General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
Do not confuse, "There is a world of difference in how the law applies to an individual doing X and one doing Y," and, "There is a world of difference in how the law is applied to an individual doing X and one doing Y". Your advice amounts to, "Your practical risk is low, so don't worry about it." But it is still a violation.
EN World does not condone copyright violation on any level. Our hobby as a whole, and many of our members individually, depend on the income IP brings in. If someone rights to the content, you do them a disservice if you copy it without permission.
Right.
We can argue about the morality of downloading copies of things you already own, but not so much the legality of such practice. Unauthorized copying is not legal.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
You know, if I had listened to so called "experts" my life would be very different right now, and much worse off.
If I had listened to "experts I would not have fought the VA for 4 years, and win.
I would not have fought the IRS for 2 years, and won.
I would not have fought a lawsuit, I did, and I won.
I would not have fought a second legal action, and I would have been screwed out of over $100,000, I wasn't. I won.
Oh, don't go into that business, you can't make money at it. I did.
Oh, don't do this business, it won't make money for you. It is.
On the medical side, if I had done what my incompetent doctors said to do, I would have died, several times.
So what have I learned? Experts get caught up in "this is how it works" and fail to see outside the box. They will tell you "you can't do that" when in actually you can, because they get enclosed in the "this is the way it is done" box.
I have consulted my experts, asked my questions, got my answers, and I will do what I do.
As I have said in pretty much every post, do not listen to me, consult your own experts, ask your questions, make your own choices.
Its what I do, and as you can see, I have had overwhelming success doing things my way.
Part of "my way" is to thoroughly research a subject before I do anything. You should too. Do your own research, don't do anything stupid, and just remember, even "experts" don't know everything.
In fact, its been my experience that they rarely know what they are supposed to know. So far in my life I have only met one doctor and one lawyer who know what they talk about to the degree they are "assumed" to know their subject matters. I have met dozens of each who were seriously lacking.
So definitely do your own research, you ask better questions, and get better answers that way. Its the smart way to do things.
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
We can argue about the morality of downloading copies of things you already own, but not so much the legality of such practice. Unauthorized copying is not legal.
Cheers, -- N
I disagree. IANAL, of course. But simply because a few corporations and some (limited) case law have hemmed in what constitutes "fair use" in practical terms does not mean they are right in some absolute sense. It is inarguable that a physical item is not equivalent to the copyright to that item. Buying a book, for instance, is not the same as buying the copyright to that book. So why is buying a license to use a work conflated with that work being represented in one physical format? Simply using and enjoying a work is WAY outside the scope of simply regulating commerce and the granting of intellectual franchises, and that is that basis for the copyright law.
If I buy a television, Sony doesn't get to tell me what room I keep it in.
I am a copyright lawyer. You are very wrong. Let's leave it at that.
Please, nobody follow Treebores "steal it cause they are not selling it" advice.
No, you are NOT entitled to have a pirated PDF copy of a book you own.
Again, please, nobody listen to this person on this piece of advice.
In the US, at least, you are always entitled to a backup copy of any work you own, whether it be a physical copy or a digital medium. As a lawyer, you should know this. Downloading a copy of a book I paid hard earned cash for is neither illegal, nor immoral.
In the US, at least, you are always entitled to a backup copy of any work you own, whether it be a physical copy or a digital medium. As a lawyer, you should know this. Downloading a copy of a book I paid hard earned cash for is neither illegal, nor immoral.
You are incorrect.
Yes, the Copyright Act (10 U.S.C. 117) authorizes backups for computer programs. But these backups need to be created from something you already own -- in other words, it means ripping the rom from your old Super Nintendo cartridges.
It's certainly arguable that scanning a book you own into a PDF file qualifies as fair use (10 U.S.C. 107). But distributing that PDF file violates the statutory rights enumerated in the Copyright Act (10 U.S.C. 106). So does downloading such a file: you would be violating the rightholder's exclusive authority to make copies of a file. If you use BitTorrent, you're also potentially distributing a copyrighted work..
IAAL.
You're wrong, but Treebore was so wildly incorrect that I felt compelled to dust off my ENW account to post here. Listen to Mistwell: he actually knows what he's talking about.
__________________ I'm smarter than the average bear.
Last edited by yogipsu; 2nd October 2009 at 07:16 PM..
Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner as provided by sections 106 through 122 or of the author as provided in section 106A(a), or who imports copies or phonorecords into the United States in violation of section 602, is an infringer of the copyright or right of the author, as the case may be. For purposes of this chapter (other than section 506), any reference to copyright shall be deemed to include the rights conferred by section 106A(a). As used in this subsection, the term “anyone” includes any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this title in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
U.S. Copyright Act section 106:
Quote:
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
If you have questions, see a lawyer. Don't rely on what anyone on the Internet tells you, whether they claim to be a lawyer or otherwise.
__________________ <exasperated DM> "Underlying what? ... motivation? Do you want to play Dungeons & Dragons or not?"
<drama obsessed player> "How can I narrate my character's co-mingled sense of alienation and ennui towards modern society in this second-rate dungeon hack? My character returns to the surface and uses his remaining gold to start up an organic coffee shop that caters to left-wing revolutionaries... and hot elvish chicks."
It's certainly arguable that scanning a book you own into a PDF file qualifies as fair use (10 U.S.C. 107). But distributing that PDF file violates the statutory rights enumerated in the Copyright Act (10 U.S.C. 106).
If you distribute it to someone who is not authorized to have it.
Quote:
So does downloading such a file: you would be violating the rightholder's exclusive authority to make copies of a file.
They have the right to authorize copies. But making an unauthorized copy is not per se an infringement. It could be fair use. It is also arguable that keeping private copies of things you legally possess is not commerce. Remember, the basis of copyright law is to reward creators who contribute to the common good. Copyright does not exist to grant someone a neutral right to decide whether they wish someone to enjoy or not enjoy a protected work. Copyright law has no bearing on whether I wallpaper my entire house with unauthorized copies of Harry Potter novels.
Arguing that filesharing violates copyright simply by potential infringement runs counter to the argument made in the Betamax case. It is up to a court to decide whether any particular instance of file sharing constitutes infringement.
It seems pawsplay has studied some of the same copyright laws that my lawyer has.
See, my lawyer doesn't practice law in one legal arena, he has practiced his trade across the nation in many court systems, so he has a much clearer "big picture" of what constitutes copyright "rights" versus actual violations.
Still, like I have always said, consult your own lawyer.
I also say, just because they think they are an expert doesn't mean they are.
Like I pointed out above, if I had always listened to so called "experts" I would be dead, and in nearly half a million dollars more financial pain. So just be aware, just because they have a degree, and present themselves as "expert" does not mean they are. So study it yourself, so you can ask knowledgeable questions, because that allows you to gain more knowledgeable insights.
Sounds hokey, but its worked very well for me.
Remember my example, Doctors are highly trained so called "experts", but they still kill an average of 88,000 patients per year due to their "expertise", or should I say true lack there of.
Same thing goes for any "expert" in any field. So chose them wisely. Doing your own research helps you do this.
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
They have the right to authorize copies. But making an unauthorized copy is not per se an infringement. It could be fair use. It is also arguable that keeping private copies of things you legally possess is not commerce. Remember, the basis of copyright law is to reward creators who contribute to the common good. Copyright does not exist to grant someone a neutral right to decide whether they wish someone to enjoy or not enjoy a protected work. Copyright law has no bearing on whether I wallpaper my entire house with unauthorized copies of Harry Potter novels.
Arguing that filesharing violates copyright simply by potential infringement runs counter to the argument made in the Betamax case. It is up to a court to decide whether any particular instance of file sharing constitutes infringement.
You're of course right that fair use might excuse potential infringement. But don't forget about MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
And, for a more germane case (although it's not SCOTUS-level), please see Capitol v. Thomas -- a garden-variety "woman downloads mp3s" case.
I think it would help everyone here involved in this discussion to reference some of the concepts discussed in that case. I'm not directing that towards you, pawsplay, but mainly towards Treebore.
Also, people ought to understand that, of the elements of copyright infringement, "use in commerce" isn't one of them. The questions are: (1) is there a valid copyright?, (2) did actual copying take place?, and (3) did the infringer misappopriate copyrighted material?
Where commerce comes into play is through the affirmative defense of fair use. pawsplay is certainly correct there. And he is correct that, at the end of the day, only a court can decide whether something constitutes copyright infringement.
But we can nevertheless predict what a court might say.
__________________ I'm smarter than the average bear.
It seems pawsplay has studied some of the same copyright laws that my lawyer has.
See, my lawyer doesn't practice law in one legal arena, he has practiced his trade across the nation in many court systems, so he has a much clearer "big picture" of what constitutes copyright "rights" versus actual violations.
Still, like I have always said, consult your own lawyer.
I won't bother trotting out my qualifications, but I will say this much: any second-year law student who has taken one Intellectual Property or Copyright Law class with access to LexisNexis or WestLaw can tell you what constitutes copyright infringement.
"Is downloading the latest episode of House from BitTorrent legal?" is not a difficult legal question.
__________________ I'm smarter than the average bear.
It seems obvious we aren't going to get the perfect solution for everyone. It also seems obvious that the current situation is untenable, especially for a company that is rapidly becoming all about digital delivery. We need a compromise.
The pull back of 4E PDFs from the community-oriented PDF market is meant to drive consumers to the DDI so current edition products are not likely to appear soon. The pull back in regard to previous edition PDFs is to avoid WotC competing with themselves.
Location: Jamaica (Queens) New York. Work in Manhattan, sees the world on the Internet/Now Poket PC.
Posts: 4,673
Bingo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
The pull back of 4E PDFs from the community-oriented PDF market is meant to drive consumers to the DDI so current edition products are not likely to appear soon. The pull back in regard to previous edition PDFs is to avoid WotC competing with themselves.
Location: Jamaica (Queens) New York. Work in Manhattan, sees the world on the Internet/Now Poket PC.
Posts: 4,673
I have to say, with all the different thoughts being put here, here is the one constant thought that continues to hit me.
The longer there no (older) PDFs out from Hasbro/Wotc, the interest will wane lower and lower. While that gap widens, and folks wll seek other veins for their pleasure.
Given 'suggestions' on how a horse should drink the 'water', is cleary becoming a moot point.
Especially when the horse in question...is quite dead.
As I once heard a distinguished business person say in a speech, "When the horse is dead, dismount."
I look forward to mining through all my back-catalog of 1e, 2e, 3e, and all my new 4e books and magazines for new and innovative materials through DDO someday in the near future! I can imagine dozens of new and innovative ways to search, update, and share such information that takes full advantage of the web 2.0 medium. This is going to be cool.
One other point I'd like to make about distributing electronic products, is to refer people into one of the latest and most interesting thoughts in web-based and electronic delivery with regards to marketing and sales: the long tail. Supply can meet demand on a much deeper, much longer tail, which can grow revenues significantly, and spread overhead out over a much longer demand curve. I think there's an opportunity here. A big one. The primary questions are:
1) How do you deal with piracy efficiently and cost-effectively?
2) Can these required new business disciplines be developed internally (or outsourced) cost effectively?
3) Are there sustainable profits from Hasbro's and Wizard's that it makes financial sense to re-invest in this new business model?
4) Are the returns on this investment comparable or superior to other investment opportunities such as the DDI?
Regardless of the outcome to the above questions, I can only imagine how BEAUTIFUL an effective group of business managers could make a business case look for a variety of "electronic distribution models" for D&D using the market demographics now available through World of Warcraft. Thanks, Blizzard!
D&D is the grand-daddy brand of the RPG markets - computer, digital, and paperback. DO NOT underestimate it.
Go Hasbro, Go Wizards, Go D&D.
/pops popcorn in anticipation of enjoying the show to follow
You're of course right that fair use might excuse potential infringement. But don't forget about MGM v. Grokster, 545 U.S. 913 (2005).
Can anybody? It created an important test for future cases. The deciding factor there seems to be that Grokster was marketed in such a way as to promote infringement, rather than for its legitimate uses. You can slice a grain of rice with a precedent that narrow. Very interesting stuff.
I may not be a second year law student, but I will tel you this - Second year law students are probably the worst people to ask about the future of IP law. A little knowledge, as they say, is a dangerous thing. IANAL, but this topic in particular is of importance to me, and I can tell you right now that anyone who thinks copyright law for the 21st century has been settled is fooling themselves.
This is the basis for copyright law:
Quote:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So the real test for any copyright law is not simply whether it secures the righs of the author, but that by doing so their endeavors are made available to the public. Certainly, the rights of the author do not extend as far as dictating how a person enjoys a particular work. Deciding cases on which files are made into electronic backups and so forth requires a balancing of concerns.
So in my view, removing PDFs of out of print games, specifically to make them unavailable, invalidates the constitutional basis for copyright and hence the case for infringment. While a commercial purpose does not have to be established, it must be shown that an author's right to benefit from a work has been infringed. Removing PDFs from availability simply to avoid paying for site maintenance is not a use reserved to the author, but simply a practical decision. The case for infringement would probably have to establish that the files had some potential value other than being distributed for free that outweighs the public benefit of access to historically and academically and recreationally valuable vintage gaming products.
So in my view, removing PDFs of out of print games, specifically to make them unavailable, invalidates the constitutional basis for copyright and hence the case for infringment.
Um.
No.
(1) You have no guarantees they won't sell it in the future. Mistwell's Disney example is a prime case. If they are not selling a movie right now, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And they are intentionally withholding to create scarcity, too.
(2) If something has never been sold, you can still violate copyright. I don't think Disney is selling Song of the South due to racist implications. It is not therefore okay to download it.
(3) Even if I write something that I don't make commercial profit from, you can't copy it willy-nilly. You're still violating my copyrights.
The longer there no (older) PDFs out from Hasbro/Wotc, the interest will wane lower and lower.
Naw. Between FLGS auctions and flea markets and Half-Priced Books and Internet options like ebay and many others, the hardcopies are still plenty available. Of course, the secondary market prices will be a bit higher while the PDFs aren't available and some folks will use it as an excuse to illegally download and share files.
Naw. Between FLGS auctions and flea markets and Half-Priced Books and Internet options like ebay and many others, the hardcopies are still plenty available. Of course, the secondary market prices will be a bit higher while the PDFs aren't available and some folks will use it as an excuse to illegally download and share files.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
