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.
(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.
My argument is not predicated on the idea that an item being temporarily unavailable makes it immediately available for download. And Disney is entitled to create scarcity, because that is a right to profit from their copyright. Your second example is more interesting.
Quote:
(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.
Of course, I never said, "It is not available, THEREFORE you may download it." What I said was intentionally making something unavailable was not a right of the creator. In fact, the less physically available The Song of the South is to watch, the more and more defensible it becomes for documentarians, libraries, etc. to copy portions of it for reference purposes. And if Disney wished to come forward and say, "We desire to NEVER sell the Song of the South because of its racist implications," then their case against infringement becomes weaker against any infringement against that movie.
Of course, Disney did make an unadvertised and small release of the Song of the South. Only prudent, really. Even if it were possible to entirely squelch a work, it is, as I noted, not Constitutionally based.
Quote:
(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.
Where did I say things can be copied willy-nilly?
A general point: it is a basic underpinning of the US copyright laws, which owed their authority to a clause in the Constitution, that copyright protects a creator's right to profit so that society will benefit from their creativity. If society entirely lacks benefit from a given work, then there is no Constitutional authority to grant the right to the creator in some absolute sense, and the public good, freedom of speech, and privacy laws kick in.
What I said was intentionally making something unavailable was not a right of the creator. In fact, the less physically available The Song of the South is to watch, the more and more defensible it becomes for documentarians, libraries, etc. to copy portions of it for reference purposes. And if Disney wished to come forward and say, "We desire to NEVER sell the Song of the South because of its racist implications," then their case against infringement becomes weaker against any infringement against that movie.
Of course, Disney did make an unadvertised and small release of the Song of the South. Only prudent, really. Even if it were possible to entirely squelch a work, it is, as I noted, not Constitutionally based.
Really? I'm no lawyer, but this just sounds wrong. A creator (or rights holder) doesn't have the right to keep their creative work off the market?
So, I write an awesome fantasy novel that hits the NYT bestseller list, but later find Jesus and demand my publisher stop printing new copies and refuse to allow anyone else to print my novel, online or otherwise . . . . I have no right to do that?!?!
Hmmm, seems strange. I don't believe it.
__________________ Brian Zuber
Proud Member of ENWorld since 2000 (under several lost screen names). Gaming since the mid-80s!
Favorite Settings: Love all of the official settings, Mystara is my nostalgia fave! Trying to create a homebrew that blends the best elements of the various settings. Favorite Edition: Can't decide between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, like them both!
More importantly, the argument that individuals are entitled to pirate copyrighted material if the copyright holder isn't actively circulating it is 100% bullocks. The people making this argument should be ashamed.
This thread is pure win. There is so much bitch-slapping of people claiming incorrect things that it made me laugh out loud at 6 AM on a Sunday morning. I can't believe I skipped it for so long.
@OP
Won't happen. If they come up with PDF's, I suspect it will be a service available to [cue drumroll] DDI subscribers..
__________________
355 hours played
Gnoguh, human fighter/cleric (kensei->adamantine soldier)
Carric, elf cleric/ranger (radiant servant->saint)
Torn, tiefling wizard/cleric (divine oracle->sages of ages)
Truxas, human feylock/bard (feytouched->feyliege)
Tagron, human rogue (daggermaster->deadly trickster) 21th level Musings of an Epic Virgin
Really? I'm no lawyer, but this just sounds wrong. A creator (or rights holder) doesn't have the right to keep their creative work off the market?
Not in any absolute sense, no. They have the right to profit from it, to creative derivative works from it, license it, etc. In US law, the public interest is the chief interest of copyright law, with the franchise granted to creators being a means to that end. In the US, "moral rights" only exist as some rights to attribution and to not have one's work defaced, and only for some visual arts, not for writen works. Stating, "I am forbidding reproduction of my work purely because I wish to erase it from history" is contrary to the legal basis for copyright. The public interest comes first.
Not in any absolute sense, no. They have the right to profit from it, to creative derivative works from it, license it, etc. In US law, the public interest is the chief interest of copyright law, with the franchise granted to creators being a means to that end. In the US, "moral rights" only exist as some rights to attribution and to not have one's work defaced, and only for some visual arts, not for writen works. Stating, "I am forbidding reproduction of my work purely because I wish to erase it from history" is contrary to the legal basis for copyright. The public interest comes first.
Sounds like you are making a moral argument rather than a legal one. Or are you really claiming that legally, a creator cannot suppress new copies of his/her work?
I mean, depending on the medium, obviously once published some works are "out there". If I publish a novel that later I decide to "suppress", there are obviously going to be physical copies floating around out there, and maybe ebooks on peoples laptops. And I certainly wouldn't have the right to come into your home or your computer and take them back from you (er, Amazon "1984" incident notwithstanding). But I'm pretty sure I'd have the legal right to stop all future publication and that filesharing my work would still be illegal.
I just don't buy it.
__________________ Brian Zuber
Proud Member of ENWorld since 2000 (under several lost screen names). Gaming since the mid-80s!
Favorite Settings: Love all of the official settings, Mystara is my nostalgia fave! Trying to create a homebrew that blends the best elements of the various settings. Favorite Edition: Can't decide between 3rd Edition and 4th Edition, like them both!
Whatever happened to the idea that if you buy the hard copy, there is a code that grants you access to the pdf?
I don't recall where, but I'm sure I read somewhere that WotC was going to do just that.
That was the original plan. When WotC got around to actually planning the implementation, they discovered that it wasn't workable from a technical standpoint. Presumably they couldn't get a system that would be secure enough for their purposes.
__________________ David A. Blizzard
"The only constant I am sure of is this accelerating rate of change" - Downside Up by Peter Gabriel
Of course, used books earn no royalties for the copyright holder.
I'm not quite sure what point you are making but mine was only regarding availability. Are you meaning to point out that WotC is missing out on a revenue stream? I would agree but point out that WotC seems to believe that such a revenue stream in regard to PDF sales is negligible balanced against the need to increase DDI subscribership. Honestly, the secondary market on OOP materials is much healthier because WotC got out of the PDF game. Frankly, I prefer WotC's isolationist policy when it comes to the resale value of my OOP materials.
Sadly, though, I think even EN World is feeling what a large portion of the OGL market has felt when they rely primarily on WotC-only (or mostly) D&D fans. When a group decides they will only spend on one company (official material), you cannot build a business on those coattails, particularly when the coat-wearer regularly shakes the tails to keep others off and creates a business model that constantly shortens the tails.
Sounds like you are making a moral argument rather than a legal one. Or are you really claiming that legally, a creator cannot suppress new copies of his/her work?
Copyright exists to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts," according to our Constitution. Any right of that creator is secondary to that purpose. That is the basis of copyright law in the US. In France, for instance, "moral rights" of creators are stronger and the situation may be different, but in the US, copyrights are always balanced against the public good.
Thus, if a work is simply made unavailable, limited copying can be argued as fair use. The "purpose and character" of casual file sharing is clearly not commercial; the "nature of the copyrighted work" in this case would be games that people want to play; the "amount of work" would in this case be a weakness in the argument, since the amount is the whole book; and the "effect upon the potential market" is essentially nil, since many older works are not going to be reprinted and it is doubtful that these copies will supercede later versions. In short, the case for infringement rests almost solely on the wholesale copying and not on any consequences of the copyring.
I'm not suggesting anyone go out and make or distribute unauthorized copies of things simply because they are out-of-print. But if a product is truly unavailable, because it is a 30 year old product, out of print, rare, and abandoned by its copyright holder, such that a person could literally not pay for the item in any reasonable fashion, then the infringement case looks pretty weak. If the publisher merely wishes to squelch the work, that is simply not the intent of the law.
It would be far less of a problem, if we did not live in an era when "limited" copyright durations seem to get longer and longer. Once upon a time, after 28 years, or 56, that was it, the work went into the public domain. So far the Supreme Court has held that retroactive and long durations are still "limited" but I wonder how far that can be pushed. Unlimited copyright would, of course, be unconstitutional.
And thus I conclude by observing that much of the copyright "problem" arises precisely because of the self-interested lobbying of various media groups. If copyrights were of a reasonable duration we wouldn't be arguing would to do about 30 year old abandonware in the first place.
I'm not quite sure what point you are making but mine was only regarding availability. Are you meaning to point out that WotC is missing out on a revenue stream?
Actually, I was pointing out that seemingly, WotC considered that royalty stream to be of minimal value. But, believe it or not, segments of the book and music industries have both, within recent memory, lobbied fiercely for royalties on used books. Garth Brooks tried to engage in a boycott of stores which sold used CDs. His record label was sued under anti-trust laws.
Is there a line that is too far to cross? Something to think about.
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.
The Half-price books approach does work but requires a surprising amount of persistence. :-( I went looking for AD&D stuff and eventually found all of it (some in borderline condition) but it took a fair amount of looking and checking between stores.
Of course, used books earn no royalties for the copyright holder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I'm not quite sure what point you are making but mine was only regarding availability. Are you meaning to point out that WotC is missing out on a revenue stream?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawsplay
Actually, I was pointing out that seemingly, WotC considered that royalty stream to be of minimal value. But, believe it or not, segments of the book and music industries have both, within recent memory, lobbied fiercely for royalties on used books. Garth Brooks tried to engage in a boycott of stores which sold used CDs. His record label was sued under anti-trust laws.
Is there a line that is too far to cross? Something to think about.
I think the rest of my previous post covers my own thoughts on the matter though I welcome anyone else's view. I obviously don't have any problems with resale of books and I've never heard or read that WotC has had a problem with it. Are you suggesting that WotC might pursue such a stance and might have some luck with it where others have failed? It would seem that the previous attempts leave little hope that such a strategy is viable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
I would agree but point out that WotC seems to believe that such a revenue stream in regard to PDF sales is negligible balanced against the need to increase DDI subscribership. Honestly, the secondary market on OOP materials is much healthier because WotC got out of the PDF game. Frankly, I prefer WotC's isolationist policy when it comes to the resale value of my OOP materials.
Sadly, though, I think even EN World is feeling what a large portion of the OGL market has felt when they rely primarily on WotC-only (or mostly) D&D fans. When a group decides they will only spend on one company (official material), you cannot build a business on those coattails, particularly when the coat-wearer regularly shakes the tails to keep others off and creates a business model that constantly shortens the tails.
The Half-price books approach does work but requires a surprising amount of persistence. :-( I went looking for AD&D stuff and eventually found all of it (some in borderline condition) but it took a fair amount of looking and checking between stores.
Indeed. It can be difficult. Someone might make some money creating a database of up-to-date stock carried by Half-Price Books if they could network with some people in the various areas where multiple stores exist. It would help to have the networkers carry those ISBN scanners. Alternately, one might be able to keep a record of the items people are seeking then have the network fulfill those orders as the books surface and are acquired. A 20% finders fee (plus USPS Media Mail rate shpping) might be acceptable and customers would still be getting around a 25% discount off cover price. Maybe an EN World group could be started for such a purpose?
Are you suggesting that WotC might pursue such a stance and might have some luck with it where others have failed?
I am not prognosticating about anything. I am simply talking about the balance of creator rights with the rights of the public. What I am suggesting is that it is improper to label someone a pirate simply because they advocate more lenient and (IMO, of course) reasonable positions on copyright enforcement.
My gut feeling is that WotC is not interested in "closing the frontier," they have simply found themselves operating under business constraints that persuaded them to take a very conservative position on sharing their IP. I doubt they have any interest in sueing anyone who does not represent an active threat to their business and IP. Despite all the BEWARE OF DOG marketing and licensing, they have yet to make a move against anyone involved in normal fair use activites, fans who (at least in spirit) adhere to common sense policies, and licensees making an earnest attempt to work within the terms of the license, however acrobatically. On the other hand, they went after some non-notable infringers, which would not bother me except so far as I wonder, A) why these guys?, and B) what penalties are they facing?
I disagree with pulling the PDFs and I think it not only represents an out-dated response to infringement but ultimately seems to interfere only with the activities of non-infringing fans interested in buying the old products. It has little to do with the modern market, and it has nothing to do with habitual pirates. If they were tired of maintaining them on their web site they could very easily have licensed them out. I can only conclude pulling the PDFs was part of a wider strategy to consolidate the new D&D brand and increase reliance on subscription services. Again, not something I'm happy about. Ultimdately, I think it amounts to feeding the pirates while simultaneously angering fans such as myself who have spent and would like to spend more money on vintage products.
As for the infringement suit... I would be very picky who I sued. Currently, the potential penalties for infringement are outlandish.
I can imagine several compromise positions WRT to older editions: licensing out the old products to some party, licensing them freely to the public, identifying products or parts of products as OGC, and so forth.
On the other hand, I can imagine no "compromise" on 4e products. Clearly, Wizards feels no one is entitled to own complete digital copies of their products. I think that's... almost absurd. I can understand, but I cannot agree it is a reasonable strategy in any way except (maybe) short to medium term profits on 4e. Eventually, when interested in 4e lags, as happens with all editions, they are going to have a lot of overheard on a less-used online product, and in theory tons of product and support could evaporate. In fact, come 5e, I might bet on it. What better way to sell 5e than to ensure 4e can never survive in all its robustness past its current online support? Hobbyists would be left scrabbling for a few hardbound copies of "Best of Dragon" or furtively printing off classes and monsters from the web.
I am not prognosticating about anything. I am simply talking about the balance of creator rights with the rights of the public. What I am suggesting is that it is improper to label someone a pirate simply because they advocate more lenient and (IMO, of course) reasonable positions on copyright enforcement.
No, the argument isn't about what anyone is. It's that the act of downloading RPG PDFs from torrents/limewire/etc. is piracy.
All WotC needs to do to rectify the situation is release the older edition materials through DDI. All of them. Make DDI the unified repository of D&D knowledge, from OD&D to 4E, and let the customers use what they want from it.
Heck, if they still have the original AD&D Core Rules 2.0 source files (or someone who knows how to decompile HLP files), they could have almost the entirety of AD&D 2nd edition (when it comes to rules) online within a month. That would be reason enough for me to subscribe.
Whatever happened to the idea that if you buy the hard copy, there is a code that grants you access to the pdf?
I don't recall where, but I'm sure I read somewhere that WotC was going to do just that.
That went out the window with 4e being OGL, the DI being up & running, etc., etc., etc.
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
No, the argument isn't about what anyone is. It's that the act of downloading RPG PDFs from torrents/limewire/etc. is piracy.
-O
Piracy is boarding ships violently, and taking cargo and/or captives (potentially for ransom or resale). Piracy is an activity where lives are lost.
Infringement of Intellectual Property is not piracy.
The means by which some companies go about preventing infringment of intellectual property borders on (and in some cases, crosses far over) privacy rights of individuals. Should we begin to call this corporate activity "Piracy" as well?
Note here that I am not saying that infringement is okay; I am saying that the term used is (intentionally) loaded. I am also suggesting that, eventually, consumer groups will begin to countersue on the basis of privacy rights violations.
RC
__________________ [A]ny good dungeon will have undiscovered treasures in areas that have been explored by the players, simply because it is impossible to expect that they will find every one of them.
RCFG - My free mostly-OGC OGL game! RCFG is intended to be a fusion between OS & NS playstyles, giving the advantages of SRD-based gaming coupled with quick character and adventure generation and an Old School feel.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
