This whole PDF thing, coupled with the lawsuits, is so TSR. This is really going to hurt wizards sales. If we learned anything from TSR, it is don't anger your customers.
Riiiggghhhttt.
Kay differences
1. no PDF is a business decision, not exclusive to WotC (Though I admit the last big standout Palladium Books is going PDF as a last ditch effort to improve their crapstastic sales)
2. TSR sent CnD's to 12 Year Olds and other children.
3. TSR remained the sole leader its entire time (In fact from what I recall of LGS sales they had an astouding 85-90% position), their business management skills made rabid monkeys appear to be the next JP Morgans. (Literally, first off the multiple settings was killing them coupled with an inventory that went back to 1E with storage fees and other things from what I have heard)
4. TSR wishes they had a book last three weeks on the WSJ's top selling hardback.
Edit> Also there have been no lawsuits unless you mean against the pirates, which implies you are pro stealing.
Edit> Also there have been no lawsuits unless you mean against the pirates, which implies you are pro stealing.
I am pro piracy, though I don't pirate material myself for fear of lawsuits. But yes. I think the game belongs to everyone, not a giant company. Personally, I would like to live in a world without wizards where the game is built ground up.
I am pro piracy, though I don't pirate material myself for fear of lawsuits. But yes. I think the game belongs to everyone, not a giant company. Personally, I would like to live in a world without wizards where the game is built ground up.
If you want a game that is free to the world, built by the world ground up do it if you want to play Dungeons and Dragons Im sorry your going to have to pay for it. Just like we "the gamers" did back in 1974
If you want a game that is free to the world, built by the world ground up do it if you want to play Dungeons and Dragons Im sorry your going to have to pay for it. Just like we "the gamers" did back in 1974
Copyright is tryanny my friend. Ideas and words belong to everyone. Not hasbro. Sorry.
-Ultimatley, I think the issue has angered customers, but isn't going to put a significant dent in any sales numbers.
-No need to attack someone over their beliefs. I don't agree about the "copyright is tyranny" part, but you're free to believe that.
-Ultimatley, I think the issue has angered customers, but isn't going to put a significant dent in any sales numbers.
I think it will hurt them. Gamers have always been into piracy (primarily as purchasers). This goes right at the heart of the community, and many of us sympathize with the subjects of the suit. Wizards has made it clear, they don't care about the game community. They care about their profit margin. Every company needs to make profit, but the best way is to earn goodwill with your base. Right now, I predict, Paizo will become the big RPG company in the next five years. Because they have a gamer friendly repuation.
-I'm making up numbers, here: If, in a month 10,000 people download WotC .PDF files from websites, that's $40,000 being made. Of that $40,000, let's say that WotC gets one-fourth of it, and the commercial sellers getting the rest. So, that's $10,000 in a month for WotC. Multiply that by twelve months, and that's $120,000. To a large company like WotC, $120,000 can theoretically be written off, offset by profits gained elsewhere.
-The reason I say so is because, at $4 a pop, what we might see as a considerable number isn't necessarily a considerable number in terms of the company.
-I'm making up numbers, here: If, in a month 10,000 people download WotC .PDF files from websites, that's $40,000 being made. Of that $40,000, let's say that WotC gets one-fourth of it, and the commercial sellers getting the rest. So, that's $10,000 in a month for WotC. Multiply that by twelve months, and that's $120,000. To a large company like WotC, $120,000 can theoretically be written off, offset by profits gained elsewhere.
That isn't what I mean. i mean they angered customers and people won't buy their stuff because of that.
Copyright is tryanny my friend. Ideas and words belong to everyone. Not hasbro. Sorry.
I'm sorry, but I find this amusing. You obviously don't have to make a living off of any of your creative ideas.
I'm sorry, but I find this amusing. You obviously don't have to make a living off of any of your creative ideas.
Actually I do. i am a freelancer these days.
Actually I do. i am a freelancer these days.
So, do you have a problem with people using your ideas without compensating you for it?
Actually I do. i am a freelancer these days.
So, you wouldn.t mind if I stole it, right? I mean, it belongs to all of us, man!
So I'll be expecting you to PM whatever it is you make for free, k? I'd prefer getting it in about 3 hours. Thanks.
So, do you have a problem with people using your ideas without compensating you for it?
No. I have no problem with this at all. In fact, it encourages better packaging, presentation and refinement of the idea itself.
So, you wouldn.t mind if I stole it, right? I mean, it belongs to all of us, man!
So I'll be expecting you to PM whatever it is you make for free, k? I'd prefer getting it in about 3 hours. Thanks.
I wouldn't. I aint gonna pm you anything. But people have used my material, and I never sued. In fact, many times the material was improved.
No. I have no problem with this at all. In fact, it encourages better packaging, presentation and refinement of the idea itself.
So, why spend hard earned money on something I can legally get for free?
So, why spend hard earned money on something I can legally get for free?
Its up to you. Usually pirated material is lower quality presentation, so I would rather buy the original. But if you are okay with that, go ahead and get it free.
I wouldn't. I aint gonna pm you anything.
Why not? Your material belongs to me too! Stop being such an evil corperation!
But seriously, this is so much bullcrap I can't even speak. Luckily, we are on the internet, so I can type isntead. 4E is a product. If you want products, you pay the person who makes it. They will then give you it. This is how our society works. I'm sorry, this isn't magical hippy land. People need money to eat.
I know you want to believe that D&D is some sort of shared game that "belongs to all of us", but that's not how it is. That's just your dream world, sorry. It's a commercial game. That doesn't make the company that makes it evil or greedy.
Why not? Your material belongs to me too! Stop being such an evil corperation!
.
I just don't want to give my identity to a stranger.
I think your thought process is flawed. Piracy is illegal, and it always has been. Just because puting somthing on the internet makes it easier to steal does not make it right.
Just because the company did somthing to protect their copyrighted material does not make them the bad guys. The bad guys are the pirates not WotC in this case.
I just don't agree with copyright law. It is a very artificial way to ensure people make money off what they create.
In this case though, they are the bad guys. They are going after a few gamers to make examples of them. And I believe the legal consequences don't match the nature of the crime. WotC makes plenty of money whether or not people pirate their material. And here is a news flash, people have been pirating all along. In fact getting a "bootleg" copy of the PHB was much easier in the 3E days when it was easier to do.
I think your thought process is flawed. Piracy is illegal, and it always has been. Just because puting somthing on the internet makes it easier to steal does not make it right.
.
You thought process is flawed. You are equating legal with right, and illegal with wrong. In Saudi Arabia it is illegal for a woman to drive. Does that make it wrong for women to drive? No.
stealing = wrong
...this pretty much applies everywhere...
piracy = stealing
stealing = wrong
...this pretty much applies everywhere...
No it doesn't. It is a stretch to call it stealing. Taking a song or book someone else wrote and making money off of it, is simply not the same as taking someone's propoerty. The notion that because I created words on a page, I somehow own them is not tenable. If you reject copyright, then it is not stealing.
But further. Not all stealing is wrong. Some is justified.
I own my brain. I own my thoughts, one cannot deprive me of them. I own my creations, one cannot deny me anything I have thought up and put down. More so, my creations are my property. If I came up with an idea noone else has, I have the right to profit from that idea. Inventors make money by thinking of things noone else has and then selling them. Creating, innovation, is a skill just like fixing a leaky sink or peddling make-up door to door. You don't fix someone's sink because you can and they need you to, you fix it because you're getting something out of the deal. You don't share your brilliant idea because another person wants it, you share it to get something out of the deal. Capitalism
Yes. You have jsut described capitalism. But you haven't explain to me why you own what you come up with. Just asserting things doesn't make them true. By the way, you not owning an idea, doesn't mean you can't profit from it. It just means others can as well.
#12, do you pay for cable, go to the theaters, watch live music events, buy books or DVDs? Please explain how that is any diffrent than purchasing D&D books? Do you give away your freelance creative properties? If everyone who created gave it away for free there would be very little creating going on, because they would all have to get real jobs to pay the bills.
I do. I believe that these shouldn't be copyrighted. Just because Sony produced a movie, I don't think that means they should be the sole owner. If someone else wants to remake the film, or even bootleg it, they should be able to.
I am not against selling stuff. I sell my freelance creations. But I do believe if I write an article, someone else should be able to print it in their magazine without paying me if they want.
It isn't about giving it away for free. It is about not placing artificial restrictions on what can and cannot be produced for sale. Copyright law stifles creativity. It prevents artists from borrowing from one another like they did in the past. It favors large corporate creativity. Not independant creativity.
And, at some point, WotC did too, which was why they released the SRD and OGL.
Huh, that one move seemed to make them a lot of money and fans. Wow, who would have thought that?
I am pro piracy, though I don't pirate material myself for fear of lawsuits. But yes. I think the game belongs to everyone, not a giant company. Personally, I would like to live in a world without wizards where the game is built ground up.
Thats Pro-theft, and makes you out to be a coward. If you truly believe that copyrights have no place in the world, at least be true to your ideals. In the recent interview Greg even admitted that they know they won't stop pirates, and so far what? 8 people out of some insane number (10x the number of legal PDF purchases according to EN/Greg) have had lawsuits filled on them? So lets see, last I saw numbers 10 000 copies of PHB 2 had been downloaded from RPGNow, so we will even just state thats ALL the pdfs purchased legally, Period. 10x10 000 = 100 000.
You are afraid of a 8/100 000 (.008%) of facing court over it enough to change your ideals?
Thats Pro-theft, and makes you out to be a coward. If you truly believe that copyrights have no place in the world, at least be true to your ideals. In the recent interview Greg even admitted that they know they won't stop pirates, and so far what? 8 people out of some insane number (10x the number of legal PDF purchases according to EN/Greg) have had lawsuits filled on them? So lets see, last I saw numbers 10 000 copies of PHB 2 had been downloaded from RPGNow, so we will even just state thats ALL the pdfs purchased legally, Period. 10x10 000 = 100 000.
You are afraid of a 8/100 000 (.008%) of facing court over it enough to change your ideals?
I just explained how piracy is not theft. That it requires a convoluted argument filled with unfounded assumptions to make a case that piracy is theft.
I can have ideals, but not wish to go to jail or pay a fine.
I have to agree on the idea that the game belongs to all of us.
And, at some point, WotC did too, which was why they released the SRD and OGL.
Huh, that one move seemed to make them a lot of money and fans. Wow, who would have thought that?
No actually Ryan Dancy just wanted to make it where WotC wouldn't lose money on Adventures, as small companies can make money on them, but larger ones don't have the capability (they in fact LOSE money on them).
WotC has NEVER felt that the game 'belongs' in the sense of 'you guys can take all the stuff we work on and we won't mind' to the all of us.
(For proof, note that the Complete series is not in the OGL, nor is most the material put out by WotC for 3.X)
I just explained how piracy is not theft. That it requires a convoluted argument filled with unfounded assumptions to make a case that piracy is theft.
I can have ideals, but not wish to go to jail or pay a fine.
No. Piracy is theft because you are taking goods and materials that require payment to obtain, and not paying for them. Its not convoluted in the least, and in fact requires convoluted logic for it not to be.
No actually Ryan Dancy just wanted to make it where WotC wouldn't lose money on Adventures, as small companies can make money on them, but larger ones don't have the capability (they in fact LOSE money on them).
WotC has NEVER felt that the game 'belongs' in the sense of 'you guys can take all the stuff we work on and we won't mind' to the all of us.
(For proof, note that the Complete series is not in the OGL, nor is most the material put out by WotC for 3.X)
Okay, but most of the community, and most other gaming companies, feel this way. If wizards wants to be viewed as a coporate monolith that is against the community, that is their choice. But it will result in lower sales. There is already a massive backlash against them. And for something like this to happen so soon after a major edition change, could be disasterous. I will say it again. Gamers will start patronizing companies like Paizo that have a more gamer-friendly reputation.
No. Piracy is theft because you are taking goods and materials that require payment to obtain, and not paying for them. Its not convoluted in the least, and in fact requires convoluted logic for it not to be.
Yes it is. You are not physically stealing anything. If I took a book off the shelf at barnes and noble, sure, that is stealing. If I copy it, and pass it around, that is sharing. You can't keep people from sharing your ideas.
I do. I believe that these shouldn't be copyrighted. Just because Sony produced a movie, I don't think that means they should be the sole owner. If someone else wants to remake the film, or even bootleg it, they should be able to.
I am not against selling stuff. I sell my freelance creations. But I do believe if I write an article, someone else should be able to print it in their magazine without paying me if they want.
It isn't about giving it away for free. It is about not placing artificial restrictions on what can and cannot be produced for sale. Copyright law stifles creativity. It prevents artists from borrowing from one another like they did in the past. It favors large corporate creativity. Not independant creativity.
Your position really does not make sense to me, no offense intended. If you write an article you think that anyone should be able to print it in their magazine if they want? That seems so foreign to me. If your trade is writing, or music, or game design, you are not going to make money if you give away everything for free.
As for Sony and their movies, do you have any idea how much it costs to film a movie? Millions of dollars. Your argument about creativity doesn't hold water in most cases. If a movie maker has no chance of making their money back they can't make a movie. If a writer can't make money back they can't afford to print their books. Musicians can't afford to make albums if they can't get paid.
If you want to be a poor starving artist with no rights to anything you create that's cool with me. But I guarantee that you are not more creative than me just because you are willing to give yours away and I'm not.
Now don't get me wrong, I do share the fruits of my creativity freely with friends, family, and my church, but I have a family to feed.
I also hope that you are serious and not just trolling (i see you joined in April 2009).
I suspect that if you asked people who play D&D what they think about WotC no longer selling pdfs of the books, the answer you get back would be some form of "they sell them as pdfs??" in the overwhelming majority of cases.
There is a massive internet backlash.
I suspect that if you asked people who play D&D what they think about WotC no longer selling pdfs of the books, the answer you get back would be some form of "they sell them as pdfs??" in the overwhelming majority of cases.
Exactly, even the so-called proofs of 20% of RPG market sells being PDF is highly questionable as its based off of polls sent to various internet using individuals who respond to them. So naturally the PDF buyers are larger inside the group 'RPG users who have used the internet for various RPG related activities' then 'People who play RPGs'.
Heck, how many people know the backstory of Bill Coffin vs. Palladium Books? Or what the guy running WEG did not too long ago on RPG.net? The internet despite its almost universal use, is not in reality universally used as forum goers/bloggers/ et cetera seem to think it is used.
Your position really does not make sense to me, no offense intended. If you write an article you think that anyone should be able to print it in their magazine if they want? That seems so foreign to me. If your trade is writing, or music, or game design, you are not going to make money if you give away everything for free.
I am free to publish it myself in a better format, or write it for a company that can afford to.
As for Sony and their movies, do you have any idea how much it costs to film a movie? Millions of dollars. Your argument about creativity doesn't hold water in most cases. If a movie maker has no chance of making their money back they can't make a movie. If a writer can't make money back they can't afford to print their books. Musicians can't afford to make albums if they can't get paid.
So? Maybe they shouldn't be spending so much on them then. That is my point, the creative arts in the US is artificially propt up by rigid and outdated copyright laws. The best art is happening outside the mainstream these days anyways.
If you want to be a poor starving artist with no rights to anything you create that's cool with me. But I guarantee that you are not more creative than me just because you are willing to give yours away and I'm not.
I never made that claim. I am just against art being a corporate thing. It has a corrupting influence on art.
Now don't get me wrong, I do share the fruits of my creativity freely with friends, family, and my church, but I have a family to feed.
Then being an artist isn't the best option for you.
I also hope that you are serious and not just trolling (i see you joined in April 2009).
My posiition on piracy has been consistent since I started posting.
There is a massive internet backlash.
I suspect that if you asked people who play D&D what they think about WotC no longer selling pdfs of the books, the answer you get back would be some form of "they sell them as pdfs??" in the overwhelming majority of cases.
This isn't what I am hearing. And the internet isn't anything to sneeze at. A large portion of gamers post on internet boards.
Exactly, even the so-called proofs of 20% of RPG market sells being PDF is highly questionable as its based off of polls sent to various internet using individuals who respond to them. So naturally the PDF buyers are larger inside the group 'RPG users who have used the internet for various RPG related activities' then 'People who play RPGs'.
Heck, how many people know the backstory of Bill Coffin vs. Palladium Books? Or what the guy running WEG did not too long ago on RPG.net? The internet despite its almost universal use, is not in reality universally used as forum goers/bloggers/ et cetera seem to think it is used.
Are you serious. The internet is the main medium of communication now. That is why newspapers and publishers are dropping like flies.
No. Piracy is theft because you are taking goods and materials that require payment to obtain, and not paying for them.
Piracy is not theft because theft is an explicitly-defined legal term which piracy does not meet the criteria for. That is why pirates are charged with copyright infringement rather than theft.
In case you're curious, the main distinction between theft and copyright infringement is that theft requires one to take an actual, physical object. Cracking open a box of PHBs and taking one? Theft. Downloading a copy online? Copyright infringement.
Its not convoluted in the least...
...just imprecise, bordering on ignorant. Also, factually incorrect.
Yes it is. You are not physically stealing anything. If I took a book off the shelf at barnes and noble, sure, that is stealing. If I copy it, and pass it around, that is sharing. You can't keep people from sharing your ideas.
You are physically stealing something. You are taking a product (A game book) that normally requires a transfer of funds. You are not transferring the funds. Thus: You effectively gone into a store and taken a book off the shelves and walked out with it. While I do think that Intellectual property rights needs a lot of revision as its become less focused on the creators and more on the producers, it changes nothing about how it is in the Law.
Also, other ways your arguments can be viewed:
Since we are destined to die anyway, we might as well shut down the hospitals, and stop trying to improve length of life, 'cause well, you can't stop people from dying.
Oh and since houses always burn, lets go ahead and shut down fire departments, as you can't stop houses from catching on fire.
Oh and since crime never ends we might as well stop policing all laws.
Yes you can't stop people from sharing ideas and even pirating, but it doesn't change the legality, or the fact it is Theft. Its taking goods and services that Should have a payment associated with them, and not rendering said payment.
You are physically stealing something. You are taking a product (A game book) that normally requires a transfer of funds. You are not transferring the funds. Thus: You effectively gone into a store and taken a book off the shelves and walked out with it. While I do think that Intellectual property rights needs a lot of revision as its become less focused on the creators and more on the producers, it changes nothing about how it is in the Law.
Also, other ways your arguments can be viewed:
Since we are destined to die anyway, we might as well shut down the hospitals, and stop trying to improve length of life, 'cause well, you can't stop people from dying.
Oh and since houses always burn, lets go ahead and shut down fire departments, as you can't stop houses from catching on fire.
Oh and since crime never ends we might as well stop policing all laws.
Yes you can't stop people from sharing ideas and even pirating, but it doesn't change the legality, or the fact it is Theft. Its taking goods and services that Should have a payment associated with them, and not rendering said payment.
See Vaelon's post on copyright infringement versus theft.
I never made such an argument. My argument doesn't go anything like "people steal anyways, so let them". Way to build a straw man.
My argument is not, you can't stop people from sharring so don't. It is you shouldn't stop people from sharring, because it is a fundamental human right to be able to communicate in any medium freely.
Piracy is not theft because theft is an explicitly-defined legal term which piracy does not meet the criteria for. That is why pirates are charged with copyright infringement rather than theft.
In case you're curious, the main distinction between theft and copyright infringement is that theft requires one to take an actual, physical object. Cracking open a box of PHBs and taking one? Theft. Downloading a copy online? Copyright infringement.
...just imprecise, bordering on ignorant. Also, factually incorrect.
Its Theft as defined not on a legal basis but on a moral basis.
Theft -
–noun
1. the act of stealing; the wrongful taking and carrying away of the personal goods or property of another; larceny.
2. an instance of this.
3. Archaic. something stolen.
Or are you stating that its not taking goods/property that doesn't belong to you?
Its Theft as defined not on a legal basis but on a moral basis.
Or are you stating that its not taking goods/property that doesn't belong to you?
Aluman, that definition pretty clearly is talking about taking something physically. And you need to prove that people actually own what they create, which you hacent yet.
See Vaelon's post on copyright infringement versus theft.
I never made such an argument. My argument doesn't go anything like "people steal anyways, so let them". Way to build a straw man.
My argument is not, you can't stop people from sharring so don't. It is you shouldn't stop people from sharring, because it is a fundamental human right to be able to communicate in any medium freely.
Right. Your argument is 'You can't stop people from sharing ideas'
You can't keep people from sharing your ideas.
To be precise.
Sharing of ideas covered by copyright is a Criminal act (Granted it has to meet specific conditions, but none the less there are specific criminal penalties for copyright violation)
So you are in essence stating 'Since you can't stop them from breaking the law, you shouldn't' The ubiquity of a law being violated in no way means that the law shouldn't exist. After all, people kill each other every year, no punishment will change that as a lot of murders are done in the heat of the moment.
However it in no way changes the fact it is Morally repugnant to society as a whole. Similarly, no matter my personal feelings about copyright, it has been established by society as morally repugnant to take someone else's written product and use them without permission.
please prove that you own your clothing.
In doing so you prove to me owning something physical is possible, and you may actually have an argument in the fact that I cannot prove I own my ideas.
Aluman, that definition pretty clearly is talking about taking something physically. And you need to prove that people actually own what they create, which you hacent yet.
Actually I don't. It is stated in the law. And it is not Clearly talking about taking something physically, at least to me. Maybe however you need the definition of goods too.
46. goods
...
b. articles of trade; wares; merchandise: canned goods.
Or are you denying that by trading merchandise just because its in a electronic form it doesn't somehow qualify as Goods?
A PDF is no different from a physical book, save for its ease of portability.
Right. Your argument is 'You can't stop people from sharing ideas'
To be precise.
Sharing of ideas covered by copyright is a Criminal act (Granted it has to meet specific conditions, but none the less there are specific criminal penalties for copyright violation)
So you are in essence stating 'Since you can't stop them from breaking the law, you shouldn't' The ubiquity of a law being violated in no way means that the law shouldn't exist. After all, people kill each other every year, no punishment will change that as a lot of murders are done in the heat of the moment.
However it in no way changes the fact it is Morally repugnant to society as a whole. Similarly, no matter my personal feelings about copyright, it has been established by society as morally repugnant to take someone else's written product and use them without permission.
No. My argument is you should not stop them. There is a difference.
No it hasn't. Many, many people disagree with copyright law.
Actually I don't. It is stated in the law. And it is not Clearly talking about taking something physically, at least to me. Maybe however you need the definition of goods too.
Or are you denying that by trading merchandise just because its in a electronic form it doesn't somehow qualify as Goods?
A PDF is no different from a physical book, save for its ease of portability.
What are you, a college student. You can't just paste selected definitions to buffer an argument. I dispute these definitions.
Yes. It isn't the same. It is wrong to break into the site and download it without paying. But if you buy it, then want to replicate and sell it. That is fine.
numbertwelve,
please prove that you own your clothing.
In doing so you prove to me owning something physical is possible, and you may actually have an argument in the fact that I cannot prove I own my ideas.
I don't. I think capitalist notions of ownership are not supportable by reason or logic.
This isn't what I am hearing. And the internet isn't anything to sneeze at. A large portion of gamers post on internet boards.
No they don't, even presuming there is absolutely no MuP's or duplicates from EN to Gleemax to RPG.net (the three biggest collection of RPG related internet forums), there is: 31,843 (RPG.net)+26,049(Gleemax, active only)+81,821(EnWorld) Or: 139,713 people total.
If this just represents 10% of the RPG community (hardly large) thats 1,397,130 people roughly, and if they all went about bought PHB 2 on the day of the release, then it would be Rank 4 in WSJ's sells, then instantly drop off as no one else is around to buy it. This means even forum goers who expressed extreme derision of all things 4E and swore up and down that they would never buy it, would in fact have to buy it.
Since we know in fact that even as of this week PHB 2 is in the top Hardback sells of WSJ, than well, the conclusion is plainly obvious: Most RPGers do not in fact go to forums.
Are you serious. The internet is the main medium of communication now. That is why newspapers and publishers are dropping like flies.
Actually, internet is Possibly the main medium of communication, but that has no bearing on the fact that majority of people who play RPG games do not in fact use the internet as part of this, or if they do its sideral to its other uses, that or the RPG community is already dead and we are lingering after affects of it, as best there is about ~500 000 register members of all RPG forums Everywhere, which even if each one is unique gives us a total population of less than that of Wyoming, the least populated state in the United States.
No they don't, even presuming there is absolutely no MuP's or duplicates from EN to Gleemax to RPG.net (the three biggest collection of RPG related internet forums), there is: 31,843 (RPG.net)+26,049(Gleemax, active only)+81,821(EnWorld) Or: 139,713 people total.
If this just represents 10% of the RPG community (hardly large) thats 1,397,130 people roughly, and if they all went about bought PHB 2 on the day of the release, then it would be Rank 4 in WSJ's sells, then instantly drop off as no one else is around to buy it. This means even forum goers who expressed extreme derision of all things 4E and swore up and down that they would never buy it, would in fact have to buy it.
Since we know in fact that even as of this week PHB 2 is in the top Hardback sells of WSJ, than well, the conclusion is plainly obvious: Most RPGers do not in fact go to forums.
I don't think there really are 1 million gamers. That number seems way overblown.
What are you, a college student. You can't just paste selected definitions to buffer an argument. I dispute these definitions.
Yes. It isn't the same. It is wrong to break into the site and download it without paying. But if you buy it, then want to replicate and sell it. That is fine.
Actually 1. If you use your custom definitions to make your arguments, you lose the argument as I use the accepted ones. I realize this is a foreign concept to you, but the point of language is a vehicle of communication so long as each of us use our personal definition of it, then we are in fact Always Right, but none the less, Never communicate.
2. See, right up until Replicate you are Technically correct its fine to take stuff and resell it. Taking stuff others have made, replicating it, then selling it is theft. Even just taking stuff others have made, replicating it, and giving it away, is theft. You are taking goods which have an intrinsic value and removing that value from the goods.
Regardless of your notions of communism, communalism, or whatever else you believe in, it is in fact by definition Theft to take goods from someone else, or reduce the value of goods that another owns. It may not be the Legal definition of theft (ergo it can't be prosecuted as theft), but it is none the less Theft.
Actually 1. If you use your custom definitions to make your arguments, you lose the argument as I use the accepted ones. I realize this is a foreign concept to you, but the point of language is a vehicle of communication so long as each of us use our personal definition of it, then we are in fact Always Right, but none the less, Never communicate.
2. See, right up until Replicate you are Technically correct its fine to take stuff and resell it. Taking stuff others have made, replicating it, then selling it is theft. Even just taking stuff others have made, replicating it, and giving it away, is theft. You are taking goods which have an intrinsic value and removing that value from the goods.
Regardless of your notions of communism, communalism, or whatever else you believe in, it is in fact by definition Theft to take goods from someone else, or reduce the value of goods that another owns. It may not be the Legal definition of theft (ergo it can't be prosecuted as theft), but it is none the less Theft.
**** you you dumb ****. You are cherry picking definitions and crossing legal and dictionary together. Which is a mistake. And stop sending me hate PMs
piracy is still immoral though
also, there are open game systems like this. Basically open source D&D exists.
I'm a socialist personally but that's doesn't mean the world is that way. IP exists and you have to respect it's existence(even if you don't care for what it stands for).
This is a political discussion...
also, there are open game systems like this. Basically open source D&D exists.
I'm a socialist personally but that's doesn't mean the world is that way. IP exists and you have to respect it's existence(even if you don't care for what it stands for).
I must obey the law, But I don't have to respect it or agree it is ethically right. These people seem to equate legality with morality.
I don't think there really are 1 million gamers. That number seems way overblown.
Less than a million means WotC so little money on DnD that stopping theft would be a waste of their time.
Evidance: 900 000*$30 = $27 000 000
Even assuming thats the total profit available for a 30 dollar book, and that there are 'less than a million' gamers....
Hasbro grosses for 2008: 3.838 Billion
So each book can contribute at Max .7% even with 12 books a year (which doesn't happen at 30/book) 8% of its gross would be from DnD. And that would require AGAIN all gamers buying their books, Each time.
Do I think we are a large community? Not by any stretch, but we are probably world wide about 30-40 million people (note that this is a tiny almost insignificant number compared to world population of 6+ billion (.5% roughly).
Less than a million means WotC so little money on DnD that stopping theft would be a waste of their time.
Evidance: 900 000*$30 = $27 000 000
Even assuming thats the total profit available for a 30 dollar book, and that there are 'less than a million' gamers....
Hasbro grosses for 2008: 3.838 Billion
So each book can contribute at Max .7% even with 12 books a year (which doesn't happen at 30/book) 8% of its gross would be from DnD. And that would require AGAIN all gamers buying their books, Each time.
Do I think we are a large community? Not by any stretch, but we are probably world wide about 30-40 million people (note that this is a tiny almost insignificant number compared to world population of 6+ billion (.5% roughly).
Where the hell do you get 30 million of us. That is way off. And Hasbros gross has little to do with D&D. Wizards barely makes a dent in their overal profit.