
Valenor 01-26-08, 03:38 PM	I would bet dollars to donuts that people who spend any amount of time trying to excuse why it's ok for them to pirate books or music or DVD are, in fact, pirates themselves, who think that the rules the rest follow somehow don't apply to them. It's childish really. You can sit there and come up with every excuse in the book you want as to why you think piracy is ok. In the end, you are wrong. Sure, you may eventually come up with a semi-valid point or two, but in the end the law is the law. Rules are rules. And while I do believe some rules/laws that are created are rather arbitrary, some are there to genuinely protect the people. You can put whatever theme/spin on it you like, in the end it doesn't take away from the fact that you are doing something illegal. Amen Brother
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 03:38 PM	I would bet dollars to donuts that people who spend any amount of time trying to excuse why it's ok for them to pirate books or music or DVD are, in fact, pirates themselves, who think that the rules the rest follow somehow don't apply to them. Maybe they are. Maybe I do. Or maybe I'm just playing devil's advocate. You'll never know, and nor does it matter. I'm just another faceless person on the Internet. It's childish really. You can sit there and come up with every excuse in the book you want as to why you think piracy is ok. In the end, you are wrong. So are you going to make a counter-argument, or did you just feel like making an appeal to the emotions? Sure, you may eventually come up with a semi-valid point or two, but in the end the law is the law. Rules are rules. And while I do believe some rules/laws that are created are rather arbitrary, some are there to genuinely protect the people. You can put whatever theme/spin on it you like, in the end it doesn't take away from the fact that you are doing something illegal. Uh oh. Are we taking the Lawful Lawful alignment here? Nobody's saying it isn't illegal. That would be silly. Of course it's illegal, because the law says it's illegal. That is not, however, the same thing as it being wrong.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-26-08, 03:46 PM	Ok. It's not wrong. So here's my challenge to you Wight. You go create something, with the intent of selling your product to make a living. You know, pay your bills, put clothes on your back, a roof over your head. Maybe even do the same for your significant other and/or children if you have any. Then, I'm gonna purchase one of whatever your producing, make innumerable copies of it, and distribute it for free. Well certainly no one is going to want to spend money on what you're offering if I'm giving it to them for free are they? Uh oh! I guess you'll just have to starve and freeze, as will your family, because hey, I'm entitled to whatever you create, because I have a right to make copies of them and do whatever I want with them. Tough nails for you and your kids though, huh? You got what you deserved. Trying to infringe on my rights as a human being to make copies of your product and giving them away. How dare you!
Valenor 01-26-08, 03:47 PM	Who said it was a bad book? I can see why you might have got that impression though, so alright. Scratch that part. Our hypothetical situation is that we have a really, really good book, but for one reason or another, nobody ends up buying it. Does that change what follows at all? Doesn't seem like it. People still aren't obligated to buy it, the company still doesn't get paid, and the fact that they all go and download it afterwards still doesn't result in any additional losses. I'm not in Art so I won't be able to quote this phrase correctly: there was this awesome painter that died completely poor, and his Art didn't start selling for Millions until long after he was dead (thus making rich many other people in the process). In this sense I can see your point, heck, even the people who became rich made the artist the favor of making him famous. But really, it is a rather rare case. And that's not the point we're addressing here, but the point of a known good book that's not getting the credit ($$) it deserves. Again, you're looking at piracy at an angle that suits you to excuse yourself. Going to your hypothetical example, if there was such a good book that for some awesomely odd phenomenon no one would buy, and people downloaded the book, then it would start getting some reputation and eventually would get $$ from the people who deemed it worthy. Take Serenity for example, it came off TV because it had no good rating, they put it in the shelves and it sold like hotcakes. it was a good piece of work that had bad luck on the small screen, nonetheless, they got credit when they hit the shelves, there was no piracy involved in getting them to their feet...
Valenor 01-26-08, 03:49 PM	Ok. It's not wrong. So here's my challenge to you Wight. You go create something, with the intent of selling your product to make a living. You know, pay your bills, put clothes on your back, a roof over your head. Maybe even do the same for your significant other and/or children if you have any. Then, I'm gonna purchase one of whatever your producing, make innumerable copies of it, and distribute it for free. Well certainly no one is going to want to spend money on what you're offering if I'm giving it to them for free are they? Uh oh! I guess you'll just have to starve and freeze, as will your family, because hey, I'm entitled to whatever you create, because I have a right to make copies of them and do whatever I want with them. Tough nails for you and your kids though, huh? You got what you deserved. Trying to infringe on my rights as a human being to make copies of your product and giving them away. How dare you! BRAVOOOO!!!!:bounce: :clap: :bounce: :clap: Toran 1 - Wight - 0
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 04:01 PM	Ok. It's not wrong. So here's my challenge to you Wight. You go create something, with the intent of selling your product to make a living. You know, pay your bills, put clothes on your back, a roof over your head. Maybe even do the same for your significant other and/or children if you have any. Then, I'm gonna purchase one of whatever your producing, make innumerable copies of it, and distribute it for free. Well certainly no one is going to want to spend money on what you're offering if I'm giving it to them for free are they? Uh oh! I guess you'll just have to starve and freeze, as will your family, because hey, I'm entitled to whatever you create, because I have a right to make copies of them and do whatever I want with them. Tough nails for you and your kids though, huh? You got what you deserved. Trying to infringe on my rights as a human being to make copies of your product and giving them away. How dare you! Yep, appeals to the emotions. I assume your "point" here is that I wouldn't like this to happen? You're right. I wouldn't. But I do have more personal integrity than to declare that something is wrong purely because it's happening to me and I don't like it. I don't like the fact that my local gaming store doesn't stock the kind of dice I prefer to use either, but that doesn't put me in a position to complain about how evil they are. But really, it is a rather rare case. And that's not the point we're addressing here, but the point of a known good book that's not getting the credit ($$) it deserves. Again, you're looking at piracy at an angle that suits you to excuse yourself. Right. Of course. I'm arguing against you so obviously I'm trying to make excuses to cover myself. Nothing wrong with that logic, no sir. You're still missing the point, in any case. The hypothetical situation points out that nobody owes you money for writing a book, even if it's a really good one. So if you don't end up getting paid for writing the book, you can't hold other people at fault. They aren't shunning some responsibility by not buying your book. So if the people who didn't buy your book then go and download your book, what have you lost? It's a simple question and you won't answer it.
Valenor 01-26-08, 04:04 PM	Ok. It's not wrong. So here's my challenge to you Wight. You go create something, with the intent of selling your product to make a living. You know, pay your bills, put clothes on your back, a roof over your head. Maybe even do the same for your significant other and/or children if you have any. Then, I'm gonna purchase one of whatever your producing, make innumerable copies of it, and distribute it for free. Well certainly no one is going to want to spend money on what you're offering if I'm giving it to them for free are they? Uh oh! I guess you'll just have to starve and freeze, as will your family, because hey, I'm entitled to whatever you create, because I have a right to make copies of them and do whatever I want with them. Tough nails for you and your kids though, huh? You got what you deserved. Trying to infringe on my rights as a human being to make copies of your product and giving them away. How dare you! Toran, you've just hit the nail right on the head of what I'm trying to get to. It is not about laws, but morality. I'd like to put these readers on the affected author's shoes.... and if you would humor me: Assume you've landed a job playtesting a d20, board or videogame, etc (I know I'd like to make a living with such job) and the boss comes to you and tells you, "sorry kiddo, we're going to have to let you go, even though there are 10,000 players out there playing, only a portion of them actually paid for the game, and we'll need to let you go since we don't have the dough to pay you..." you can thank Mr. Pirate for that...
Valenor 01-26-08, 04:08 PM	Yep, appeals to the emotions. I assume your "point" here is that I wouldn't like this to happen? You're right. I wouldn't. But I do have more personal integrity than to declare that something is wrong purely because it's happening to me and I don't like it. I don't like the fact that my local gaming store doesn't stock the kind of dice I prefer to use either, but that doesn't put me in a position to complain about how evil they are. Right. Of course. I'm arguing against you so obviously I'm trying to make excuses to cover myself. Nothing wrong with that logic, no sir. You're still missing the point, in any case. The hypothetical situation points out that nobody owes you money for writing a book, even if it's a really good one. So if you don't end up getting paid for writing the book, you can't hold other people at fault. They aren't shunning some responsibility by not buying your book. So if the people who didn't buy your book then go and download your book, what have you lost? It's a simple question and you won't answer it. I'll have to go with Mock's response on that one... :looloo:
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 04:08 PM	I'll have to go with Mock's response on that one... :looloo: Ah, so we've come full circle back to "NO UR WRONG"?
Toran_A_Sunder 01-26-08, 04:12 PM	Yep, appeals to the emotions. I assume your "point" here is that I wouldn't like this to happen? You're right. I wouldn't. But I do have more personal integrity than to declare that something is wrong purely because it's happening to me and I don't like it. I don't like the fact that my local gaming store doesn't stock the kind of dice I prefer to use either, but that doesn't put me in a position to complain about how evil they are. Right. Of course. I'm arguing against you so obviously I'm trying to make excuses to cover myself. Nothing wrong with that logic, no sir. You're still missing the point, in any case. The hypothetical situation points out that nobody owes you money for writing a book, even if it's a really good one. So if you don't end up getting paid for writing the book, you can't hold other people at fault. They aren't shunning some responsibility by not buying your book. So if the people who didn't buy your book then go and download your book, what have you lost? It's a simple question and you won't answer it. Appeals to the emotions? How about appeals to reality. Because whether or not you feel that you don't owe anybody money for the books they write doesn't change the fact that you do. Why? Because you wouldn't have that book if someone didn't write it. And because that someone relies on you puchasing said book to feed, clothe, and house himself/herself and their family. And considering that you are sitting here, trying to excuse that you have the right as a human to whatever someone else creates, I wouldn't try to push the personal integrity card. It doesn't matter that you don't like that it's happening to you. It matters that you depend on that money to survive. Or rather the people writing these books depend on that money to survive. If you wanna pirate books, then pirate books. Have fun. Whatever. But just be honest about the fact that it is wrong. Don't sit there and try to tell me that it's actually ok, when the entirety of human history disagrees with you. You don't get something for nothing. You get something for something. This has been true since man evolved enough to begin bartering and selling the goods he produced. Just because you think you're special for some reason, that because you say its right when its wrong, doesn't make it truth. "But you saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. That's your opinion." Yeah. But no. Again, the history of economy/business disagrees with you. You raise goats. I want one of your goats so I can eat. But if I just take your goat, then what do you get? Now you have no goat to feed yourself. But hey, you had the goat, you raised it. I actually was in no way whatsoever involved with your raising goats until just now, when I took it from you. But I have a right to. And you can rot in hell. I don't care if you're gonna starve, cus I have the goat, and I wont starve.
Valenor 01-26-08, 04:22 PM	Appeals to the emotions? How about appeals to reality. Because whether or not you feel that you don't owe anybody money for the books they write doesn't change the fact that you do. Why? Because you wouldn't have that book if someone didn't write it. And because that someone relies on you puchasing said book to feed, clothe, and house himself/herself and their family. And considering that you are sitting here, trying to excuse that you have the right as a human to whatever someone else creates, I wouldn't try to push the personal integrity card. It doesn't matter that you don't like that it's happening to you. It matters that you depend on that money to survive. Or rather the people writing these books depend on that money to survive. If you wanna pirate books, then pirate books. Have fun. Whatever. But just be honest about the fact that it is wrong. Don't sit there and try to tell me that it's actually ok, when the entirety of human history disagrees with you. You don't get something for nothing. You get something for something. This has been true since man evolved enough to begin bartering and selling the goods he produced. Just because you think you're special for some reason, that because you say its right when its wrong, doesn't make it truth. "But you saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. That's your opinion." Yeah. But no. Again, the history of economy/business disagrees with you. You raise goats. I want one of your goats so I can eat. But if I just take your goat, then what do you get? Now you have no goat to feed yourself. But hey, you had the goat, you raised it. I actually was in no way whatsoever involved with your raising goats until just now, when I took it from you. But I have a right to. And you can rot in hell. I don't care if you're gonna starve, cus I have the goat, and I wont starve. :dancin: :pile: :ayyyy!: Go Toran, Go Toran! yaaaay Toran -2 Wight -0 Wight, your discussion is going pretty much downhill like that thread you started about "bemoaning" 4.0 (LOL, sorry, I know this one was under the belt, but I couldn't help it.) This discussion is REALLY getting interesting. I have been proven wrong on one thing: No one, not even Wight who's fighting on the other side of the argument, has made a rude (vulgar) comment. This far the thread has remained vulgarity free, unlike I predicted on my original thread. Thanks all!
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 04:24 PM	Appeals to the emotions? How about appeals to reality. No, appealing to my emotions is precisely what you're doing. You're saying "You wouldn't like it to happen to you, would you?" That's exactly what appealing to the emotions is. Dislike of something is an emotion. And because that someone relies on you puchasing said book to feed, clothe, and house himself/herself and their family. The fact that someone needs my money to maintain their livelihood in NO WAY obligates me to give them that money. And considering that you are sitting here, trying to excuse that you have the right as a human to whatever someone else creates, I wouldn't try to push the personal integrity card. "You, you, you, you, you". Try making an argument that doesn't fall under the category of "ad hominem". It doesn't matter that you don't like that it's happening to you. It matters that you depend on that money to survive. Or rather the people writing these books depend on that money to survive. I depend on the money to survive, but that doesn't mean other people are obligated to pay me money. Again, see my first few posts. If you just don't buy my books, you're doing just as much damage to me as if you go home and pirate my books. You raise goats. I want one of your goats so I can eat. But if I just take your goat, then what do you get? Now you have no goat to feed yourself. But hey, you had the goat, you raised it. I actually was in no way whatsoever involved with your raising goats until just now, when I took it from you. But I have a right to. And you can rot in hell. I don't care if you're gonna starve, cus I have the goat, and I wont starve. No. See, there you took my goat. You have caused me to lose something that is rightfully mine. I owned that goat, and you stole it, and now I no longer have it. Now, suppose you were thinking about buying a goat. Is the money that you would pay me for a goat rightfully mine? NO. Not until you actually give it to me, anyway. I am in no position to condemn you for not buying a goat, because you don't owe that to me. :dancin: :pile: :ayyyy!: Go Toran, Go Toran! yaaaay Toran -2 Wight -0 I'm quite sure that Toran doesn't need a yes-man. If you don't actually have a point to make then do have the decency not to spam the thread with useless comments.
Valenor 01-26-08, 04:28 PM	I'm quite sure that Toran doesn't need a yes-man. If you don't actually have a point to make then do have the decency not to spam the thread with useless comments. aaawww... :( you forgot to put my quote about your "bemoning 4.0" thread...
Valenor 01-26-08, 04:37 PM	BTW.... GO TORAN GO TORAN!!! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :bounce: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: ROFL!!!! :rofl:
Toran_A_Sunder 01-26-08, 04:38 PM	Your argument that not buying something at all is just as bad as stealing or piracy holds no water Wight. Here's why, and try to follow me on this. I have a goat. You don't buy my goat. But, you don't take the goat. I still have my goat, and maybe the next guy who comes down to my place will buy it. He doesn't. Eventually, though, someone will need my goat or like my goat enough to buy it. There! A happy transaction. They have the goat they need, I have the money I need to buy things I need. Scenario 2: I have a Goat. You want my goat. You steal my goat. Now, you have a goat. Yay. Go you. However, when the next guy comes down the road with the intention of buying my goat, I have no goat to sell him, cus you took it. Now, even though you have your goat, I can't get money from this guy who actually wants to do it the right way and give me money for the goat. No goat, no money, no food or house or clothes. And worse, this next guy who genuinely needs the goat (and genuinely has enough personal integrity to procure the goat the right way) can't get the goat, cus you stole it, leaving me with no money to raise more goats. Now let's bring it over to the pirating of D&D PDFs. You write a splatbook. I purchase your splatbook. Others purchase your splat book. You now have money from us to do the things you need to do. To survive. You write a splatbook. I buy your splatbook. Or I steal your splatbook from the bookstore, cus hey you wrote it, and I don't have to pay you for it. I copy your splat book, scan it onto my computer, and make it available to others. They feel like me, they don't want to actually spend their money. So they download it. Now dozens, may be even hundreds of people are getting your splatbook, an you're not seeing a dime. Worse, those people share their PDFs with even more people, and the number jumps up higher! Why is Bob gonna buy your splatbook when his friend Joe already has the PDF? So now all that money that would have been yours, because you produced a good and others benefited from it, you don't get. Because I stole a copy and made more copies. "But you're appealing to my emotions! I wouldn't like it therefore its wrong! Your logic is teh suxx0rz!" No. Here you've missed the boat completely. In describing a situation that you wouldn't like (and it goes beyond you not liking it to you not being able to provide for yourself or your family) I hoped to show you how its wrong. Try thinking outside your own sphere. It isn't that you wont like it. It's that it is affecting your ability to support yourself, your family. Now try and think even further outside your own sphere to see that this effects hundreds of people. Not just cus they don't like it. But because they cant provide as much for their families, because you feel you're entitled to what they make. We can bring your logic even further. How about this scenario. I have a knife. I feel it is my right to stab a guy in the face. Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't make it wrong. He should have enough personal integrity to let me do what I want, cus hey, it makes me happy. And I have the right to stab him in the face. *I now have to go to work. I look forward to continuing this when I get home tonight :D
Ikyotojin 01-26-08, 04:50 PM	Wright - please resolve this for me: I wrote a book and was quiet pleased that other people thought it was a good one and it was put on the market. I was paid for my work - I got a percentage of the sales of said book. This allowed me to devote more time to writing and produce another book that people liked enough to pay for. Then someone scanned my books and gave PDF's to others. They in turn shared them with more people. I went from being able to support myself and my family by writing to having to stop writing because I could no loner make a living at it. This is not a hypothetical situation. This is me and what happened to me. Tell me again how not paying for books does not harm anyone. I'd really like you to justify it. I will never again write for anyone in a commercial consideration - The lack of morals in those who would "share" my work without compensating me for it has removed any incentive for me to educate people in the field I once did. I still love to teach, but I cannot feed my family or pay my bills with "thanks, that was great".
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 04:59 PM	I have a goat. You don't buy my goat. But, you don't take the goat. I still have my goat, and maybe the next guy who comes down to my place will buy it. He doesn't. Eventually, though, someone will need my goat or like my goat enough to buy it. There! A happy transaction. They have the goat they need, I have the money I need to buy things I need. Right. I didn't take your goat, it's still there, nobody got hurt. Scenario 2: I have a Goat. You want my goat. You steal my goat. Now, you have a goat. Yay. Go you. However, when the next guy comes down the road with the intention of buying my goat, I have no goat to sell him, cus you took it. Now, even though you have your goat, I can't get money from this guy who actually wants to do it the right way and give me money for the goat. No goat, no money, no food or house or clothes. And worse, this next guy who genuinely needs the goat (and genuinely has enough personal integrity to procure the goat the right way) can't get the goat, cus you stole it, leaving me with no money to raise more goats. Right. I took your goat, and now you don't have it. Bad. You write a splatbook. I purchase your splatbook. Others purchase your splat book. You now have money from us to do the things you need to do. To survive. Right. I spend money and get a hard copy of the book. You write a splatbook. I buy your splatbook. Or I steal your splatbook from the bookstore, cus hey you wrote it, and I don't have to pay you for it. I copy your splat book, scan it onto my computer, and make it available to others. They feel like me, they don't want to actually spend their money. So they download it. Now dozens, may be even hundreds of people are getting your splatbook, an you're not seeing a dime. Worse, those people share their PDFs with even more people, and the number jumps up higher! Why is Bob gonna buy your splatbook when his friend Joe already has the PDF? So now all that money that would have been yours, because you produced a good and others benefited from it, you don't get. Because I stole a copy and made more copies. Wrong. Your comparison of downloading a PDF to actually stealing a book from a store is completely off. Again, that's actually taking something that rightfully belongs to someone (the store owners). They no longer have that book because you took it away. If I steal a goat, I've taken the goat. What do I take if I download a copy of the book? What is the loss? There isn't one. You've been avoiding this question pretty consistently, so I'll ask it again. If I don't buy your book, you lose business. If I pirate your book after I don't buy it, what difference does it make? You lost my business when I just didn't buy it. What else do you lose when I pirate it that makes not buying it OK and pirating it not OK? It isn't that you wont like it. It's that it is affecting your ability to support yourself, your family. ...I don't like it because it affects my ability to support myself. The two things are connected. I fail to see how this means that your argument is anything other than "You should consider this wrong because it could potentially affect you negatively." We can bring your logic even further. How about this scenario. I have a knife. I feel it is my right to stab a guy in the face. Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't make it wrong. He should have enough personal integrity to let me do what I want, cus hey, it makes me happy. And I have the right to stab him in the face. That's certainly not my logic, and I can't even begin to imagine where you pulled it from. If you'd actually been paying attention, I've been claiming the exact opposite; that what people feel about something has no bearing on whether it's OK or not. That's why I keep pointing out that I may very well have never pirated anything in my life, because you seem to want to make this personal. I don't even know what you're getting at with this one. Are you trying to say that stabbing someone in the face *is* wrong because the victim won't like it, or what? This is not a hypothetical situation. This is me and what happened to me. Tell me again how not paying for books does not harm anyone. I'd really like you to justify it. Does anyone else want to make an argument that's designed to make me feel guilty and change what I'm typing? I mean, you might as well get it out of the way now, while I'm expecting it. My justification is in what I've written. You'd have been in exactly the same situation as you are now if all those people who pirated your book had, instead, just not bought it. With that in mind, I'm still waiting for someone to point out what the big difference is.
Valenor 01-26-08, 05:41 PM	Does anyone else want to make an argument that's designed to make me feel guilty and change what I'm typing? I mean, you might as well get it out of the way now, while I'm expecting it. My justification is in what I've written. You'd have been in exactly the same situation as you are now if all those people who pirated your book had, instead, just not bought it. With that in mind, I'm still waiting for someone to point out what the big difference is. I don't mean to be rude, but you're obviously either not capable of, or for your own convenience don't want to grasp the idea. This is the same as people living from stamps w/out any legitimate need, living off like parasites from the goodwill of honest hard working people. Ikyotojin has a point. it is very discouraging to do a job well done to have a pirate enjoy it for free. And therefore, this takes my piracy point even a notch up, Pirates are not just affecting the economy, but the quality of products.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 05:47 PM	I don't mean to be rude, but you're obviously either not capable of, or for your own convenience don't want to grasp the idea. I could say the same thing. Ikyotojin has a point. it is very discouraging to do a job well done to have a pirate enjoy it for free. It's also very discouraging to have a job well done be simply ignored and not purchased at all. Some authors might actually prefer to have their book pirated en masse, as opposed to fading into obscurity. At least that means people are reading and appreciating their work. My point still hasn't been addressed. How does pirating someone's book have any more of a negative effect on them than deciding not to buy the book?
Valenor 01-26-08, 05:55 PM	You sound too educated and smart enough to know that your question is simply irrelevant, inane at best. Obviously you think you have the answer to your question, why don't you share it with us? I challenge you to try and make a point why piracy is good. Why piracy is not a cancer that's killing the enthusiasm of authors to create a quality job?
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 06:07 PM	You sound too educated and smart enough to know that your question is simply irrelevant, inane at best. Well call me an uneducated lout, then, because I'm afraid I don't think it's irrelevant at all. You're claiming that simply deciding not to buy a book isn't wrong, but pirating a book is...but if there isn't a difference between them then how can that possibly be true? With that in mind, if it cannot be demonstrated that there is a difference, it must be accepted that they're either both wrong or both acceptable. Obviously you think you have the answer to your question, why don't you share it with us? I don't think I have the answer. Why should *I* have the answer? You're the one arguing that piracy is wrong, so you should have the answer. The fact that there doesn't appear to *be* a good answer is exactly the point I'm making. Why piracy is not a cancer that's killing the enthusiasm of authors to create a quality job? I never said it wasn't. I just said that if piracy is, so is the act of deciding not to buy books, and that the latter is far more common and widespread.
Valenor 01-26-08, 06:17 PM	Well call me an uneducated lout, then, because I'm afraid I don't think it's irrelevant at all. You're claiming that simply deciding not to buy a book isn't wrong, but pirating a book is...but if there isn't a difference between them then how can that possibly be true? With that in mind, if it cannot be demonstrated that there is a difference, it must be accepted that they're either both wrong or both acceptable. I don't think I have the answer. Why should *I* have the answer? You're the one arguing that piracy is wrong, so you should have the answer. The fact that there doesn't appear to *be* a good answer is exactly the point I'm making. I never said it wasn't. I just said that if piracy is, so is the act of deciding not to buy books, and that the latter is far more common and widespread. :looloo: :looloo: :looloo: :looloo: :looloo: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :looloo: :looloo: :looloo:
Mock26 01-26-08, 06:34 PM	Whether not any given individual thinks it is right or wrong to download, for free, an unlicensed and unauthorized PDF file of a book really doesn't matter. It is against the law. That makes it wrong. When you purchase, say, a DMG, you have limited rights on what you can and cannot do with that book. You have the right to make a copy of that book FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE. You have the right to loan that DMG to anyone you want to. You can even give away the book to someone else. But, what you do not have is the right to give them the copy of that book you made. Nor do you have the right to loan them your original book with the intent of them making their own copy. It doesn't matter if you think that is your right because it is not your right. How do I know this? The government has made it the law that you do not have that right. And, Yes, they have the authority to do that. There is a large hazy gray area on possible loss of profit in so many aspects of business and personal possession rights. If I take my above purchased DMG and loan it to a friend one may think that we are depriving the copyright owner and the stores of money because he isn't purchasing it, but that isn't the case. The company neither gains nor loses from his borrowing of the book because at that point, from a business and legal perspective, there is no intent of purchase. But, there is the possibility that he will become a future source of money by purchasing his own copy. There is also nothing wrong if my friend never buys his own DMG but shares mine. That is allowed under the law (it is very similar to buying a DVD and inviting friends over to watch it), and it is fine from a business perspective because there is still no intent to buy a book. But, once a copy of that book is made and given to my friend then that implies an intent to buy the book but that intent has been bypassed in favor of illegal acquisition. A that point it becomes a crime and at that point you are in fact taking money out of other people's pockets (figuratively speaking, of course). The law is very clear that you can share your purchases with your friends and make your own copies of these items for your own personal use. The law is also very clear that you are not allowed to make copies for anyone else, be it free copies or copies from which you profit. Failure to comply with the law makes you a criminal and subject to punishment by our judicial system. It doesn't matter if you think the laws are unjust or violate your so-called "rights." You are still obligated to obey them. As an aside, I'm not sure, but I do think that it is a violation of copyright laws to, say, buy a book, make a copy of it, give the book to a friend, and then use the copy as my primary source.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 06:53 PM	Whether not any given individual thinks it is right or wrong to download, for free, an unlicensed and unauthorized PDF file of a book really doesn't matter. It is against the law. That makes it wrong. So I suppose if a law got passed saying it was illegal to eat, that would make eating wrong. Law is not morality. If the law says you can't do something, it's illegal, not necessarily wrong. With that in mind, if you're making an argument based on what the law states then I have nothing else to say to you. I've already agreed that it's illegal. It doesn't matter if you think that is your right because it is not your right. How do I know this? The government has made it the law that you do not have that right. And, Yes, they have the authority to do that. It doesn't matter if you think it's your legal right, yes. The government does not, however, have the authority to dictate morality. Seriously, if I have to explain the difference between laws and morals to one more person I'm going to end up doing something very regrettable. I extend the same statement to all of you out there who might be thinking about playing the "law" card. Everybody partaking in this discussion already knows that piracy is illegal. You are not enlightening anyone. The confusion seems to be over whether it's morally acceptable or not. But, once a copy of that book is made and given to my friend then that implies an intent to buy the book but that intent has been bypassed in favor of illegal acquisition. A that point it becomes a crime and at that point you are in fact taking money out of other people's pockets (figuratively speaking, of course). Ah, so in actual fact, the people at fault here are the ones who actually make the copies, not the people who download said copies? Unfortunately that's a different argument, beyond the scope of what I've been pointing out. I'm concerned with the downloaders at the moment, not the copiers themselves.
Ikyotojin 01-26-08, 07:21 PM	Piracy of material allows people to gain copies without having to pay. Right or wrong? If they had no access to illegal copies, then they would either have to do without a copy OR have to purchase a copy? Right or wrong? The above two are legal questions - based on societal agreements called laws. Now - morally. If you know a person depends on sales of his or her work to allow them to continue in their chosen profession and still decide to contribute to the decline of the sale of that work due to your support of piracy, are you acting in a moral way? Each and every person who takes without compensation the writer of a work is parasitical in nature until they do in fact purchase a legal copy of that work. Unless you can show how this is not the case, you must concede that piracy of someone's work is both LEGALLY and MORALLY wrong. Commerce is based on supply an demand. If there is a demand for a work, then people will do something to gain it. Some of those involve trade for the item or service - this is called "paying for what you got". If a venue allows for people to gain it without that trade, then the demand is answered. A "yeah but they might not have bought it" doesn't fly - you are dealing in hypothetical situations, not factual. Fact - my book sale dropped due to piracey. The hard copies still sell in bok stores, but the online sales are next to zero. When you search for my real name, you can get any number of links to the scanned PDFs - these are easily downloaded form numerous pirate sites. People who might have bought through Amazon or other online venues are given a choice to get the work WITHOUT paying... and they do. I'm not stupid enough to think people won't take the easier and cheaper route. But if that route was not available, I know they would buy the book legally. How do I know this? Because it's one of the few books on the subject I taught that still sells in hard copy. Unfortunately the subject directly involves a person learning about the internet and computers to the point where people who want to learn what I have to teach will usually look online... and I lose a sale due to basic human nature. So - there goes a straman argument. It's not that the work wouldn't sell - it's that piracy and illegal copies have made it far easier for people to cut me out of the picture - SO I don't write any more and I don't teach online anymore. And I don't mean to make you fell guilty about anything - if you do, then it's from a deep feeling that perhaps your stand does have a negative effect on another person. Guilt is only felt by those who still have simple human empathy. Think about it - are you arguing the point from being so sure that it hurts no one, or are you arguing the point just to argue?
ORC_KiRin 01-26-08, 07:32 PM	Hey Folks! Please keep the Code of Conduct in mind as discussion moves forward, especially this part: Do not promote, plan, glorify or engage in any illegal activity or otherwise make available content that would encourage or provide instructions for a criminal offense. These topics include crimes relating to drugs, drug paraphernalia, rape, solicitation of a minor, computer hacking, and copyright violation.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 07:37 PM	Well hell, folks. Wight Chocolate just got censored. So much for this debate.
Ikyotojin 01-26-08, 07:45 PM	There is no reason we cannot continue the discussion while staying within the rules of engagement.
Wight_Chocolate 01-26-08, 07:57 PM	I'm fairly sure there is, given that making an argument in favour of piracy is promoting it (and glorification, if you want to stretch a little).
Captain_Kobold 01-26-08, 09:22 PM	I'm wondering if the reason that the two camps have trouble understanding each other is that they are argueing about two different groups of people. Wight seems to be talking exclusively about those people who would have no intention of buying the book in the first place. If they could not get hold of it for free, they would simply do without. Call them group X. His contention is that since these would not buy the book anyway, the author/publisher/stockist loses nothing when they download the illegal copies. Have I understood that correctly Wight? Valenor and Toran are talking about those people who will be getting a copy of the book in whichever fashion they can. Of them, group Y will be willing to buy a copy: contributing to the welfare of the author through royalties and encouraging the publishers to continue publishing them through higher listed book sales. Others (Group Z) would buy the book if that were the only way to obtain it, however they choose to save themselves some money and download it free. So we have three groups here: Group X, it is argued, are not causing the author/publisher/stockist any harm by illegally downloading the book since they would not be contributing to them anyway. Group Y are willing to put their cash where their interests are, and pay for the book: supporting the author/publisher/stockist. Group Z are the group that are directly harming the author etc. by illegally downloading the book since if they did not, they would by paying for it and supporting them. I would be interested in hearing your views on group Z Wight, since, unlike group X, it cannot be argued that there is any connection between what they do and simply choosing not to buy the book.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-27-08, 12:00 AM	Wight is making the argument that piracy and just plain old not purchasing an item is one in the same. Theoretically, he is right. However, the difference that he is failing to grasp is that simply not purchasing a book still leaves that book available for others to purchase, while pirating a book and sharing the pirated copy removes the need for those people in possession of said book to purchase it, and thus removing the income that the author deserves for producing said book. While I agree there is a slight difference in stealing a book from a store and downloading a PDF from the internet, the end result remains the same. You have illegally obtained a piece of property, and because of your aquisition, you potentially harm another person's living. I have addressed your question. It's not my fault if you don't see the correlation. Yes, you could argue that within this logic just looking at someone else's copy is the same thing. It doesn't work that way either. That person still bought the item in question, and the author of the item received appropriate compensation. However, using a pirated PDF denies the author his due compensation. I think the other thing you fail to grasp is that, while owning a hard copy of or purchasing a PDF of a book makes the tangible item yours, the ideas within said work do not belong to you, and are not yours to decide how they should be distributed. That is where copyright laws come into play. It is supposed to protect people from having someone else benefit from their ideas. And here, Wight, is the danger with your logic of thinking (and let me say in advance I do not believe this is your thought lines, just a possible extention of what you are proposing). Within your logic that you have a right to what someone else produces, where does it end? According to you you shouldn't have to pay for what someone else writes and publishes in a book. Tell me what the difference is between that and, say, stealing a car. Why do you not have the right to steal that car? "Because it doesn't belong to me, it belongs to someone else." Correct. But the same applies to the ideas in a book. The right to use those ideas does not belong to you until you have properly given compensation to use those ideas, etc. That is how trade works: giving someone something in exchange for something else. And no, that doesn't mean doing whatever with it that you want. Because even the the book itself belongs to you, the ideas within do not. You did not create them. You did not spend hours working on them. They are not yours. As far as the ongoing argument of "you wouldn't like it, so its wrong,": Yes, that is exactly my point, but you have oversimplified it to the point where, to you, it sounds like rubbish. Again, my point is not that you wouldn't like it so its wrong, my point is that yes, it does potentially affect you negatively, so its wrong. Doing something that harms, or could harm, another person without actually caring that they come to harm because of your actions is wrong. And as far as my analogy of stealing and stabbing someone in the face, it is just another possible extention of your thought process. Because you want to do something, you should be allowed to do it, even if it harms someone else. Like I said, if you want to pirate, then go ahead. Have a ball doing it. But at least have the integrity to acknowledge that what you are doing is wrong, and could potentially harm someone else.
Hakar_Kerarmor 01-27-08, 12:17 AM	I'm fairly sure there is, given that making an argument in favour of piracy is promoting it (and glorification, if you want to stretch a little). And it seems once again that to many people, putting forward the notion that not every "pirate" is a "Moustache-twisting, monocle-adjusting cackling maniac who steals candy from babies" is the same as promoting it.
Wight_Chocolate 01-27-08, 12:28 AM	Why are people still trying to discuss this with me? We're done. I can't put my arguments forward anymore because doing so is against the code of conduct. Have fun patting each other on the backs and agreeing about how wrong piracy is.
Valenor 01-27-08, 01:25 AM	Well, I guess that's that. :( I'm sad to say. It was very interesting and some new topics where brought to light for me. It was also very nice to see the thread being kept PG-13. Thanks EVERYONE. I must give points to Wight for keeping this thread up for a couple of days, I believe almost everyone here argued against him which means, if there wasn't anyone on the other side of the court to throw the ball back at us the subject would have died long ago. I sure hope this thread continues. :noway: C'mon Wight, admit it, you're on our side but just like a good debate, right? hehehe. Any pirate would have either ignored this thread or posted a vulgar comment.
Valenor 01-27-08, 01:30 AM	C'mon Wight, admit it, you're on our side but just like a good debate, right? hehehe. Any pirate would have either ignored this thread or posted a vulgar comment. And BTW, I'm neither playing devil's advocate nor agreeing with Wight's argument. But I must admit it felt good to have created a thread that remained for more than a day, and have a discussion from both sides of the table. It is not every day that you get to discuss an issue from people who's ideas are opposite to yours.
Amon_V 01-27-08, 05:47 PM	Argument CENSORED, to Adhere to CoC.
Mock26 01-27-08, 08:09 PM	So I suppose if a law got passed saying it was illegal to eat, that would make eating wrong. First off, there is no way that such a law could be passed, so your counterpoint is worthless and invalid. Second, why do so many people have to come up with extreme, outrageous, unrealistic, stupid, and/or moronic examples to try and prove a point? Such examples serve no real purpose because they are so outrageous and unrealistic. So, your counterpoint is worthless and invalid. ======================================== ============================ Wight seems to be talking exclusively about those people who would have no intention of buying the book in the first place. But even if they have no intent on buying the book themselves, for purposes of the law (and from a business perspective) intent can be assumed when they obtain an illegal copy of a product.
Ikeman04 01-27-08, 08:23 PM	I have a bunch of pirated books I'm going to get rid of, this thread has made me actually think of the stores that sell the books. Before I was just thinking that a huge company like WotC wouldn't be hurt by the drop I was taking out of their bucket. I actually feel a bit better about being guilted into non-piracy.
Valenor 01-27-08, 09:41 PM	I have a bunch of pirated books I'm going to get rid of, this thread has made me actually think of the stores that sell the books. Before I was just thinking that a huge company like WotC wouldn't be hurt by the drop I was taking out of their bucket. I actually feel a bit better about being guilted into non-piracy. If you honestly mean that I'm very touched :thumbsup: Thanks for accepting such advice.
Wight_Chocolate 01-28-08, 01:00 AM	First off, there is no way that such a law could be passed, so your counterpoint is worthless and invalid. Second, why do so many people have to come up with extreme, outrageous, unrealistic, stupid, and/or moronic examples to try and prove a point? Such examples serve no real purpose because they are so outrageous and unrealistic. So, your counterpoint is worthless and invalid. Oh for god's sake. Fine. Years ago there were laws stating that black people had to go to different schools. There were laws allowing people to keep slaves. Right now there are laws forbidding gay marriages, and under Islamic law, a woman must bring forth four adult, Muslim, male witnesses to prove a case of rape, otherwise it didn't happen. I suppose that things such as this are perfectly acceptable as long as they're "legal", are they? Don't be so utterly ridiculous. If I can't argue for piracy then I can at least argue against the absurd notion that law defines what is and is not morally right. While I'm at it, do you have any idea as to how a hypothetical example actually works in terms of an argument? It doesn't have to be something that could realistically happen. The idea behind them is the use a theoretical instance (no matter how unlikely) as an aid towards illustrating a point; the point in this case being that laws can say bloody stupid things sometimes and should in no way be considered the be-all and end-all of what is good and just in the world.
CaptainPicard 01-28-08, 01:01 AM	EDIT: Having seen the WizO's warning, I can see that I shouldn't be posting what I just did. But I can say that shutting the argument up is downright unbelievable.
Mock26 01-28-08, 02:05 AM	While I'm at it, do you have any idea as to how a hypothetical example actually works in terms of an argument? It doesn't have to be something that could realistically happen. The idea behind them is the use a theoretical instance (no matter how unlikely) as an aid towards illustrating a point; the point in this case being that laws can say bloody stupid things sometimes and should in no way be considered the be-all and end-all of what is good and just in the world. Yes, I am aware as to how a hypothetical example actually works in terms of a discussion. Are you? Extremely unlikely theoretical instances (such as outlawing the consumption of food) really serve no constructive purpose because they are often illogical and inane and often deal with virtually/realistically impossible outcomes. When you use ridiculous and outrageous examples then anything and everything can be disproved. And that fact is what invalidates them in so many discussions. Additionally, wrong doesn't always have to be about morality. Making a given act illegal makes the performance of that act wrong because it is an illegal act.
Wight_Chocolate 01-28-08, 02:29 AM	I notice you brushed my main point aside. Still, I don't suppose it matters. Your words have effectively demonstrated that you'd consider it wrong to not treat a black man as a second class citizen if the law says you should. Wrong to fail to mutilate a woman's genitals because the law says you must. Wrong to try and have someone put in jail for rape when you don't have four male witnesses, because the law says that makes you a liar. In short, you're prepared to accept anything, no matter how absurd, horrible or evil it might be, depending on whether or not it's written down that you can be punished for it. And you have the sheer audacity to suggest that I'm the one making outrageous and moronic claims, that I'm the one who doesn't know right from wrong. You'll excuse me if I depart in disgust.
Exposed_Wires 01-28-08, 03:28 AM	I haven't read anything past halfway through page three so I apologize if what I'm about to say has already been expressed but as far as I read, you people arguing against piracy are doing a bad job although I'm glad you're trying. The answer to Wight's question is in market economics. A bad book will not sell because it was a bad book. Maybe a few copies will be sold but then the critics will give it a bad review and nobody else will cough up the dough. The author of that book can suck a lemon. He wasn't meant to be a writer and can go work at McDonald's for all that it matters. Wizards provides something that we want. The sales of their books goes towards creating new and fun content. The success and love of their product should be expressed in their quarterly sales figures. If the books aren't making any money, they have no incentive to publish more. They will either discontinue the game altogether or be forced to alter the product so that it is something that people will spend money on. All they'd have to do is gear it towards kids (who don't know how to pirate things) and they'll start making money. Piracy doesn't hurt a company like Hasbro the way you think. They have their hands in enough markets to eat any losses from publishing costs on D&D books. What piracy does is cause sales to appear as if nobody likes their product. If they lost too much money on it, they'd just cut their losses and invest more time and energy into pumping out new editions of monopoly. Thats the point where we lose. I personally think that you can't stop piracy and the market will have to adapt. Whether it be by making their product available for free on the internet except filled with adware or having to rely almost exclusively on donations, I have no idea. tl;dr - You don't pay, they work at McDonald's instead of making more books for you. EDIT: I forgot to mention the part where piracy gets into the gray area when you Download something that you would not have spent money on in the first place. A good example being when you want to peek into the tome of battle even though you never plan on implementing those rules just to see what everybody is arguing about on the forums. If they plastic wrap them at your local store or if you don't have a store near you, how would you ever be able to justify spending $30. The opportunity cost is too high.
AnonymousInternets 01-28-08, 04:47 AM	In my first gaming group, we never really considered getting splat books until some of us started downloading and using them. Once we were able to read the digital versions, we picked out ones we liked and bought real copies. I had the core books for over a year. In less than two years of our group starting to download PDF's, I bought about a dozen more. That whole "they want to look before they buy" thing isn't some rare occurrence. My group does it for all kinds of products all the time. We all started buying a lot more the day we got into P2P. Of course, when we DID start buying splat books, we did so on Amazon. I think that's where the small shops started loosing business (our nearest game store is about 30 minutes away and doesn't have a great selection). At no point in all this had we done something morally wrong. We actually gave WotC business. You can blame us for not supporting our game store, but really, I don't think we were obliged to--we never went to them anyways. Some of you might think the people of my group are somehow morally wrong or ignorant, but really, I think they were just being smart consumers.
Edymnion 01-28-08, 12:56 PM	Additionally, wrong doesn't always have to be about morality. Making a given act illegal makes the performance of that act wrong because it is an illegal act.Wow, thats just so wrong on so many levels. What is moral is not always legal, and what is legal is not always moral. Just because something is illegal does not automatically make it morally wrong. Jaywalking is illegal, but it is not morally wrong, it is not morally relevant in any way. Sleeping with your brother's girlfriend is not illegal, but it is morally wrong. Morals are right or wrong. Laws are legal or illegal. They describe two totally separate things.
Mock26 01-28-08, 04:58 PM	Wow, thats just so wrong on so many levels. What is moral is not always legal, and what is legal is not always moral. Just because something is illegal does not automatically make it morally wrong. Jaywalking is illegal, but it is not morally wrong, it is not morally relevant in any way. Sleeping with your brother's girlfriend is not illegal, but it is morally wrong. Morals are right or wrong. Laws are legal or illegal. They describe two totally separate things. Wow. Talk about completely missing the point. I never said that Morals are not about right or wrong. My point was that right or wrong is not always about morality. Additionally, I specifically stated that doing something illegal was just wrong. I NEVER said it made it morally wrongl
Mock26 01-28-08, 05:05 PM	Your words have effectively demonstrated that you'd consider it wrong to not treat a black man as a second class citizen if the law says you should. Wrong to fail to mutilate a woman's genitals because the law says you must. Wrong to try and have someone put in jail for rape when you don't have four male witnesses, because the law says that makes you a liar. Well, black people are second class citizens. Women are the propery of men in their family. It is socially acceptable to commit rape with three or less male witnesses. /sarcasm. You really do suck at this type of an argument, you know? We are talking about violating copyright laws, not talking about violating someone's basic human rights. Yet, you keep escalating this to situations that are not about copyright laws. Why is that? Your examples just don't prove anything. I suggest that you go visit your local high school's debate team. Even those teenagers know that using outrageous exmples like you have been doing serve no constructive purpose.
Wight_Chocolate 01-28-08, 05:19 PM	Well, black people are second class citizens. Women are the propery of men in their family. It is socially acceptable to commit rape with three or less male witnesses. /sarcasm. You really do suck at this type of an argument, you know? We are talking about violating copyright laws, not talking about violating someone's basic human rights. Yet, you keep escalating this to situations that are not about copyright laws. Why is that? Your examples just don't prove anything. I suggest that you go visit your local high school's debate team. Even those teenagers know that using outrageous exmples like you have been doing serve no constructive purpose. Yeah, see, I stopped discussing copyright laws when the WizO popped in and said "Hey guys, don't promote piracy." Apparently you missed that part, and also the part where I specifically stated that rather than talking about piracy I would instead address your ludicrous claim that "illegal" may somehow be equated to "wrong". I love this post, though. "Your arguments don't relate to the original topic of this thread, which means I don't need to counter them and can dismiss them as invalid even though you made it clear that you were referring to another issue before I responded." I mean, it's perfect. You don't actually have to refute anything! Perhaps you should pay attention to what's happening as opposed to impugning my debate skills. And impugning them poorly, to boot. Apparently everyone I've ever had a debate with understands how a hypothetical proposition doesn't have to be something that is likely to happen in order to illustrate a point except you, so you'll pardon me if I don't take your word for it. Especially not after you've made this claim that now there's some different type of "wrong" that applies only to laws. I can't even begin to fathom what that's about. If you weren't talking about it being morally wrong to disobey the law then what kind of wrong were you referring to? What is this other abstract concept? Do tell. Incidentally, I was on the senior committee of my high school's debating team for three years, thank you very much.
Toran_A_Sunder 01-28-08, 06:51 PM	Apparently everyone I've ever had a debate with understands how a hypothetical proposition doesn't have to be something that is likely to happen in order to illustrate a point.... Kind of like hypothetically stabbing someone in the face? :D
Ikeman04 01-28-08, 07:27 PM	If you honestly mean that I'm very touched :thumbsup: Thanks for accepting such advice.I do mean it. Also, I'm glad I didn't read this thread for more than three or four posts, nothing good can come of arguments on the intarwebbs.
Azuelle 02-04-08, 11:08 PM	To be picky, piracy isn't even piracy. 'Piracy' in this context is unauthorized copying, or possibly copywrite violation. But that doesn't sound as nasty for those who want to complain about it, and doesn't sound as 'cool' for those who want to do it. C'mon all you 'unauthorized copyers' out there (see, just doesn't sound so impressive now, does it?) fork over a coupla bucks - its worth it to have nice professionally printed and bound book. But I agree with others - discount online prices is the real culprit. Plus distribution schemes that make online purchasing much more attractive. (I'm lookin' at you, D&D minis!) Another thing, I was facing a year in jail and couldn't get my books into jail without printing them all out using a pirate copy and just printing the players handbook cost me $65. I always buy the books but they have a hard cover and you can' t get them in to jail, {i also have a ritulal for random dice rolls} well the games stores around here are good i buy regulary from each the comicbook store gets any buisness they offer and i have ordered things from time to time, thanks pasttime hobbies -jeremy
Edymnion 02-05-08, 03:38 PM	My point was that right or wrong is not always about morality. Additionally, I specifically stated that doing something illegal was just wrong. I NEVER said it made it morally wronglYou missunderstand, if you say something is right or wrong, and you are not talking about factual information, then you are, by definition, referring to morality.
lastknightleft 02-05-08, 03:54 PM	I actually side with Whight on the issue of illegal=/= wrong. When you say wrong you are speaking morally. either that or you are saying incorrect, and since incorrect doesn't apply unless you mean incorrect in following social standards but then why bother because thats a bit redundant. And although this is relating to the piracy it isn't actually about it, what do you use as a determining factor for morally wrong whight? because by my standards of morally wrong piracy is. but since morals are subjective I would need to know how you determine weither something is or isn't.