The title is so appropriate, I think.
Drama time, folks:
Quote from: http://www.piazio.com/paizo.com[/url]; after noon on April 7, you will no longer be able to download Wizards of the Coast PDFs that you have already purchased, so please make sure you have downloaded all purchased PDFs by that time.
We thank you for your patronage of paizo.com (http://www.piazio.com/). Please check out our other downloads at paizo.com/store/downloads (http://www.paizo.com/store/downloads).
Sincerely yours,
The Paizo Customer Service Team
Link.[/url]
Other notes of interest:
*Paizo was the only place offering WotC products legally for download as PDFs.
*According to the datestamp, I recieved the email on Tuesday April 7, at 00:26:28 PST, almost half an hour after they stopped selling the PDFs.
Remember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Toast unrelated.
(//../../e107_files/public/1239094154_14_FT0_toast.jpg)
Ouch, wow.
Wait, so in order to prevent illegal sharing of their product in digital format, they are shutting down all legal distributors of that content?
The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind.
Seriously, I don't think this is how you reach out to an increasingly Internet-reliant consumer base.
Quote from: Polycarp!Wait, so in order to prevent illegal sharing of their product in digital format, they are shutting down all legal distributors of that content?
The phrase "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" comes to mind.
Seriously, I don't think this is how you reach out to an increasingly Internet-reliant consumer base.
We don't know the details so I think it's a bit unfair to point at WotC.
Perhaps WotC put invisible watermarks into the PDFs they sent to Paizo and other online retailers, and the pirated copies had that watermark pointing to Paizo or another retailer as the "root" of the problem. Movies shown in cinemas use the same mechanism to identify where the illegal copy was made.
Making
really good scans of books often consumes much time (scanning and OCR'ing every single page, postprocessing to remove noise, etc.) and usually destroys the book (or more accurately: the binding). Therefore the temptation to just buy and copy an Ebook version instead of dissecting your own book is quite big imho.
Quote from: Ra-TielMaking really good scans of books often consumes much time (scanning and OCR'ing every single page, postprocessing to remove noise, etc.) and usually destroys the book (or more accurately: the binding). Therefore the temptation to just buy and copy an Ebook version instead of dissecting your own book is quite big imho.
Agreed. But.
Decreased temptation isn't the same as no longer possible. Hell, it isn't even the same as less possible. there's still plenty of reasons one would be willing to do such a thing. I have no doubt in my mind that it's been done for many publications that have never had an official digital release. Granted, I, personally, have absolutely nothing to gain from tearing up my gaming books, but that isn't to say that the same applies to everybody.
I guess my ultimate point is, piracy is always going to be an issue for any proprietary content. It probably always has been. while I do sympathize with WotC's plight, I don't see how it should make them different then any other publisher, like LucasArts or Sony. Okay, bad examples, but hopefully you get my point...
Edit-- isn't the title a Murder by Death song?
Well, the ability to make and distribute content electronically completely changes the economics of all kinds of publishing. Keep in mind that the marginal cost to create and distribute a copy of a work on pdf, cd, dvd, or blu-ray is next to nothing. All the expense is up front - writing, composing, recording, play-testing, editing, etc.
In theory, copyright provides a legal monopoly which allows the author (or someone to whom they transfer the copyright) to extract a pretty high price despite the low marginal cost. But the internet makes piracy easier so it becomes a bigger problem. The best answer would obviously be for the content producers/publishers/distributors to lower their prices closer to the marginal cost. Then the greater convenience of legal materials will reduce demand for pirated versions, and the lower profit margin will (slightly) reduce the supply curve.
There's a market for things like this, or people wouldn't bother to pirate them. But the changing economics will result in a different-looking market - surely less profitable, possibly smaller, probably with a very different business model.
Quote from: limetomRemember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Debatable.
Quote from: Polycarp!Wait, so in order to prevent illegal sharing of their product in digital format, they are shutting down all legal distributors of that content?
The irony being there is now nowhere to download a PDF version legally, but I'm sure the illegal downloads are still alive and well. :P
Corporate idiocy thrives once again ~~ As far as I can tell, big business as a rule is having a hard time adapting to downloading in general :p
Quote from: KindlingQuote from: limetomRemember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Debatable.
It is debatable in the way that anything is. If someone wants to distribute shareware or share what they do without charging, then that is fine. And there are, I agree, situations where an image or something is not being sold anywhere and this makes it difficult to actually purchase a particular work.
But when the product of someone's labor is being sold in such a way that the creator or their agreements are being supported by that sale, then anyone who procures this product in a manner to avoid due recompense is stealing. I am scared to death of living in a world where creativity is stifled due to the inability of artists (like Eldo) to make a living.
Am I missing something here?
Quote from: LlumCorporate idiocy thrives once again ~~ As far as I can tell, big business as a rule is having a hard time adapting to downloading in general :p
I don't think it's fair to call it "idiocy." The advent of the Internet has had a bigger effect on content distribution and business models than... well, than anything else in a long time. Newspaper editors and distributors aren't idiots, but they've been blindsided by the relatively swift collapse of their revenue base. Heck, even the internet-savvy had a bumpy ride getting to a reliable business model - thus the dot com boom and subsequent bust. Business in general needs time to adjust when their world is turned upside-down, and sometimes they have ungrounded fears or propose unreasonable solutions, like when movie studios were terrified that VCRs would destroy them.
Quote from: Ra-TielWe don't know the details so I think it's a bit unfair to point at WotC.
Perhaps WotC put invisible watermarks into the PDFs they sent to Paizo and other online retailers, and the pirated copies had that watermark pointing to Paizo or another retailer as the "root" of the problem. Movies shown in cinemas use the same mechanism to identify where the illegal copy was made.
Except that paizo isn't the only place that was told to suspend sales (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/). Everything I've read so far indicates that this is a decision by WotC to re-evaluate digital distribution as a whole rather than a targeted revocation of rights from a single offender.
WotC may well have some other digital distribution model in the works; maybe they intend to keep it "in-house" and sell it themselves. Still, it strikes me as unnecessarily severe to abruptly suspend all such distribution because of a few pirates until some undetermined date at which you get your own house in order.
Quote from: Lord VreegBut when the product of someone's labor is being sold in such a way that the creator or their agreements are being supported by that sale, then anyone who procures this product in a manner to avoid due recompense is stealing. I am scared to death of living in a world where creativity is stifled due to the inability of artists (like Eldo) to make a living.
Am I missing something here?
Quote from: Polycarp!I don't think it's fair to call it "idiocy." The advent of the Internet has had a bigger effect on content distribution and business models than... well, than anything else in a long time. Newspaper editors and distributors aren't idiots, but they've been blindsided by the relatively swift collapse of their revenue base. Heck, even the internet-savvy had a bumpy ride getting to a reliable business model - thus the dot com boom and subsequent bust. Business in general needs time to adjust when their world is turned upside-down, and sometimes they have ungrounded fears or propose unreasonable solutions, like when movie studios were terrified that VCRs would destroy them.
True the language on my part is harsh, but suddenly stopping all forms of digital sales without (as of yet) saying boo about a new possibility is *not* a good way to stop piracy, if anything it will encourage it.
Yes a lot of businesses are having trouble with the advent of the internet, yes businesses are having trouble with the relatively recent upsure in P2P and "torrent" technology. However this move on the part of WotC smacks of idiocy, at least in my opinion.
Ah, here we go:
Quote from: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=retailer/supporthere[/url].
Most notably, to apply to be an Authorized Internet Dealer, you need (among other things):
Quote3. Pictures (digital or hardcopy) of your brick and mortar retail store's:
* Storefront, including signage
* Point of sale or cash register area
* Merchandising or main product display area
Presumably Paizo, et al. don't have "brick and mortal retail stores." Unless I'm missing something, this seems to imply that you will now only be able to get digital copies from sources that maintain actual stores, rather than internet-only retailers.
From what I read, and I only briefly skimmed through it with a couple text searches, this seems to be exclusively for selling hard merchandise over the internet, mainly Magic: The Gathering Products, it has no mention of PDF files or digital copies of books.
Wait just a minute.
The press release (http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Press/?doc=20090306) that announced the above change - and the date of that change, April 6th (the same day as the lawsuits?) - is stamped for March 6, 2009. Are we certain this is as sudden as Paizo makes it out to be? Or has this information been out there for a month, and the cease-and-desist emails are only a result of this policy being put into place?
If that press release really came out on the date it says it did, this situation starts to look a little different. Was the above agreement already available a month ago, and Paizo just didn't notice/ didn't bother to check it out?
Ok, Llum, that might be the case, in which case there's no news I can find at all specifically about digital distribution. Some clarification is likely in order!
QuoteIf that press release really came out on the date it says it did, this situations starts to look a little different. Was the above agreement already available a month ago, and Paizo just didn't notice/ didn't bother to check it out?
The same thing happened to RPGnow and the other distributors who had their takedowns appear on the same day. Apparently Wizards only gave was 24 hour notice.
I would postulate that Wizards is using piracy and legal action as an excuse to eventually sell everything through their site and Digital Initiative.
I find it odd how they are trying to restrict internet sales to shops that have real brick and mortar presence. Has any other industry established a contractual system to create such a distribution route? I am not certain that requiring all books sold online to be sold by "brick and mortar" shops is actually legal outside of contract law. I would figure the worst that Wizards could do to people who want to sell actual books (not PDFs) on the internet and who refuse to sign their contract is to not distribute the books to them from initial printing. Thus Wizards would require those people to work through a middleman ( this policy seems squarely aimed at taking revenue away from Paizo). Wizards could not stop resellers on Ebay from selling books. Could wizards stop an "unapproved" retailer from putting books up for sale on Ebay? I don't see that happening. If the retailers don't sign the contract I do not see how they can be bound?
This online selling agreement seems a bit bizarre.
I have not heard of anything like internet authorized seller agreement before except possibly in the realm of "Licensed sportswear manufacturers"... you cannot sell something that has someone's trademark.
Is Wizards going to prosecute internet retailers based on trademark infringement law?
Quote from: KindlingQuote from: limetomRemember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Debatable.
On a philosophical level, certainly. However, i believe he was referring to the practical level, where piracy and copyright infringement is still, unarguably, illegal.
Quote from: Lord VreegQuote from: KindlingQuote from: limetomRemember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Debatable.
It is debatable in the way that anything is. If someone wants to distribute shareware or share what they do without charging, then that is fine. And there are, I agree, situations where an image or something is not being sold anywhere and this makes it difficult to actually purchase a particular work.
But when the product of someone's labor is being sold in such a way that the creator or their agreements are being supported by that sale, then anyone who procures this product in a manner to avoid due recompense is stealing. I am scared to death of living in a world where creativity is stifled due to the inability of artists (like Eldo) to make a living.
Am I missing something here?
The fact that nobody, at least in the USA, and very probably in several other countries, is
forced to make a living as an artist. Worst-case scenario, they can very probably get a job at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. It may not be the most satisfying career path, but it's still money.
Personally, I would absolutely love to make a profit off of my own art. I think that would be great. However, I realize that if I were to end up living on the streets, it wouldn't be solely due to nobody buying my comics, and I probably would have to deal with issues other then piracy of intellectual property.
My point in all of this, however, is not to actually debate the issue; simply to demonstrate that is in, indeed, debatable. I don't think the point of this thread was to debate the morality of piracy, but instead to discuss the ethics of WotC's anti-piracy measures.
Well, it's probably no accident that the revocation of distribution rights given to sites like paizo and the piracy lawsuits came down on or around the same day that WotC was planning to completely re-do their policy on internet sales of their products. Evidently concerns over intellectual property have come to a head there, and what we're seeing is a multi-pronged attempt to rethink their position on product distribution, especially when it comes to digital formats and the Internet. It's unlikely that these decisions were made at the drop of a hat.
Was it ethical to give paizo, et al. 24 hours (possibly less) to drop everything, knowing full well that there may be people who have purchased but not downloaded their product yet? It seems difficult to make an argument that it is. Legal digital distributors may have been the original sources of the pirated pdfs, but I'm sure there are plenty of copies on torrent sites by now (and they've probably been there for some time).
The matter of timing aside though, I don't think WotC is doing anything terribly objectionable. They're within their rights to re-examine their distribution methods and protocol, and they're likewise entitled to attempt to curtail piracy (arguments about how effective their methods are aside). Hopefully we'll see what their alternative is soon, as I find it hard to believe that they are permanently nixing digital distribution of their material.
Quote from: Rorschach FritosQuote from: Lord VreegQuote from: KindlingQuote from: limetomRemember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Debatable.
It is debatable in the way that anything is. If someone wants to distribute shareware or share what they do without charging, then that is fine. And there are, I agree, situations where an image or something is not being sold anywhere and this makes it difficult to actually purchase a particular work.
But when the product of someone's labor is being sold in such a way that the creator or their agreements are being supported by that sale, then anyone who procures this product in a manner to avoid due recompense is stealing. I am scared to death of living in a world where creativity is stifled due to the inability of artists (like Eldo) to make a living.
Am I missing something here?
The fact that nobody, at least in the USA, and very probably in several other countries, is forced to make a living as an artist. Worst-case scenario, they can very probably get a job at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. It may not be the most satisfying career path, but it's still money.
Personally, I would absolutely love to make a profit off of my own art. I think that would be great. However, I realize that if I were to end up living on the streets, it wouldn't be solely due to nobody buying my comics, and I probably would have to deal with issues other then piracy of intellectual property.
My point in all of this, however, is not to actually debate the issue; simply to demonstrate that is in, indeed, debatable. I don't think the point of this thread was to debate the morality of piracy, but instead to discuss the ethics of WotC's anti-piracy measures.
Hold on... you're saying that if someone steals your work so that you don't make money off it... that the burden is on you to find another job?
Quote from: NomadicHold on... you're saying that if someone steals your work so that you don't make money off it... that the burden is on you to find another job?
Well technacly it is, since no one else should be forced to support you. Now I'm not condoning piracy (I actually don't pirate things :p) but just saying, saying "Oh woes is me, people keep dowloading my stuff, lets just let everyone else support me" is not cool.
I think this is just another blatant power move by WotC aimed at eliminating competition so as to have a blank slate when WotC releases their own PDF store.
>>Well technacly it is, since no one else should be forced to support you.
? No one is forcing you to illegally download and steal something?
If you only plan to listen to the music once, perhaps twice or thrice, I suppose the moral analogue would be walking and hearing a street musician or listening to the radio- there is no problem with "sampling" the music because it is not all that important to you.
But if you are the artist's "greatest fan" and listen to her music all the time, then do you not think that there is something a little wrong in that you are gaining enjoyment from what she does and she is gaining nothing? I suppose you will have her music forever (because you downloaded it). But some day she will need to retire and find another job and you will be denied all the new creations she could have made. In that fashion, piracy is not just self-centered, it is downright foolish.
Quote from: Elemental_Elf's post on the WotC siteWhat I don't get is why WotC would ban the sale of previous editions of D&D. Its not like people can go out and buy 3.x (or older) material in a store these days... Wait it all makes sense now. This ploy is just a further effort to push everyone into 4E. Why allow the sale of previous edition's books when you have a new edition that you want people to buy and play? If you completely cut the masses off from any (legitimate) way of buying into your previous edition(s) then you will, in the long run, end a large portion of the anti-4E community's resistance. Either they buy into the new system or go some place else.
Seems harsh and needlessly dramatic but that's what businesses do.
Quote from: name of the person your quotingthe quote [*/quote], taking out the *. Learn it, love it :P
True no one is forcing you to download, and like I said I'm not condoning piracy, being as I don't download stuff. However, my point was that if you cannot make a living off of your "art" because people are downloading it or whatever reason, it Does fall on you to get another job that can support you.
Now not being able to support yourself because people pirate your stuff I find to be an unrealistic situation because people will buy your stuff if they like it, even if they pirated it first, if they like it enough, they will buy it.
Much as I generally disdain argument by analogy, that is like saying if your store is failing because people keep stealing stuff, not only is it somehow your fault, but you should close shop, rather than try to catch/prosecute the shoplifters.
Quote from: NomadicQuote from: Rorschach FritosQuote from: Lord VreegQuote from: KindlingQuote from: limetomRemember, folks, don't pirate and don't encourage piracy. If you want something for free, find someone who gives their product away for free or, better yet, make your own.
Debatable.
It is debatable in the way that anything is. If someone wants to distribute shareware or share what they do without charging, then that is fine. And there are, I agree, situations where an image or something is not being sold anywhere and this makes it difficult to actually purchase a particular work.
But when the product of someone's labor is being sold in such a way that the creator or their agreements are being supported by that sale, then anyone who procures this product in a manner to avoid due recompense is stealing. I am scared to death of living in a world where creativity is stifled due to the inability of artists (like Eldo) to make a living.
Am I missing something here?
The fact that nobody, at least in the USA, and very probably in several other countries, is forced to make a living as an artist. Worst-case scenario, they can very probably get a job at Wal-Mart or McDonald's. It may not be the most satisfying career path, but it's still money.
Personally, I would absolutely love to make a profit off of my own art. I think that would be great. However, I realize that if I were to end up living on the streets, it wouldn't be solely due to nobody buying my comics, and I probably would have to deal with issues other then piracy of intellectual property.
My point in all of this, however, is not to actually debate the issue; simply to demonstrate that is in, indeed, debatable. I don't think the point of this thread was to debate the morality of piracy, but instead to discuss the ethics of WotC's anti-piracy measures.
Hold on... you're saying that if someone steals your work so that you don't make money off it... that the burden is on you to find another job?
No. While I do feel that the inability to make money in any given job means you should have to find another job (or, y'know, not make money), that's not what I trying to say. what I was trying to say was, the point is debatable, at least on a philosophical level.
Quote from: PhoenixMuch as I generally disdain argument by analogy, that is like saying if your store is failing because people keep stealing stuff, not only is it somehow your fault, but you should close shop, rather than try to catch/prosecute the shoplifters.
Trying to catch/prosecute these people is something, and if it manages to let you make a living then GJ. However, much as you disdain analogy, you have reason, because trying to track down every person who pirated your "art" is going to be ridiculous, if possible at all.
But the point still stands, if you cannot make a living off what you are doing, then it still falls on you to make a living, no matter what.
Quote from: LlumQuote from: hijacktotally apologies to the Limetom if this is in anyway hijacking this thread. Thing were said. [/spoiler]. Because there are serious ramifications, if you look at my first interjection. No one is talking about supporting anyone, this isn't taxpayer money or a dole-out. It's not that people have to get a job, it's that they are not being paid for the job they did. Writing a book or publishing a set of rules is as much a job and is as much work as anything else is, and Nomadic's comment says nothing about other people supporting them, it deals with the ramifications of theft.
I am not, at this point, going to get into the philosophies of civilization in a thread about a particular company's lack of business acumen or customer service. Suffice it to say that a marketplace, any marketplace, and the growth of that economy, is dependent on the ability for fair recompense for labors and services rendered.
[spoiler=much love]
Much love to Llum, Nomadic, SD, and the rest. I'm sure this is not an argument as much as it is a stating of positions.[/spoiler]
Quote from: Lord VreegBecause there are serious ramifications, if you look at my first interjection. No one is talking about supporting anyone, this isn't taxpayer money or a dole-out. It's not that people have to get a job, it's that they are not being paid for the job they did. Writing a book or publishing a set of rules is as much a job and is as much work as anything else is, and Nomadic's comment says nothing about other people supporting them, it deals with the ramifications of theft.
Agreed completely. That's exactly why I don't condone piracy. My only addition to that was that if you can't manage to make a living doing one thing (fairly or unfairly), you still have to make a living.
Quote from: much loveMuch love to Llum, Nomadic, SD, and the rest. I'm sure this is not an argument as much as it is a stating of positions.[/spoiler]
It was more Devil's Advocacy for me. If a new thread is started, and if my position is asked for, I'll put it in, but until then...[/spoiler]
Quote from: LlumQuote from: hijacktotally apologies to the Limetom if this is in anyway hijacking this thread. Thing were said. [/spoiler].
Because there are serious ramifications, if you look at my first interjection. No one is talking about supporting anyone, this isn't taxpayer money or a dole-out. It's not that people have to get a job, it's that they are not being paid for the job they did. Writing a book or publishing a set of rules is as much a job and is as much work as anything else is, and Nomadic's comment says nothing about other people supporting them, it deals with the ramifications of theft.
I am not, at this point, going to get into the philosophies of civilization in a thread about a particular company's lack of business acumen or customer service. Suffice it to say that a marketplace, any marketplace, and the growth of that economy, is dependent on the ability for fair recompense for labors and services rendered.
[spoiler=much love]Much love to Llum, Nomadic, SD, and the rest. I'm sure this is not an argument as much as it is a stating of positions.[/spoiler]
Yes I was pretty much giving my point of view. I honestly forgot how much of a hot-button issue "bailout/support" and stuff like that is in the states at this time, ignorant of me? Probably a little. I didn't mean to imply that others were automatically the government with taxpayer money, I meant anyone at all, friends, family, etc...
I'm also not saying that what these people did wasn't a job, I'm well aware how much effort it takes to actually produce something, especially if it is of quality.
What I was trying to get across was that, if you cannot support yourself with your "art" you still, at the end of the day, have to support yourself somehow. Because as of this point in time, we cannot stop people from downloading and sharing files, so its just something people have to work around.