While I am not generally in favor of copyright infringement, I do have to contest your use of the word “steal” to describe it. Copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is taking personal property - copyright is not property in the traditional sense. After all, it expires. No one is going to come and say “you’ve had that chair for X years now, it’s no longer yours”, but they certainly will with some work you have copyright on.

Also, I’d like to note that I know people who would ask “what’s the harm?” and yet have produced things of value on their own. They have different views of copyright from the mainstream corporatist view, though. Still, I think you should consider the existence of such positions before trotting out that old canard again.

Theft is theft. To rationalize it down to something less is just plain wrong. Intellectual property IS property, and the fact that it will expire one day is irrelevant.

The Supreme Court of the United States disagrees with you and claims that copyright infringement is not equivalent with theft. In Dowling v. United States, a case discussing whether infringing copies of copyrighted work could be considered as stolen property, Justice Blackmun wrote the following in his majority opinion:

The phonorecords in question were not “stolen, converted or taken by fraud” for purposes of [section] 2314. The section’s language clearly contemplates a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods. Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple “goods, wares, [or] merchandise,” interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

I stand corrected regarding the legal standing. Thank you.

I will stand by my assertion that it is wrong. The owner of intellectual property deserves to determine how that property will be marketed, disseminated, and profited from.

That, I do not contest. There are many abuses of intellectual property taking place today, but copyright is still a worthy concept.

I agree that people shouldn’t be mad about the Essen preview not being free. It’s really good stuff and requires a lot of work.

But it was to be expected that some people where going to make an alternative, and they have all the right to. But they shouldn’t systematically just copy the information from this site ofcourse!

“What’s the harm?” - Having been on the Rowling’s side of this issue I can state that it is much more than a matter of ‘different views of copyright’. In many cases this can mean the loss of jobs/income. Several years ago a company in a particular nation in the Far East (may they sink into the sea) ‘borrowed’ one of my designs, I had to terminate 17 positions. (I am aware that this is patent laws versus copyright but the concept is the same.) These were people with families, mortgages, car payments, etc. It was real and there is very little legal recourse available.

On another occasion I was stunned to find portions of an article I had written had been literally plagiarized. This was not simply the idea; this was the actual wording. I was able to contact the fellow (note: “fellow” is a substitution for the actual term used) and his response was that he didn’t make any money off of it so what was the big deal?

It is unfortunate that the laws in place are not enforced because it is theft - there is no ‘other side’ of the issue.

I regret that you insist on misusing the term “theft” after having been informed of the legal meaning of the term, Dave.

Also, I’d like to note that I don’t agree with said people - I just wanted to note that there do in fact exist people who say “what’s the harm” who have created commercially valuable works.

There is a difference between what is legal & what is ethical. There is CLEARLY a difference between what is legal & what is morally right.

To claim someone else’s work as your own is “bearing false witness” - which, according to some of you, is legally permissible. That doesn’t make it any less morally repugnant.

If I download a book, then I am breaking the law, but if I borrow the book from a friend or from the library then I am not. The copyright holder has no control over any of these activities. Sounds pretty gray to me.

That being said, copyright is not the real issue here. Copyright is being used as a legal device to give BGN more value. It has exclusive permission for some information/media, and it wants to increase membership. This is shameful from both sides. Publishers who do not want their information spread to every site that will host it are just stupid. BGN should adopt the BGG membership model. There is nothing here that I would ever pay to access. Moving some content to members-only access in simply insulting.

The information is freely accessible through the publishers for anyone willing to do the work to acquire. What Eric/BGN has done is simply ask people to pay a small stipend (roughly the same cost as a magazine subscription) in order to defray the time/energy costs of collecting & formatting that information.

That’s not insulting - it’s a business model. You may not like the business model, but you don’t have to subscribe if you don’t like it.

The argument here is not about copyright - it’s about the immoral appropriation of someone else’s work. Reducing all discussions about behavior to their legal implications turns us (literally) into a society of rules lawyers… and we all know how much fun that would be.

Michael,

Thank you for your correction.  Evidently, I am ignorant of the law.  I have changed the word, “steal” to the word closer to what I meant, “misappropriate”.

And while you are right that the Supreme Court’s majority ruled as you reported in this instance, I would offer up that the Supreme Court of the US has not always ruled in ways that mirror the population’s views, and has even changed its stance over time.

Jim, I disagree with your comment, “Copyright is being used as a legal device to give BGN more value”.  Actually, I believe just the opposite.  In this case, the content already has value.  The fact that there are people who openly are willing to pay for it as well as others who want to appropriate it confirms this.

In this case, copyright is used to retain the value of the content.  Without the copyright, then the value of the content becomes diminished.

Regarding, “Publishers who do not want their information spread to every site that will host it are just stupid.” If I published a game, I think I would want some control if information about it was posted on a website called stupidgames.com or gamesthatsuck.com.

Re: “BGN should adopt the BGG membership model.” I’ll bet that Eric has read that and will take it into advisement, but you must remember that BGG and BGN are different animals.  Also, when talking about business, I’ve learned that unless I have experience in that particular industry, there are probably factors I am not aware of when it comes to pricing and logistics.

Re: “Moving some content to members-only access in simply insulting.” Although I would never dream of speaking for Eric (especially since his language skills far outstrip mine), I think it’s safe to say that Eric doesn’t want to insult anyone.  I believe his goal is to provide a quality service to the boardgame community.  Without some sort of income, BGN could not continue to offer up the quality content that it does. 

I think it’s totally understandable that not everyone wants to pay for BGN’s Essen preview.  If they wouldn’t use this content, there’s no reason to pay for it.  However, if someone appreciates the content, they probably realize that that the work involved in putting it together takes a large amount of time and effort and as such is willing to pay for it.

When I was writing this column this weekend, I happened to do a search on Wikipedia for the word, “book"(really, I had a reason) and the first line of the definition said something to the effect of, “something that some people read while on the toilet, and sometimes wipe their butts with”.  I looked again today to find that it had been corrected.  I was stunned that the content viewed on Wikipedia could really be severely different(and possibly inaccurate) depending on the instant when you view it.

I’ve learned in business that sometimes you can get good deals, but usually, you get what you pay for.

Borrowing a book to read is nothing like copying the text of that book and posting it as your own work, which is what happened to the BGN Essen Preview.

Jim wrote: “Copyright is being used as a legal device to give BGN more value. It has exclusive permission for some information/media, and it wants to increase membership. This is shameful from both sides. Publishers who do not want their information spread to every site that will host it are just stupid.”

I haven’t signed exclusivity contracts with anyone for anything. Information and images appear on BGN because I’ve created relationships with designers and publishers. I pester them constantly for news. Some of them send me info on their own, but many of them don’t unless I ask for it over and over and over again. They’re free to post their information and images wherever they wish, but many of them don’t, for whatever reasons they decide.

Eric wrote: I haven’t signed exclusivity contracts with anyone for anything. Information and images appear on BGN because I’ve created relationships with designers and publishers.

I wasn’t implying that you or BGN insult me, just the notion that “public information” can or should have restricted access. Publishers should want their media everywhere that will take it. In fact, if I published games, I would not allow a site to host my material if they charged for access. And before someone gets all snippy, by “public information” I mean stuff that’s going to be known by everyone anyways. Images of every game, box, board, bits, etc. will be in the public domain soon enough.

Jim, Entertainment Weekly, Premiere, and dozens of other magazines have included images from the new Harry Potter movie in their coverage of that movie. Those images were provided by the producer, despite the fact that all of those publishers charge for their publications. This is just one example among thousands that you’ll find if you look over any newsstand.

In general, how would any publisher benefit from not providing BGN (or any other site) with information? In many cases, publishers don’t post information anywhere and info shows up on sites like BGN only because someone (e.g., me) asks for it. It spreads through the public arena precisely because of what I (and others) do. You know, for example, that the What’s Your Game? edition of Princes of the Renaissance isn’t going to be published because I did the legwork to find out that fact. Yes, you might have run across that information somewhere else eventually, but as far as I know, I posted that information first.

Eric wrote: In general, how would any publisher benefit from not providing BGN (or any other site) with information?

They would send it to BGG (directly or through any number of users who would gladly upload the content, even with no GeekGold reward) to be viewed by all for free. In this way, it would reach the largest possible target audience. Why would anyone who is a gamer first want it any other way?

Jim, you suggested that the Geek would be the best possible place for publishers to send news.

Here’s the problem: while the Geek is a tremendous place to find answers to specific questions or to access information about a particular game, the signal-to-noise ratio has become so massive that I do not read it on a regular basis.

What BGN (and Eric) provide is filtering, formatting & legwork - the same things Entertainment Weekly provides me on keeping up with movies, TV & film.

Mark wrote: Jim, you suggested that the Geek would be the best possible place for publishers to send news.

I am not suggesting it would be the best place. I am suggesting that it would be reasonable for publishers to send everything they can think of to BGG to get it to the most gamers. BGG’s wiki system would even support the whole thing very nicely. Come to think of it, I *am* saying BGG would be the best place for it.

I was silent on the whole “pay for content” thing until Scott broached it. Do you want what’s best for gamers or what’s best for BGN? What’s best for gamers is that we get as much information as possible for free. This is also what’s best for the industry, by the way. What’s best for BGN is that it uses the copyright “threat” to prevent people from seeing certain material unless they pay.

BGN got permission to use the material. If it is equally granted to anyone else who asks then fine. It will get replacated elsewhere for free, and BGN’s restricted access is moot. If not, then shame on the publishers.

Mark: Here’s the problem: while the Geek is a tremendous place to find answers to specific questions or to access information about a particular game, the signal-to-noise ratio has become so massive that I do not read it on a regular basis.

Me: While you may not visit the geek as much as you used to, the Geek does have 150 “Thousand” members to BGN’s what? 100 or so paying members? So will publishers be reaching the 100 or so paying members able to read the Essen preview, or is it in their best interest to reach a wider audience with a free format?

Jim, that’s not necessarily true. Clearly no one else is currently collecting the same information or you would not care that access to it is restricted here.

I would rather have a resource which can be paid for than have that resource not exist.

I also would rather see the information find a wider audience, but I don’t think that BGN is doing wrong by creating a for-pay resource here.

Jim,

Are you offering to underwrite BGN’s expenses and provide Eric a stipend to allow him to spend his time putting together BGN instead of doing something else that will put food on his table?

If not, how exactly do you think BGN happens? Do you think that it is a result of some effortles and costless magic process? Does Eric just wave a magic wand and *poof* the BGN website just appears?

If not, how do you propose that BGN continue to exist? Or, if you don’t care if it were to go away, what is your complaint? You can already just pretend that it doesn’t exist by ignoring the site and those of us who value the site can keep supporting it and using all of its content.

If BGN were to reach the same critical mass that BGG is at and voluntary contributions fotted the bill, then my guess is that Eric would adopt the same business model. However, if the choice is between having some content reserved for contributors or BGN going away, I think that Eric made the right choice.

Wow, my ‘meta’ meter on this discussion went through the roof.  I’m amazed by both the ignorance and unreasonable claims made by both sides in these debates.  That people can simultaneously acknowledge value in someone’s work (statements about this information being something all gamers should want) while castigating the decision to attempt to derive value from it (claiming it should exist only in a free form) is amazing.  At the same time, I also wish I could excise the “copying is theft” line from our public discourse. 

In any case, I am relieved to see that the debate is exactly identical regardless of the medium at issue.

"What’s best for gamers is that we get as much information as possible for free.”

Isn’t “what’s best for gamers” that we get GAMES for free?  Do gamers want “information” or “games.” It’s incredible that we’re not all aiming this discussion at publishers for charging for their games.  Sooner or later they’ll be in the public domain.....

Publishers are always welcome to post information wherever they want. I appreciate the work that Eric does to make that information available to me in a filtered format.

Getting back to one of Scott’s original points…

I find, too, that their’s quite a bit of relativistic reasoning going on, where copyrights are concerned.  An example: a young rock musician here starting out and urging concert-goers to buy his CD’s although most of his own CD collection is illegally downloaded or copied from friends. Suddenly, copyright laws seem to resonate more with him…

Jeff Wrote: find, too, that their’s quite a bit of relativistic reasoning going on, where copyrights are concerned.  An example: a young rock musician here starting out and urging concert-goers to buy his CD’s although most of his own CD collection is illegally downloaded or copied from friends. Suddenly, copyright laws seem to resonate more with him…

Me: That same Rock Star gives promotional material, a clip here, a clip there, a CD cover, to a website that makes users pay money to listen to and view that promotional material. Then heavy hands any other website that might also wish to use the promotional material. In turn only a small number of potential customers are able to listen to it, and very few people learn about it and buy the CD. That up and coming Rock star sells just a fraction of what he could have. Yes, now it is resonating.

Scott Tepper writes: “In this day and age, if someone has the capability of scanning and posting pages to the Internet, they are consciously choosing to ignore the copyright page of any book that says to copy and distribute reproductions of the book is illegal. 

‘What’s the harm!?’

I submit in response that those who ask that question are generally ones who have not produced something of value on their own.  Some people defend their actions by claiming that the copying and posting of the original item generates buzz and advertising—but shouldn’t the creator have the right to decide how his or her product is advertised?”

For anyone interested, I highly recommend Stephen Kinsella’s “Against Intellectual Property”, whose main thesis is “only tangible, scarce resources are the possible object of interpersonal conflict, so it is only for them that property rules are applicable. Thus, patents and copyrights are unjustifiable monopolies granted by government legislation” found at-

http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf

“only tangible, scarce resources are the possible object of interpersonal conflict”

Um, does this person live in the information age?  Come to think of it, there have been interpersonal conflicts over a great number of intangible things throughout history (crimes of passion, for example).

I think you missed my point, Michael--he’s not a rock star--only an indie musician that, at least for the near future, is scraping by with what he can get for the few CD’s he sells.  Unfortunately, though, he may have to “reap what he sows” and deal with only selling a couple of CD’s while all the other “fans” make their own copies because they’d rather buy a couple more beers than support the struggling artist.

Same goes for this site--if you want to personally take the time to compile an Essen list contacting all of the publishers and designers and formatting and posting everything yourself--more power to ya.  The fact that no one else is doing so, though, and that so many are wanting access, tells me that it may well be a “scarce resource” after all.

"Come to think of it, there have been interpersonal conflicts over a great number of intangible things throughout history (crimes of passion, for example).”

Crimes of passion involve murder and assault, hardly intangible activities.