My ethical guideline is that if my actions aren't physically harming someone, literally and directly, then I have no problem with them at all.
I don't quite think you mean precisely that. You can steal the entirety of a man's possessions without literally and directly physically harming them. You could then emotionally abuse this man to depression, so far so that he ends his life after having nothing left to live for but sorrow.
I mean, I assume that you don't think that's morally acceptable. I could be wrong.
This is, of course, an exaggeration of the principles you're referring to, but you didn't put limits on your assertion. I believe (and yet could still be wrong) that there are indeed thresholds to your moral standings, but you aren't expounding on them right now.
I guess what bothers me most is the blase' attitude of the very gamers who benefit from the PDFs. The idea that its "not my problem" and "who does it hurt even if it is wrong".
It scares me a little. Kind of like people who cheat in college. Same sort of thing.
(And yes, I did turn people in who plagerized in college and high school and drew attention to the people who cheated on tests. Do the work or fail.)
We are the best people to find when this sort of thing happens and the best people to put peer pressure on the losers who do the pirating. F we don't let the others know its wrong, who else will?
You should probably brush up on some law. It's hugely beneficial to be aware of your environment.
The irony is great here. :) I'm well aware of the laws pertaining to refusal of service, and contrary to what many think because of the basic signs they read on various establishments, the law is quite a bit more convoluted than that. In most situations, lawsuits can and do occur because while an establishment has the right to refuse service in the immediate, the reasons for refusal must be legal in order to avoid being sued for said discrimination. This is my area of study.
...however, I will say that you're right about my statement regarding my ethical guidelines. I simplified it and put it bluntly, and probably too simply. I make a judgment call when I need to regarding whether I feel I should involve myself in something, and petty theft is not one of them. That's better I think. :)
...and yes before you point it out, I'm a law student who does not like the law, or most laws for that matter. Let that one fry some brains.
|
"Hey officer my friend drove drunk yesterday! Just doing my civic duty in being a snitch! <smug grin>
Smug grin?
Tell you what; you have a friend killed a drunk driver and your attitude might change a bit. I don't care if it's my frakin' mother, If I'm in a position to turn in a drunk driver, I'll turn 'em in. You're not even making a semi-funny comparison.
I have a question: I'm not condoning anything, here, I'm just honestly curious. In the heady old days of the 1980's, you could [and often did] borrow a D&D rulebook from the library or a friend, photocopy what you wanted, and return the book. Pretty much everyone in the local gaming groups did that with the books and Dragon mag, and created their own little binders of relevant rules. No-one ever talked about prosecuting them for copyright theft, and I know people still do this with library books/magazines on all topics. So - what's the difference [ethically or legally] between borrowing a library book and copying parts of it for personal use, and doing likewise with a PDF or hard copy that you borrow from someone else? Is it the scale of the distribution that's causing the problem? Was it always illegal, just not a big enough issue to prosecute or pursue? Have the laws changed?
As to turning someone in for having pirated materials - I think it would be pretty hard to prove anything, and as a former Gaming Store manager, I really couldn't find a reason to bar or punish someone for doing so. in fact, I think I'd get in a lot of trouble if I tried to enforce any sort of ban based on hearsay.
Copying whole books to avoid buying them is also a violation of copyright. If you look at a RPG rulebook, most of them have a character sheet as an appendix these days. It states explicity at the bottom of that page that copying this page (and this page only) for private use is ok. Thus, it is not ok to copy the other 300+ pages of the book.
I am well aware that students often copy whole books, especially expensive and/or rare special literature pertaining to their field of study. This is a copyright violation as well, but normally not persecuted. It is seen by some as a grey area bordering on fair use (beacuse of scientific use), but AFAIK, is is still not ok. (But IANAL, so don´t take this as gospel).
I recall a price raise on blank CDs and the raise going to an organization protecting musicians copyrights - the reasoning behind this being that the copying of music is all but unavoidable, so just assume that they are used to copy music and charge for it. Still, copying music for distributing is not legal. Making a copy for yur own use is all right, though - I only use copied CDs in the car, if the car overheats in the summer, only the copies could be damaged.
Copying today is a much hotter topic because the net has made it so much easier - I remember copying music albums on cassette recorder tapes, and indeed putting whole books on a (b/w) xerox machine as well, but it was much more involved than just getting some data out of the net and burning it onto a CD or printing it, so it was not that big an issue as it is today.
Stefan
the reasons for refusal must be legal in order to avoid being sued for said discrimination.
I'll admit my own ignorance on this fact. To my chagrin, I might add, as I work in a support center for a retail company with brick & mortar stores.
However, given the fact I've just quoted, you don't think a shop proprietor would be able to support the argument that 'knowledge of alleged copyright infringement' that 'directly affected the operation of his business (read: lost sales)' is a viable reason to ask someone to leave? Granted, for many of the reasons pointed out above, that may or may NOT really be the case. But it seems...risky to chance it.
I'd like to offer a small bit of concession here and say that I don't buy into the whole idea of "the road is wide, stay in the middle"; indeed there is much untrodden fruit near the fringes. But most roads have those pretty white lines for a reason, whether or not you agree how far off the asphalt it's painted.
My sincerest apologies for the mixed analogies, I hope it didn't spoil the point I was trying to make.
|
Oh my, Elfgasm. They even know you're human. Better watch out for those Human Hunting Rangers ;p
For the original poster, my advice would be this:
What he does on his computer in his own personal time is his choice. What he uses at your table is your choice. Tell him he isn't allowed to use any material from that pdf (or any pirated pdf's, of which you can quite easily prove they are pirated [if they are paizo, they would have his name on them, if they aren't paizo...pretty sure they are pirated])
If he has a discrepancy with this, politely show him his options. Such as leaving the gaming group for having a discrepancy with one book not being able to be used. Never give the option of calling a vote. In my experience, that can go badly in your favor and you may find yourself out of a gaming group (although this may be for the best in some instances, this is not one of them).
Something else that may help you is to ban laptops from the table and only use material from rulebooks present. In my personal gaming group I've done this. I've only had one exception (of which I've lived up to when I'm a player, not the GM) and that is the GM has access to a laptop because it's easier to have campaign data on a Microsoft Word file (or other program) and the D20pfsrd is an amazing resource to use to customize monsters on the fly.
For those who have a bone to pick about piracy=theft, I'm in the department of "There is a physical difference, a consequential difference and a moral difference." Why? Because as many have said, you're copying a file, not stealing the only copy. The consequences are higher lately if you get caught stealing digital media, and people feel better about copying a file than they do about stealing an actual book.
A better question is this: Should we blame those who use the technology to steal the book, or those who came up with the technology? Not quite sure? Use this example:
A Knife is a Knife. You can cut people or cut bread. When someone first invented the knife, do you believe they were ignorant of this fact?
Also, I blame WOTC for the rise in pdf pirating. If they hadn't come out with crappy products (drow of the underdark, anyone?) people wouldn't have turned to the internet to gain the product without wasting money and knowing ahead of time if it was worth buying.
No, the proprietor would have some loose grounds if he had (good) legal reason to believe *I* was stealing or pirating...but not with some knowledge that I *knew* that someone was stealing and didn't go out of my way to report them. There's still a distinction, and an important one, between assisting in breaking the law and not actively working to keep someone else from breaking it. It's a small distinction, and the lines are vague, but it's important.
I definitely was very strong in my anti-whistleblower rhetoric...I think we're pretty close to the same page as far as at least understanding the other's point.
A better question is this: Should we blame those who use the technology to steal the book, or those who came up with the technology? Not quite sure? Use this example:
A Knife is a Knife. You can cut people or cut bread. When someone first invented the knife, do you believe they were ignorant of this fact?
You blame the people who do illegal things.
Also, I blame WOTC for the rise in pdf pirating. If they hadn't come out with crappy products (drow of the underdark, anyone?) people wouldn't have turned to the internet to gain the product without wasting money and knowing ahead of time if it was worth buying.
That's a rather ridiculous justification for illegal activity.
No, the proprietor would have some loose grounds if he had (good) legal reason to believe *I* was stealing or pirating...but not with some knowledge that I *knew* that someone was stealing and didn't go out of my way to report them. There's still a distinction, and an important one, between assisting in breaking the law and not actively working to keep someone else from breaking it. It's a small distinction, and the lines are vague, but it's important.
You are aware, that the proprietor can simply ban you from his private property just for not liking you, right?
He doesn't have to have a "legal" reason to ban you.
You could attempt to challenge it on discrimination grounds, but unless you're a protected class and can prove that he discriminated based on that, you're pretty much SOL. You don't have a right to be on anyone's private property.
Hell, the proprietor could make it a condition of entry to his property/business that you dress up in a blue bunny suit and play a tune on a banjo before allowing you entry. You have the right to choose NOT to comply, and therefore, not be granted entry. That's about it.
No, the proprietor would have some loose grounds if he had (good) legal reason to believe *I* was stealing or pirating...but not with some knowledge that I *knew* that someone was stealing and didn't go out of my way to report them. There's still a distinction, and an important one, between assisting in breaking the law and not actively working to keep someone else from breaking it. It's a small distinction, and the lines are vague, but it's important.You are aware, that the proprietor can simply ban you from his private property just for not liking you, right?
He doesn't have to have a "legal" reason to ban you.
You could attempt to challenge it on discrimination grounds, but unless you're a protected class and can prove that he discriminated based on that, you're pretty much SOL. You don't have a right to be on anyone's private property.
Hell, the proprietor could make it a condition of entry to his property/business that you dress up in a blue bunny suit and play a tune on a banjo before allowing you entry. You have the right to choose NOT to comply, and therefore, not be granted entry. That's about it.
This is closer to how I thought it worked.
|
This is closer to how I thought it worked.No, the proprietor would have some loose grounds if he had (good) legal reason to believe *I* was stealing or pirating...but not with some knowledge that I *knew* that someone was stealing and didn't go out of my way to report them. There's still a distinction, and an important one, between assisting in breaking the law and not actively working to keep someone else from breaking it. It's a small distinction, and the lines are vague, but it's important.You are aware, that the proprietor can simply ban you from his private property just for not liking you, right?
He doesn't have to have a "legal" reason to ban you.
You could attempt to challenge it on discrimination grounds, but unless you're a protected class and can prove that he discriminated based on that, you're pretty much SOL. You don't have a right to be on anyone's private property.
Hell, the proprietor could make it a condition of entry to his property/business that you dress up in a blue bunny suit and play a tune on a banjo before allowing you entry. You have the right to choose NOT to comply, and therefore, not be granted entry. That's about it.
This is how it should work....but it seems like there are always extreme cases.
Other wise how would a criminal on your roof falling through it sue you....of course not always win but the hassle of dealing with getting sued is a loss even if you win a case sometimes.
This is how it should work....but it seems like there are always extreme cases.
Other wise how would a criminal on your roof falling through it sue you....of course not always win but the hassle of dealing with getting sued is a loss even if you win a case sometimes.
Unfortunately, the issue here is the legal system's tolerance for frivolous lawsuits.
If we were to adopt a "loser pays" method for our civil suits, I think it would give a lot of these people pause before proceeding with these frivolous suits.
More people would be apt to defend themselves, rather than agree to a settlement that would cost less than court fees.
More people would be apt to defend themselves, rather than agree to a settlement that would cost less than court fees.
Sadly, this would actually put more case work on an already overtaxed court system. Settlements and arbitration are good things for law.
I'm not advocating frivolous lawsuits at all. And actually, many MANY cases are thrown out on their ear on the first hearing (or perhaps before)
Frankly I'm not all that fussed.
I don't care if you dodged up a copy of the rules from a pirated copy or whatever, all I care about is whether you are a good player or not if you are at my table.
'Back in the day' I grew up in a pretty poor area where the investment in a single AD&D book was something not taken lightly, and I worked my tail off to buy the ones I could and simply had to look longingly at the ones that were simply 'never gonna happen'. Whilst I was ok as I had some kiddy jobs (lawns, paper round etc) other kids didn't, and thus from time to time other kids would rock up with half a photocopied book and a shoddy set of dice.
Similarly, these days not everyone can pony up all the cash to buy all the books, and I am happy not to 'insist they can' and narc on them over it.
They might also be looking to 'try before they buy', this is what happened for me back in the Beta days - I had ever HEARD of PF before my friend brought it up and started on about it, and had I not been able to get in on Beta days and be sold on the product there is practically no way on earth I would have EVER bought the books once the released. So 'free distribution' one way or the other was the ONLY thing that meant Paizo started making money off me later.
I find PDF's superior than the hardcovers (which sit unused on my shelf most of the time) as I can view them online, or do them '4 to a page' on double sided printout bringing the huge weighty tome down to an 80 page printout.
Anyhow thats my view.
(TLDR - I dont care if people play with pirated copies, and dont begrudge them one iota)
|
|
A better question is this: Should we blame those who use the technology to steal the book, or those who came up with the technology? Not quite sure? Use this example:
A Knife is a Knife. You can cut people or cut bread. When someone first invented the knife, do you believe they were ignorant of this fact?
You blame the people who do illegal things.
Also, I blame WOTC for the rise in pdf pirating. If they hadn't come out with crappy products (drow of the underdark, anyone?) people wouldn't have turned to the internet to gain the product without wasting money and knowing ahead of time if it was worth buying.That's a rather ridiculous justification for illegal activity.
Thank you for skipping the intent of a philosophical question and going straight to bigotry (As I see it).
Illegal activities occur because they are given the ability to occur. Am I saying let's blame P2P networks? no. Paizo? no. THE INTERNET? no. What I'm saying is this: Don't lay the blame anywhere. The ability to perform the task with relatively low risk of getting caught is a temptation that most gamers who have no loyalty to a company that produces the game or gamers who don't have the money and want a sneak peak of whether a book is worth it or not are willing to take because they have felt cheated in the past or simply because they know the book will find little to no use but possibly once in their lifetime and don't wish to invest that money when they can simply get what they want from the book and be done. (Yes, this is a run-on sentence)
Pause: Let's be clear. I am NOT advocating anything in the above paragraph.
The WOTC comment was hyperbole. Why? Read some of the comments on this page. Everyone is skipping the OP's original post and going into a flamewar.
As for whether or not Elfgasm is going to 'narc' on someone for using a pirated pdf is his own business. He isn't aiding and abetting theft. And yes, he's not tattling on said person. Is he hurting his FLGS? No. Why? Because who says that person would have bought it anyways? If they like it, that only gives them incentive to buy it. Elfgasm has no moral or legal imperative to aid or hinder his FLGS or his player.
|
Here is a question for all of you who are saying that it is very wrong to give out copies of your PDFs.
What if you live in an area where there is not a single gaming store within hours (and I mean hours) of your gaming location, so buying hard copies is both almost impossible or a bad option?
What about if the people you game with are students or people who don't have jobs and thus don't have money and can't afford to buy hard copies or PDFs themselves? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to play?
Is it horribly wrong and evil to give them copies of the PDFs so they can read the rules, make characters, be able to play the game without being grossly unaware of what they are doing? Is it alright if you are the only person within miles who is both a gamer and has the money and resources to buy the PDFs in the first place?
EDIT: FYI I am in no way supporting piracy, it is just a question about some of the extreme views I have noticed on the board and my curiosity on how some of you view the stated questions.
Here is a question for all of you who are saying that it is very wrong to give out copies of your PDFs.
What if you live in an area where there is not a single gaming store within hours (and I mean hours) of your gaming location, so buying hard copies is both almost impossible or a bad option?
What about if the people you game with are students or people who don't have jobs and thus don't have money and can't afford to buy hard copies or PDFs themselves? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to play?
Is it horribly wrong and evil to give them copies of the PDFs so they can read the rules, make characters, be able to play the game without being grossly unaware of what they are doing? Is it alright if you are the only person within miles who is both a gamer and has the money and resources to buy the PDFs in the first place?
EDIT: FYI I am in no way supporting piracy, it is just a question about some of the extreme views I have noticed on the board and my curiosity on how some of you view the stated questions.
A dismissive answer is: Split the cost of a book, and buy it on Amazon.
I get that you're asking from a philosophical perspective, and my answer then, is this: despite all the abundant evidence to the contrary provided by the user community, no one needs Pathfinder RPG to live.
Perhaps the easiest legal concept to compare copyright infringement to is Trespass. So, an analogy, if you will.
When I was in grade school, I had to walk to school. I did not have a bike (well, actually I did but it got stolen), so the quickest way to get to school was to cut through 3 people's yards and go through the side entrance of a graveyard, then come out the other side.
I never did that, because it was extremely disrespectful to the property owners; plus my mother nearly had a cow when I suggested I do this to save some time. You see? I don't have a right or entitlement to walk through my neighbors yard every day, regardless if I ever get caught or not. I think a lot of the posters here are neglecting the idea of respect for the rightful property owners to deny use of their property without reasonable compensation. It's certainly not a new concept.
This thread has reassured me that debates like this never go well, repeat themselves a hundred times, then wander into people playing lawyer. And perhaps should just be locked instead of cleaned-up or monitored.
Thank you for skipping the intent of a philosophical question and going straight to bigotry (As I see it).
Huh? Bigotry? Really? REALLY?!
Thank you, come again.
Illegal activities occur because they are given the ability to occur. Am I saying let's blame P2P networks? no. Paizo? no. THE INTERNET? no. What I'm saying is this: Don't lay the blame anywhere. The ability to perform the task with relatively low risk of getting caught is a temptation that most gamers who have no loyalty to a company that produces the game or gamers who don't have the money and want a sneak peak of whether a book is worth it or not are willing to take because they have felt cheated in the past or simply because they know the book will find little to no use but possibly once in their lifetime and don't wish to invest that money when they can simply get what they want from the book and be done. (Yes, this is a run-on sentence)
None of these even come close to any legitimacy.
The WOTC comment was hyperbole. Why? Read some of the comments on this page. Everyone is skipping the OP's original post and going into a flamewar.
The hyperbole is claiming that everyone is skipping the OP and flaming. That is NOT happening.
As for whether or not Elfgasm is going to 'narc' on someone for using a pirated pdf is his own business. He isn't aiding and abetting theft.
Yeah, we know. Already been covered.
And yes, he's not tattling on said person. Is he hurting his FLGS? No. Why? Because who says that person would have bought it anyways? If they like it, that only gives them incentive to buy it.
Actually, the discussion with/involving Elfgasm wasn't related to piracy. It was shoplifting.
If a guy told me he stole his book from the LGS we're playing at, I wouldn't do or say anything simply because I don't care.
So, you're wrong. If someone shoplifts from Elfgasm's FLGS, it DOES hurt his FLGS.
Elfgasm has no moral or legal imperative to aid or hinder his FLGS or his player.
Again, this has already been stated. He chooses not to notify his FLGS of shoplifting when he is aware of it. That's his choice. It's my choice (and not a flame) to think (and state) that it's asinine to patronize a business and not inform them when someone is harming that business.
Here is a question for all of you who are saying that it is very wrong to give out copies of your PDFs.
What if you live in an area where there is not a single gaming store within hours (and I mean hours) of your gaming location, so buying hard copies is both almost impossible or a bad option?
If the argument in support of PDF piracy is that you're unable to buy the physical copies, then buy the PDFs. If PDFs of your game of choice are not available, but physical copies are, then figure out a way to buy those. If your situation prevents you from doing so, alter your situation, or do without.
What about if the people you game with are students or people who don't have jobs and thus don't have money and can't afford to buy hard copies or PDFs themselves? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to play?
A person's personal financial situation really has no bearing on the legality of their violation of copyright. Being unemployed and destitute is not a legal defense of copyright violation. Further, there are mechanisms available to allow them to play, such as the Pathfinder Reference Document.
Is it horribly wrong and evil to give them copies of the PDFs so they can read the rules, make characters, be able to play the game without being grossly unaware of what they are doing? Is it alright if you are the only person within miles who is both a gamer and has the money and resources to buy the PDFs in the first place?
See above.
|
|
Here is a question for all of you who are saying that it is very wrong to give out copies of your PDFs.
What if you live in an area where there is not a single gaming store within hours (and I mean hours) of your gaming location, so buying hard copies is both almost impossible or a bad option?
If the argument in support of PDF piracy is that you're unable to buy the physical copies, then buy the PDFs. If PDFs of your game of choice are not available, but physical copies are, then figure out a way to buy those. If your situation prevents you from doing so, alter your situation, or do without.
What about if the people you game with are students or people who don't have jobs and thus don't have money and can't afford to buy hard copies or PDFs themselves? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to play?A person's personal financial situation really has no bearing on the legality of their violation of copyright. Being unemployed and destitute is not a legal defense of copyright violation. Further, there are mechanisms available to allow them to play, such as the Pathfinder Reference Document.
Is it horribly wrong and evil to give them copies of the PDFs so they can read the rules, make characters, be able to play the game without being grossly unaware of what they are doing? Is it alright if you are the only person within miles who is both a gamer and has the money and resources to buy the PDFs in the first place?See above.
As I stated in my initial post, I was not saying pirating copies of the PDF, I was saying if I had bought them and then gave a copy to my players so they can use it to make characters, read the rules, etc. and that the only reason for this was because they A) couldn't buy physical copies due to location and B) couldn't buy PDF or physical copies due to financial situation. I just wanted to see some of the opinions and reactions of people here on the boards in this situation.
And based off of what I have read I see that some people feel that if you can't afford to buy your own copy of the book then you shouldn't be allowed to play. I feel this is both sad and wrong because I personally would never turn a player away for not owning the book. :(
And based off of what I have read I see that some people feel that if you can't afford to buy your own copy of the book then you shouldn't be allowed to play. I feel this is both sad and wrong because I personally would never turn a player away for not owning the book. :(
Well, there is the online PRD that is free to use, the rulebook pdf comes at 10 bucks - all in all, the starting investment for a player could be no more than a pen and some paper, provided somebody has internet access. (And if they have not at least a PC, the whole point about pirated data is moot anyways. If you can afford a PC and internet access, in all probability you will be able to buy a ten dollar pdf or even a 50 dollar rulebook - otherwise, something is very strange, or those folks are real cheapskates) All you need is the rules and some dice, and these could be substituted with paper chits if need be. Nobody said that you need to turn players away who don´t own the rules, but some folks here said that they would turn people away owning illegal copies of the rules. Indeed, I consider it normal that not every player owns the rulebook - I provide two copies at the table. It may be different in organized play, however. If nobody could afford to buy a game of, say, monopoly, but you want to play it, you are simply out of luck. I would love to buy a luxury car, but I can´t afford it, so I just don´t do that. Not being able to afford something does not legalize crimes to aquire the something.
Stefan
all in all, the starting investment for a player could be no more than a pen and some paper, provided somebody has internet access.
Which I think is where I just didn't worry about the PDF debate.
You can 'play' based on the SRD/PRD if you really want, so what diff does it make at the end of the day.
Frankly even the pirates end up adding bucks to the coffers of both your FLGS and the publishers - you still can't download dice and minis, and then there are the occasional sales (books/occasional supplements) which both parties benefit from.
Here is a question for all of you who are saying that it is very wrong to give out copies of your PDFs.
What if you live in an area where there is not a single gaming store within hours (and I mean hours) of your gaming location, so buying hard copies is both almost impossible or a bad option?
Buy a PDF. They are cheap.
What about if the people you game with are students or people who don't have jobs and thus don't have money and can't afford to buy hard copies or PDFs themselves? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to play?
Ah the old, "I was hungry, so I was justified in stealing that loaf of bread." Do these poor folks have computers? Obviously, they must to receive a copy of a PDF from you. Do they have Internet access? Even at dial-up speeds, thats still an expense. Gaming PDFs aren't required to live. Why can't they read your PDF at your house on your computer? Sounds more like they'd rather not spend the money for something that is easily stolen. More amorality than anything else.
Is it horribly wrong and evil to give them copies of the PDFs so they can read the rules, make characters, be able to play the game without being grossly unaware of what they are doing? Is it alright if you are the only person within miles who is both a gamer and has the money and resources to buy the PDFs in the first place?
Yes. It is horribly wrong and evil because you are stealing from the people who produced the property you are copying. They already offer legal avenues to get the PDFs at extremely reasonable prices. Plus they have published all the rules in a free reference document online. If you don't need fancy artwork you can play the entire game without spending a cent. If your 'friends' can't pony up $10 to buy a PDF, then perhaps they can read yours when they are over, instead of copying them to the computers they shouldn't be able to afford if they are as destitute as you make them seem.
EDIT: FYI I am in no way supporting piracy, it is just a question about some of the extreme views I have noticed on the board and my curiosity on how some of you view the stated questions.
FYI I don't find it extreme to be against piracy, because it is stealing. YMMV, but don't try to justify it to the world. You are hurting the folks who spend their time, money and effort to create these things for the community. If you feel the need to copy PDFs at least accept the label of 'thief' and be done with it. My curiosity is how this argument keeps being banded about and we keep getting folks doing mental gymnastics trying to prove PDF copying =/= stealing. You can call it anything you want, but at the end of the day IMO, you are no better than a regular thief who steals physical items. Playing the 'I'm Poor' card, the 'Robin Hood' card, the 'It's not Physical so it's not Stealing' card, or the 'Who is it Hurting?' card won't change my opinion, so don't bother.
EDIT: All usages of the word 'you' in this rant are the 'royal you' and are not meant to single out a particular poster.
"Hey officer my friend drove drunk yesterday! Just doing my civic duty in being a snitch! <smug grin>
Smug grin?
Tell you what; you have a friend killed a drunk driver and your attitude might change a bit. I don't care if it's my frakin' mother, If I'm in a position to turn in a drunk driver, I'll turn 'em in. You're not even making a semi-funny comparison.
+1. I have had several friends die in these situations. You wanna get blotto, have the decency to call a cab. I'd rat yer ass out in a second. I've even called in on douchebags weaving on the highway before. It's a frakkin' public service.
my moral code requires me not giving a @#!?
i was raised with the rule "snitches get stitches"
sorry guys.
My rule is scumbag thieves who threaten snitches will get worse than stitches should they see me face to face. Sorry.
because you are stealing from the people who produced the property you are copying.
I just want to reiterate this point right now. Brian H. Harris has pointed it out, as have a couple others.
Banish that idea from your head here and now.
Why? Because the assertion that it IS stealing hurts the case for Copyright Infringement. Any logical creature can figure out that the act of copyright infringement is the illegal use of someone else's property. Stealing requires removing a property from another person's possession.
Let me set out a logical analysis for you:
Copyright Infringement viewed as stealing
asserted fact: Copyright Infringement is stealing
supporting fact: Stealing is illegal
logical conclusion: Therefor, copyright infringement is illegal
If a person can attack the first asserted fact (which they will, because they can logically process the thought), they will logically conclude that copyright infringement is not illegal
However we KNOW that copyright infringement is illegal, so we must use a different logical analysis:
Copyright Infringement as a separate entity
asserted fact: Copyright Infringement is the misuse of another person's Intellectual Property without the owner's permission
supporting fact: Intellectual Property (IP) is protected by our laws to enable and encourage creators of IP to continue creating their IP.
logical conclusion: Therefor, copyright infringement is a violation of the right of the creators, and it is illegal. Additionally, copyright infringement discourages and will potentially disable creators from creating new IP.
I want to take a second here to address a potential argument to my second logical analysis.
In psychology, it has been shown that people in groups of any size (even 2) experience what is called diffusion of responsibility. Diffusion of responsibility occurs when people in groups have an opportunity to make a choice or take an action, yet feel less obligated to do so because other people present could also take that action. The larger the number of people present, the higher the effect. On scenes of accidents or fires, this is what causes people to stand around and watch; they think someone else will or should call 9-1-1 (or the emergency number, whatever it is where you are).
So, a person who is a consumer of a product, in our case a written work which is protected by Intellectual Property Rights, may have the belief that his actions have such a little effect on the total outcome, that they do not matter, or that enough other people have bought the product to sufficiently support the publisher. What we must realize is that this is a cognitive bias that ALL humans possess. Fortunately for, well, everyone who appreciates creative works, not everyone falls into this trap.
Now I won't claim that it's at all easy to counteract this bias. But being aware of potential pitfalls helps us overcome them.
|
|
As I stated in my initial post, I was not saying pirating copies of the PDF, I was saying if I had bought them and then gave a copy to my players so they can use it to make characters, read the rules, etc. and that the only reason for this was because they A) couldn't buy physical copies due to location and B) couldn't buy PDF or physical copies due to financial situation. I just wanted to see some of the opinions and reactions of people here on the boards in this situation.
Listen. If a bunch of players from Cuba can figure out a way to legally obtain and play Pathfinder, anybody who plays the I'm too poor card is just being lazy.
You don't need to distribute the PDF to play. Everything related to character creation can be found online very easily, which if you're sharing an electronic file should be easy for you to use. If you absolutely want your own copy, the one book you NEED to play is $10 is a PDF. Even off of Amazon or from a used bookstore the hardcover is only about double that which split amongst a group might only be about $5; and even with my group were everybody has a copy, we only usually have one copy at the table.
This is an extraordnarily easy hobby to get into. Dollar for dollar it's cheaper than going to a movie or eating at TGI Fridays. I have met plenty of less well-off people who have found a way to gain legal access to a core rulebook. The poor card just doesn't hold water.
Logical, well-thought-out explanation on the difference between copyright infringement and stealing
I will conceed that you have a meritorious argument good sir. I use the terms 'thief' and 'stealing' because of the historically negative connotations these words have. PDF piraters spend a lot of time defending their 'infringements' becasue they dislike being labeled as thieves. So, by a strict definition of 'stealing', perhaps you are correct.
However, in my opinion* those who perpetrate 'copyright infringement' are 'stealing' from the creators. They are taking something from someone. That makes them no better than the carjacker, the second-story man, or the purse snatcher. Once again, IMO. They can dress it up any way they choose, but it is still theivery. I enjoy the products and songs people make. I am willing to obtain them legally. If someone wishes to copy everything and not pay, that is their choice. Just don't expect me to condone or forgive it. I'll still consider them scum of the earth.
And people who advocate terrorizing witnesses to keep them from testifying? Lower than the crud on a pig-farmer's boots, IMO.
*Not presented as a fact, a leagal truism, or how everyone believes.
|
|
I
because you are stealing from the people who produced the property you are copying.I just want to reiterate this point right now. Brian H. Harris has pointed it out, as have a couple others.
Banish that idea from your head here and now.
Here's the rub. The very concept of copyright infringement and it's legal implications as a legal construct isn't part of the collective consciousness of humans. When the ads by anti-piracy groups continue such anti piracy ads which state things like "you wouldn't steal a car" then that is what copyright infringement is going to mean for the average joe.
It may mean something else in a legal sense but if a group not interested or educated in the finer points, the statement "piracy is theft" is easy to understand and provides enough of a frame of reference that the concept is at least understood a little, as opposed to ignored out of its compexity. I understand the difference, but the point is that most don't and more importantly don't want to deal with the details. In this case the perception is that its stealing so frankly for most, that's what it means. For the average joe that's enough, and coming here, railing on the technicalities and psychology is what makes people turn off to the whole concept. A marketing director once told me a good phrase that works well for me: "perception is reality." Your definition may hold up in a court of law, but for most calling it stealing gets the concept across and works.
Edits: Typing long messages on a tablet is hard.
|
Here is a question for all of you who are saying that it is very wrong to give out copies of your PDFs.
What if you live in an area where there is not a single gaming store within hours (and I mean hours) of your gaming location, so buying hard copies is both almost impossible or a bad option?
What about if the people you game with are students or people who don't have jobs and thus don't have money and can't afford to buy hard copies or PDFs themselves? Does that mean they shouldn't be able to play?
Is it horribly wrong and evil to give them copies of the PDFs so they can read the rules, make characters, be able to play the game without being grossly unaware of what they are doing? Is it alright if you are the only person within miles who is both a gamer and has the money and resources to buy the PDFs in the first place?
EDIT: FYI I am in no way supporting piracy, it is just a question about some of the extreme views I have noticed on the board and my curiosity on how some of you view the stated questions.
Here's the problem with your premise.
They can read your copy.
You have a legal copy, which they can read in your presence. This eliminates the need for them to get their own illegally.
Is it more troublesome than giving them illegal copies? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? Yes.
You would be better off asking "If none of us could buy any of it legally, does that mean we are not allowed to play?"
And the answer would be "Yes". You can't play Rockband unless you buy the game, why should this be any different? As someone else said, don't use your situation as an excuse to commit illegalities. It is still your choice to commit those acts.
And due to the fact that everything you need to play Pathfinder is online for free legally, you have no leg to stand on to claim "I need this PDF to play the game."
And based off of what I have read I see that some people feel that if you can't afford to buy your own copy of the book then you shouldn't be allowed to play. I feel this is both sad and wrong because I personally would never turn a player away for not owning the book. :(
Again, you let him use your copy. No one is saying every player has to have a legal copy. Just that one person does, and can allow people to read it WITHOUT giving them an illegal copy. And the fact that the core rules are free online means you never have to worry about such things.
for most calling it stealing gets the concept across and works.
But that's the point I'm arguing: calling it stealing doesn't get the point across. It's far too easy to dismiss the argument that it's stealing, and pulls the legs from under the argument against copyright infringement.
We simply do not have to oversimplify this codification for people. People in large groups act stupidly but that doesn't make the individuals stupid.
You could explain the concept of copyright to a 7 year old and have them understand. Lying tot hem, and telling that it's stealing is sending mixed signals.
Here, if we must, I'll summarize an argument against copyright infringement in a simple, cogent statement:
Copyright Owners have most rights to the things they created. You do not.
We won't get into rights transfer though, which is also a right of the copyright owner!
|
|
for most calling it stealing gets the concept across and works.But that's the point I'm arguing: calling it stealing doesn't get the point across. It's far too easy to dismiss the argument that it's stealing, and pulls the legs from under the argument against copyright infringement.
We simply do not have to oversimplify this codification for people. People in large groups act stupidly but that doesn't make the individuals stupid.
You could explain the concept of copyright to a 7 year old and have them understand. Lying tot hem, and telling that it's stealing is sending mixed signals.
Here, if we must, I'll summarize an argument against copyright infringement in a simple, cogent statement:
Copyright Owners have most rights to the things they created. You do not.
We won't get into rights transfer though, which is also a right of the copyright owner!
Gruuuu
I'm not disagreeing with your legal assessment. It was well stated, and I understand how it is correct, but the fact of the matter is, most people don't care. Point in fact, this discussion continues even with statements by various individuals that copyright infringement is different than stealing and the statement "Piracy is stealing" keeps coming up.
Language in common parlance evolves faster than it does in the legal world, and since most people have apathetic to negative feelings about "legaleese", the common usage of language has to have some bearing on the conversation. In this case, the word "stealing" and "theft" has evolved to include copyright infringement.
You're more likely to hear "he stole my idea" than "he infringed on my idea." News reports make the statement "Person X stole company secrets" just as often as they state "Person X infringed on company secrets." Even the RIAA uses the term "piracy is stealing, stealing is wrong." In other words, for the average person having an average conversation about the topic of copyright infringement, the topic likely will be referred to as "stealing". It also means that for the layperson, who is not attempting to make correct legal arguments, that term will be used correctly. Like it or not, language evolves.
You can argue the nuances of the legal definition until you're blue in the face, most people won't listen, and/or won't care.
GruuuuI'm not disagreeing with your legal assessment. It was well stated, and I understand how it is correct, but the fact of the matter is, most people don't care. Point in fact, this discussion continues even with statements by various individuals that copyright infringement is different than stealing and the statement "Piracy is stealing" keeps coming up.
Language in common parlance evolves faster than it does in the legal world, and since most people have apathetic to negative feelings about "legaleese", the common usage of language has to have some bearing on the conversation. In this case, the word "stealing" and "theft" has evolved to include copyright infringement.
You're more likely to hear "he stole my idea" than "he infringed on my idea." News reports make the statement "Person X stole company secrets" just as often as they state "Person X infringed on company secrets." Even the RIAA uses the term "piracy is stealing, stealing is wrong." In other words, for the average person having an average conversation about the topic of copyright infringement, the topic likely will be referred to as "stealing". It also means that for the layperson, who is not attempting to make correct legal arguments, that term will be used correctly. Like it or not, language evolves.
You can argue the nuances of the legal definition until you're blue in the face, most people won't listen, and/or won't care.
Most people don't care now because they reject the idea that copyright infringement is stealing. And rightly so. They are misinformed because the advocates of copyright protection are spreading misinformation.
Stealing and Theft have NOT evolved beyond its simple roots. People KNOW that copyright infringement isn't stealing or theft.
Also "he's stealing my idea!" and "stole company secrets" are separate issues. Ones deeply mired in intricacy; won't get into it.
I'm only pressing this issue because I firmly believe that insisting on calling copyright infringement stealing hurts more than it helps.
"Stealing" and "Theft" are weasel words utilized by the groups such as RIAA and MPAA, specifically chosen to demonize the practice of copyright infringement or piracy. The words are emotionally charged (nobody likes their stuff being stolen), and their use is contrived to engender that emotion in people.
It's an intellectually dishonest argument, and people do care.
Mocking such ploys is becoming increasingly more widespread:
I believe that such dishonesty is doing more to harm their cause then help it. People know that infringement and piracy AREN'T stealing/theft, no matter how often those words are misused.
My issue, and where I would like advice, is how to approach the issue of someone's watermarked PDF being distributed in the first place. I didn't write down the original owner's info, but I am confident that I could get it with little or no fuss. Unfortunately I don't know the circumstances surrounding his PDF being pirated and don't want to assume the worst.
[snip]
Or I could just turn the info over. The latter option seems the most likely and effective. What do the paizonians think?
Basically, you're asking whether you'd be a good person to subject someone to legal proceedings, thousands of dollars in fines, dozens of lost hours, and untold stress for the "crime" accepting a gift from a friend whose cost to the company in question can't be more than 30-40 bucks. If he had shoplifted it by hand, he'd face a fine of a couple of hundred dollars, but you want to try to ruin his life.
Get a grip and chill out. It's your game, but that doesn't make you the boss of him; it makes you the referee of his character's actions. This is neither morally required nor morally praiseworthy. Frankly, I suggest you think long and hard about why you want to act this way and why you need to get public affirmation of your virtuous character.
I removed a couple posts. Please don't advocate illegal activities on our messageboards.
Not to violate the board restrictions on discussing politics, but Paizo products like Rise of the Runelords 1 include material that is illegal in Uganda and many other countries. I'd like to ask that the FAQ specify what illegal activities are being referenced in these kinds of blanket injunctions.
Basically, you're asking whether you'd be a good person to subject someone to legal proceedings, thousands of dollars in fines, dozens of lost hours, and untold stress for the "crime" accepting a gift from a friend whose cost to the company in question can't be more than 30-40 bucks. If he had shoplifted it by hand, he'd face a fine of a couple of hundred dollars, but you want to try to ruin his life.
While I suspect that I agree with your opinion of the disparity between the penalties for actual theft and the penalties for copyright infringement, making the person reporting the infringement out to be a pariah attempting to "ruin" the life of someone is going overboard.
Get a grip and chill out. It's your game, but that doesn't make you the boss of him; it makes you the referee of his character's actions. This is neither morally required nor morally praiseworthy. Frankly, I suggest you think long and hard about why you want to act this way and why you need to get public affirmation of your virtuous character.
So is this.
It's easy to hold this view when your ability to pay the rent doesn't hinge on people buying legal copies of your work rather than downloading them for free.
Since I teach at a media school where cultural producers are also culture product sharers, the issue is not as black and white as you seem to think. I've had nontraditional students with their own record labels, those with parents in the industry, and others who've had nuanced and varied opinions on this issue, especially since the evidence is pretty muddy when it comes to the financial cost/benefit of piracy. You can be as emotional as you want about this issue, but it doesn't make it any more persuasive.
While I suspect that I agree with your opinion of the disparity between the penalties for actual theft and the penalties for copyright infringement, making the person reporting the infringement out to be a pariah attempting to "ruin" the life of someone is going overboard.
If you like. But yes, I'd describe subjecting someone to the outsized and absurd penalties for internet piracy as trying to ruin their life with debt. And, if the OP wanted a chorus from Yes Men, he should post on other boards. He wanted to know what I thought, which is that he's being ridiculous.
Now he knows that some people on the internet think this will make him a knight protecting the rights of freelance artists who sold their copyright to larger companies while others, like myself, think that he's trying to saddle a friend with enormous debt for a minor violation with hard to prove harms so that he can appear virtuous on the internet.
The RIAA lists the extreme possible results of the OP's fantasized actions. They are:
"Do The Crime, Do The Time
If you do not have legal permission, and you go ahead and copy or distribute copyrighted music anyway, you can be prosecuted in criminal court and/or sued for damages in civil court.
Criminal penalties for first-time offenders can be as high as five years in prison and $250,000 in fines.
Civil penalties can run into many thousands of dollars in damages and legal fees. The minimum penalty is $750 per song.
The "No Electronic Theft Law" (NET Act) is similar on copyright violations that involve digital recordings:
Criminal penalties can run up to 5 years in prison and/or $250,000 in fines, even if you didn’t do it for monetary or financial or commercial gain.
If you did expect something in return, even if it just involves swapping your files for someone else’s, as in MP3 trading, you can be sentenced to as much as 5 years in prison.
Regardless of whether you expected to profit, you’re still liable in civil court for damages and lost profits of the copyright holder.
Or the copyright holders can sue you for up to $150,000 in statutory damages for each of their copyrighted works that you illegally copy or distribute."
So, yes, I think this qualifies as trying to ruin someone's life over a minor infraction.
A post-doc student in my state was fined 54,000 for dowloading and distributing 30 songs. Justice requires more than vengeance. It requires the punishment to fit the crime.
This is the last I'll contribute to this thread, as feeding Virtuous Trolls like the OP is the last thing I want to do.
|
Then you're doing your FLGS a disservice.Its things like this that cause so may FLGS owners to give up and go out of business: lack of loyalty.
I wouldn't even want someone with this attitude as a player..
Some FLGS deserve that disservice. See funny thing is loyalty is a two way street. There are a couple FLGS that I wouldnt piss on if the building was on fire.....
Careful throwing around not wanting that attitude as a player. Just because its a FLGS, does it mean one deserves loyalty.
Some FLGS deserve that disservice.
A business DESERVES to have product stolen?
Wow.
Stuff.
The penalties for those who violate copyright (at least in a non-commercial sense - things get muddier when they're distributing) are ridiculous, I wholeheartedly agree.
Ultimately, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get hammered with those punishments.
If you're not willing to accept the punishment, don't perform the act for which those punishments are issued.
Stuff.The penalties for those who violate copyright (at least in a non-commercial sense - things get muddier when they're distributing) are ridiculous, I wholeheartedly agree.
Ultimately, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who get hammered with those punishments.
If you're not willing to accept the punishment, don't perform the act for which those punishments are issued.
Sadly, it seems that the punishments are designed to return to executives all of the 'lost sales' that think they've received, from ALL violations, as opposed to the violations committed by that single individual.
This, too, hurts the argument for Copyright Protection. People just see it as a means to Money-Grub, because the biggest lobbyists are, indeed, Money-Grubbers. Ultimately the ire and apathy for the rights of the large media corporations bleeds over to the small publishers.
I'm not saying that the large media corporations deserve to have their rights violated, just that when they hurt themselves by their inane and frustrating antics, they end up hurting the little guy trying to get his name out, too. Only the big guys can get people in court and slap ridiculous fines on them. Augh. Ok let's not go down this path, it leads to the dark side.
|
|
Some FLGS deserve that disservice.A business DESERVES to have product stolen?
Wow.
So your fine with RIAA's tactics then? Suing people into the ground or what not?
I'll await your response.
I dont condone the stealing- either PDF or physical copies. But there are some business's, either FLGs or othewise, I shed no tears over.
Sadly, it seems that the punishments are designed to return to executives all of the 'lost sales' that think they've received, from ALL violations, as opposed to the violations committed by that single individual.
This, too, hurts the argument for Copyright Protection. People just see it as a means to Money-Grub, because the biggest lobbyists are, indeed, Money-Grubbers. Ultimately the ire and apathy for the rights of the large media corporations bleeds over to the small publishers.
Oh, I wholeheartedly agree.
Many (as evidenced by this thread) will leap on it as justification for their errant ways (just as some will attempt to use "corporate greed" or "expensive CDs" as justification for music piracy), which is as much nonsense as those ridiculous penalties are.
I'm not saying that the large media corporations deserve to have their rights violated
Nor I, but I also see that we have a newer, younger class of consumer, born in the digital age, that see these corporations (both large and small) attempt to restrict legitimate use via their copyright. Lawsuits such as those that gave us the space-shifting precedent are a big one.
Actions such as these engender a lack of respect for copyright, and when the waters get muddied by those that don't understand fair use, more will come to either perceive their illegal use as legal, or just not care.
Again, none of this is a justification, but like you, I see it as damaging to the copyright holder's interests.
So your fine with RIAA's tactics then? Suing people into the ground or what not?
I think I've made it clear that I don't, while at the same time, having no sympathy for those who violate copyright and get penalized for it.
Don't cry to me that you illegally downloaded and distributed 30 songs and the RIAA won a judgement against you for $54,000. I don't care - you didn't have any legal right to download those songs, or further distribute them.
You don't challenge bad laws such as the DMCA and NET by egregiously violating them, and then holding a pity-party when you're charged, tried and sentenced under those laws.
Ultimately, there's nobody that gets to play "Robin Hood" in the case of copyrighted material. The "rob from the rich, give to the poor" act carries no weight in the context of luxury goods and entertainment media.
Both parties are in the wrong here. The defendant is wrong for the infringement. The RIAA (using this example's plaintiff) is unethical for attesting that they lost $54,000 from this situation.
Edit: And our lawmakers are corrupt for taking money from commercial interests lobbying to criminalize civil matters. Even worse, not requiring documentation of the actual impact, but instead, providing for statutory damages.
I dont condone the stealing- either PDF or physical copies. But there are some business's, either FLGs or othewise, I shed no tears over.
Yet, the disservice we've specifically been discussing, in the situation of the FLGS, someone shoplifting physical product from the store. Your statement is that some FLGS' deserve that disservice.
I'm not saying that they deserve sympathy from you, if you have issue with them. I'm saying that, regardless of what the FLGS has done, it doesn't deserve to have people shoplift.