Diagoras

...yes. And? How is it moral to insist that no one replicate your work, and to use coercive force against them if they do? Companies copy each other's trade secrets and business practices all the time, artists have shamelessly paid homage/copied each other's work through history. I can't think of a system of moral philosophy which states that copying people's stuff is immoral. If you don't want people to copy it, don't sell it to them. But they're not your slaves, and you can't tell them what they can do once they own something. It's theirs now. Yes...and? I want to note that this is an entirely different question than one about the abstract morality of replicating media, ie. the one I've been addressing above. Anyway, what you're saying here has never been the justification for copyright. Indeed, it would have seemed ridiculous as there had been centuries of artistic development up to the point of its creation. Creators have either not needed a financial incentive to create art, or they've found one. Once again, copyright is not about the content creators. Rather, the primary purpose of copyright was censorship. That's not relevant for today, so it's the secondary purpose that we care about: publishing costs. Essentially, copyright was a mechanism for funding the expensive printing presses that publishers needed to operate - and copyright continues to be a tool aimed mainly at publishers rather than creators (though some 20th century developments tipped the other way). But to address your question: you seem to be assuming that content creators/publishers don't have monetization options outside of copyright. Is that really the case? Second, are distribution costs so high that we need dedicated publishing entities to exist at all? That's complicated by the diverse roles that publishers take now, from marketing to capital, but copyright was intended to fund the distribution of works, not the creation of high capital work. Note that negative answers to those questions don't necessarily mean the abandonment of all kinds of government intervention, but just point to the idea that copyright might not be the best choice as it was designed for a particular purpose.

That doesn't really fly. Labor theory of value isn't the way we value things, unless you're a Marxist. Many things take little effort and are greatly valued, and many things take lots of effort and are considered worthless. But those are very different circumstances. One is cheating, and the other lying. They don't really apply to the issues copyright is meaning to address. To be clear: copyright has never been about morality. Nor has it been about "creator's rights", as copyright isn't a right. Rather, it's about the economic interest of the general public - not the publishers or content creators.

Yeah, I wasn't saying it was economically optimal. I'm just responding to the assertion that copying materials in and of itself is immoral. The question of whether copyright is needed is...interesting. There are multiple monetization options that exist right now that aren't dependent on copyright (Software-as-a-service, advertising, crowdfunding, microtransactions, etc.), which makes the case for that sort of government intervention far weaker than before. More technically, IP is now way less rivalrous and hugely less excludable than it used to be, turning it from something that can pushed into the private goods quadrant to something that is firmly a public good. And you throw in exactly how heavy handed copyright law really is, and it gets even harder to justify. I mean, if we were talking about ye olde 28 year terms, strong fair use, civil action, and only really targeted at other publishers then that would be one thing. But copyright is far from that nowadays.

Someone else copied their work. And yes, pretty much. Note that there's nothing wrong with charity, but by itself it's not a very sustainable business model. Is entitlement being used as a pejorative here? Because I'm not really seeing how consumers seeking the best price for a product is morally incorrect. If, in this constructed hypothetical, you release a product and then ask people to give you money for it when there are cheaper options, and you offer no other extra benefit, then yes. When I referenced it, I was talking about the general principle that the value of a thing is what people pay for it (ie. marginal theory of value), which means that you need to monetize goods if you expect payment for them. Business 101. Copyright is exactly that, an attempt to create a form of monetization for artistic works through government fiat, namely by trying to force them to adopt the properties of physical goods (ie. rivalry). The question was about the abstract morality of acquiring non-rivalrous goods from a second party, excluding the question of breaking the law itself. Now, there is a question about whether copyright is necessary, or whether other monetization systems exist that might make a government-provided solution unnecessary, but those are disconnected to the particular question I was addressing.

Are you referring to receiving the product via piracy as "receive your product from another party?" What else would it be? Within the framework of copyright it would be a crime, but the context of that quote is talking about the morality of the act outside of copyright law.

And? People ask for compensation all the time. Crazy homeless guys ask for change. If you want money, you monetize. I wouldn't call failing to donate to a charity case ("the creator asks for compensation for their creation"). Uncharitable, maybe, but not morally wrong. Err...exactly what has the homeless guy created that he's asking for compensation for your receipt of their creation when he begs for change? How does the homeless guy scenario apply at all to what Hurlshot is talking about? If you ask for compensation without providing a product of service, you're essentially begging. Monetization is an essential part of any business, and neglecting that in favor of asking people who receive your product from another party to toss a few dollars in the tip jar strikes me as charity more than anything else. The analogy does get strained, but I was trying to respond to Hurlshot's claim that if people make things they inherently deserve money if someone else sells them to you. Or really to get him to expand on it, because it's not clear how he reaches the conclusion as things stand.

Well yeah. Copyright is a government intervention in the marketplace to solve a public good provision problem. There's not much I can do with the statement "it is bad". Other than ask why, I guess. I mean, there's the obvious "breaking the law is bad", but beyond that? And? People ask for compensation all the time. Crazy homeless guys ask for change. If you want money, you monetize. I wouldn't call failing to donate to a charity case ("the creator asks for compensation for their creation"). Uncharitable, maybe, but not morally wrong. Now, arguments that you should follow the law are reasonable (though controversial). But trying to say that people who do things inherently deserve money either reduces to absurdity, or turns into weird labor theory of value stuff that has no relevance to modern economics.

Huh? It's copyright infringement, not murder. Even if you think copyright law makes sense, violations of it are like trademark violations. I wouldn't call it "vile" to ignore a government mandated monopoly, even if it does exist legitimately.

IIRC, upward mobility existed in most slave societies, in that it was entirely possible to buy your way into freedom either in your lifetime or within a few generations. And I'm not really seeing a lot of difference between an Untouchable in a Hindu caste society and a slave, though I admit I'm not an expert on caste systems. Again, it depends a lot on the type of wizard. If most magic users are idiot-savants, then enslaving them would be easier. If their nature allows the formation of a religious structure that advocates against them (ie. The Chantry in Dragon Age), it's easier. If there are dedicated anti-mage factions with anti-mage powers (ie. The Templars in Dragon Age), it's easier. I'm not sure you can make a blanket statement that for all kinds of wizards, enslaving them is harder.

Well, in the long-run you need a consumer base to stimulate the growth of industrial society, and slave states are keeping a good chunk of their buying power as property. A wizard-slave state entirely depends on the wizards - there are hundreds of kinds of wizard that make it plausible, and hundreds of kinds of wizards that make it implausible. It all depends on how magic works in P:E. I'm not entirely sure about slave-states requiring constant vigilance, any more than caste societies or feudalistic ones (which all gave certain classes of people the short end of the stick). Can I get a citation on that? And to clarify, I assume we're talking about Ancient and Medieval slavery, rather than the unique setup of the American South.

I think the idea that the justification of doing it to bypass DRMs, as well as sticking it to the publishers and whatnot, is no longer valid. I'm curious how the rates will differ (if at all) though we likely will never see the data. Is that...are those really reasons people have for copyright infringement? They seem a little unusual - I could understand cracking a legal copy if you want to bypass the DRM, but grabbing a pirated copy seems like overkill. And doing it because someone else fronted the capital for the game is...weird. The most sensible reason, IMO, would be based on rejecting the moral/philosophical basis for copyright altogether, rather than having many little exceptions.

I'm confused: are people saying that slave-states didn't exist? Or that they're inferior to modern consumer economies? Because the former seem trivially false, while the latter is trivially true, and both seem disconnected from the question of enslaved (or caste-constrained, or bound into feudalism, etc.) wizards in P:E.

A bunch of miniature wheellock pistols, designed to show off the skills of the grandmaster who made them. All capable of firing. The smallest is about 35mm in length. Tri-barreled, pepperbox matchlock arquebus and a 27-barrel monster pepperbox pistol. These could have been rotated by hand, though many models would self-rotate between shots like a modern revolver. Finally, a nice looking pistol-sword for the discerning knight. At this rate, maybe I should start my own "Awesome guns - a plea" thread.

Actually, I'd say that crowdfunding makes way more sense that the traditional model. In the traditional model, investors put their money in publishers, publishers fund developers, publishers sell developer's games to consumers for a big cut/all of the profits, and investors then take money out of the publishers. So two layers of middlemen. In the crowdfunded economy, consumers pay developers to make them a game. Then they play it. No middlemen, very simple. As to a million backer...I've been on Kickstarter for a few years before the current gaming boom. There was a time when people said (seriously), "We'll never get over 10,000 backers on a project." The growth rate has been exponential, and I don't think it's going to slow down. There have been many, many books on Kickstarter. I've even backed one. Again, there have been many, many movies on Kickstarter, which I have also backed. They usually pick their own actors. Let's look at this like economists: what value are publishers adding to the product by acting a go-between for consumers and developers (and writers, directors, etc.)? There's enough people who like the product that it can make back something close to 10x the development cost at least, so what value is added by having someone else front the development cost and eat all the profit? Note that this is disconnected from publisher's role in marketing, distribution, etc. We're just talking about their role as stockpiles of capital.

I'm not sure they'd want a financial incentive outside of their salaries, but if they do that can easily be priced in to the Kickstarter instead of being taken out of net profit. All you're doing is shifting the point the customer gives the company money, what the company does with the money can still be the same. The owner of Obsidian can just set himself a high salary, he doesn't need to take the cash out of the company. And if he does - that again can be priced into the Kickstarter. All crowdfunding does is move the point where money changes hands to before the product is complete. Because they love making games? Because they like being paid? Why does anyone do stuff for money?

Erm...I'm saying that the justification for the existence of copyright is conditioned on its absolute necessity to solve a public goods provision problem. I'd think that'd be pretty uncontroversial. If that's true, and if crowdfunding ends up being a viable alternative to copyright, then the justification for copyright starts to look a little weak. ...yes it is. That's why it's a power specifically delegated to the state in the US Constitution, as opposed to a right in the Bill of Rights. It's a government action designed to advance a compelling economic purpose. Its justification has absolutely nothing (at least at the time of its creation) about "protecting creator's rights", but rather is about balancing an incentive to publish works with the public domain. Copyright is in the same class of government actions as regulating financial markets and setting a minimum wage - an act of economic coercion due to a compelling state need. Completely ignoring the background of copyright, it should be pretty clear that it's not about protecting people's work. Copyright enforces itself on third parties who are disconnected from a trade between two other parties (eg. You're prosecuted for receiving copyrighted goods from a second party who bought them), forcing them to get it from the first party. It's about enforcing an illusion of rivalry on a non-rivalrous good due to a compelling need, not enforcing property rights (which are disconnected from copyright, at least philosophically). Are you from Germany, perhaps? I'm not super familiar with copyright law outside of the US or Hong Kong, but as I recall the Germans are weird in that copyright is actually considered to be a right, rather than a privilege. Don't quote me on that, though, it comes from a kerfuffle over a 40K fan film.

I must be misunderstanding you, are you saying that you don't think that Obsidian would want to or need to generate revenue through sales of PE? If you are I completely disagree with you, the profit from sales does go into keeping a company stable but any company would also want to make money from the years spent on the game, they would want to improve there quality of life and become individually wealthier. Like almost everyone who works aspires to become. I can guarantee you if PE sells badly, which I believe is almost impossible, Obsidian won't make another one. And frankly you can't blame because where is the financial incentive for there years of hard work on the project? Finally pirating is a negative influence on the sales and development on PC gaming, it is a scourge and we should be opposed to it under any circumstances I'm confused as to what you're specifically talking about. Individual employee's salaries are paid for by crowdfunded products, so they're getting compensated. The company is privately owned by the CEO, so there are no shareholders to please. Chris Avellone specifically stated in his recent interview that if P:E failed to sell well, they would just Kickstart the next one. If it did sell well, they'd use the profits to make the next ones, until they ran out of profits, whereupon they would Kickstart the next one. So I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that they won't make another one if sales aren't impressive. Finally, not sure if pirating affects sales or not - I'm not sure if that's ever been established. Regardless, it's unrelated to the justification for copyright, which is not about the industry's sales but about the public interest.

Actually crowdfunded games still need some sort of protection from copyright, because the money they get are used only for funding the creation of the game, but the business as a whole needs some kind of profit after the release of the game, so that there would be at least some justification to create expansions and sequels... If the current copyright system is good, is whole different question, and always makes flame wars, so I am not gonna open that can of worms... No, it doesn't. If development costs for each new product can be covered without expectation of financial return from the people covering it, then profit is not needed to produce additional products. Hell, even start-up costs can be paid for by Kickstarting them. While crowdfunding is compatible with traditional profit motive systems, it isn't dependent on them. All of which is actually secondary to the crowdfunding/copyright system, as you can combine crowdfunding with other monetization systems (SAAS, microtransactions, etc.) to make a profit, or use crowdfunding to make a profit (ie. after-game pledges).

While I absolutely love the idea of crowdfunding, and it does change the landscape of the publisher/develop relationship, I don't see how it affects copyright. Obsidian still owns the rights to Project Eternity, by crowd funding it we've just freed them up from having to share that copyright or give it over completely to a publisher. Obsidian is promising to release a DRM free version, but that still doesn't mean by funding the game you now own the IP. Also I think you are overstating the impact crowdfunding will have on gaming. It gives a developer leverage in their business practices. It gives a studio like Obsidian a chance to do a project that publishers won't touch. But there are two problems here: 1. We, as the crowdfunders, have now taken on the risks of the publisher. If the game stinks, or fails to get finished, we are out of luck. 2. The Project Eternity numbers are still nowhere near as impressive as a major game release. Obsidian got 70,000+ backers and over $4 million dollars, that's awesome. But those numbers still don't compare to what a typical blockbuster does in their first week of sales. Hey Hurlshot, thanks for the reply. I noted that this is assuming that crowdfunding ends up being significantly larger in scale, to the point where AAA games can be funded through it. Seeing as Kickstarter's growth rate has been pretty close to exponential over the years, this doesn't seem unlikely once we look five to ten years into the future - especially since it's consumer spending, and thus not subject to the unique issues that rapid investment growth brings (ie. bubbles). And the point wasn't that crowdfunding as it is now is in some way killing copyright, it's that a successful crowdfunding economy is one that doesn't need copyright. And seeing that copyright is an intrusive government interference in the marketplace, it's difficult to explain why you should keep it if private industry is able to raise capital consistently without it. The crowdfunding model doesn't forbid copyright, but it doesn't need it either. It's a monetization model completely different from the software-as-a-product mentality behind copyright. There are a bunch of other examples of alternate monetization systems (SAAS, microtransactions, advertising), but crowdfunding is both the most visible and the most conservative, in many ways.

I've skimmed this thread as best I can, though at twenty pages it's quite a read. However, despite P:E's great performance on Kickstarter, I haven't seen any discussion on what continued success in crowdfunding means for copyright's moral basis. For those who are unaware, copyright is justified (at least nowadays) on the idea of a compelling economic interest on the part of the government to enforce what are essentially temporary monopolies on certain intellectual properties. Fundamental to this compelling interest is the assumption that there is no effective way to monetize intellectual property, and thus produce works of art, outside of the copyright system. Also a bunch of other assumptions, but I'd say that's the big one. While Kickstarter (and crowdfunding in general) is still relatively small, the larger it grows the more it acts as an effective, non-copyright monetization model - which sort of puts the lie to copyright's justification. If private industry demonstrates that it can effectively raise funds to produce content without the clumsy government intervention of copyright, it starts to look a little antiquated. tl;dr: P:E might kill copyright.

A possibility I haven't seen mentioned is that magic is fundamentally unpredictable and unsuitable for menial work. If this is the standardized and predictable magic of D&D, then fair enough. But if magic consists of making pacts with treacherous demons, or is so deeply individual that both techniques or effects vary wildly by caster, or is so dangerous that very few mages achieve even moderate proficiency and all are extremely careful with their spells, then you have conditions to keep magic out of the general economy. ie. If magic is more like historical ideas of magic, rather than a thinly veiled substitute for technology, then it makes sense that it doesn't interact with the economy the way technology does.

Good name for an order of Paladins.

Stuff from games, first one from a Pike and Shotte box cover. Set way later than P:E (check out the newfangled flintlock pistols), but I take what I can get: Next, wheellock cavalry from Shogun 2. They're using wheellock petronels, rather than the pistols which would be used by cavalry in P:E, though who knows? It's not like a weapon halfway between a pistol and an arquebus is waiting on some technical innovation before somebody invents it. And some matchlock Samurai, complete with lens flare.

The Black Prince! Now that's a suit of armor. Man. Thanks! It's not letting me edit my post, or else I would modify the note on the first two pictures to note that those two pictures are more depictions of late 16th to early 17th century Reiters/cuirassiers than the era we're aiming for. For the life of me, I can't find a good picture of an early 15th century Reiter or demi-lancer.

Two images of 1530s pistol-knights, specifically early Reiters: And here I'm mixing it up with some matchlock-armed Samurai reenactors: