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.
I decree that the act in question from now on be referred to as Snogfoodling, at least on ENWorld. Usage:
I saw a PDF I have no right to possess on a torrent and decided to snogfoodle it.
I don't condone snogfoodling but if WotC won't sell the PDFs ....
J Random Person was accused of 17 counts of snogfoodling.
(publisher speaking) My latest PDF was snogfoodled 2000 times.
__________________ Joe Mucchiello, Head Honcho at Throwing Dice Games
Priority One: Fatherhood.
Priority Two: Sanity.
Down on the list: seemingly real close to releasing a notebook essential. It's in layout! Has been for months now. (Just nod politely so I won't cry about this.)
"I've never heard of the term Flavor lawyer..." -- Scribble
Maybe not, but by that logic, we shouldn't be posting here at all, we should be out feeding the hungry...
Dude, don't take my point farther than I did.
There are plenty of discussions on this board that are constructive - they don't build a framework for feeding the homeless, but they get somewhere, and someone gets some value out of them (usually in terms of making their games better, but often enough in other ways, too). The semantics argument in this thread isn't one of those. And even that'd be fine, if it didn't lead to people being cheesed off as well.
If you're going to raise a point that's apt to raise hackles, at least do it where and when there's a decent result likely to come from it. Don't burn good will for nothing.
What's sad to me is that there really is an inherent conflict in the issues dealt with by copyright law, and the laws need to genuinely balance the conflict of author's rights vs. the good of society at large.
Somehow, I don't think the good of society at large would change at all for better or worse if The Temple of Elemental Evil suddenly became public domain....
The Grokster case affirms that unlawful copying is as much a crime as theft is, but it carefully avoids calling it theft. Mainly because the Supreme Court already said that copyright infringement was not theft.
Doesn't make it legal, ethical, or moral; but it's not theft.
Naw, that case said you cannot charge someone under a general theft statue. That does not mean you cannot describe it as theft in the common usage of the term.
Maybe not, but by that logic, we shouldn't be posting here at all, we should be out feeding the hungry, working on a cure for cancer, fighting wildfires, colonizing Mars, and inventing perpetual motion machines. We can't all do that, so we argue over trivialities on the internet.
I invite you to get to work colonizing Mars and stop wasting time here when you could be doing that, then
IMHO the fact that most such copyright discussions devolve into semantics or name-calling indicates that the issue is heavily emotionally charged
OK
Quote:
to the point that people are afraid to legitimize positions that they disagree with.
Nothing to support this (other than it being your opinion). You can charge something with emotion without a party failing to legitimatize a rationale position. For example, if Person A murders 2 year old Children with a position that children are bad for the environment, and Person B is a parent of one of those children who is emotionally charged about the issue, that doesn't mean Person A's position is legitimate. One side being emotionally charged over something is not mutually exclusive with the other side being entirely unreasonable in their position.
Quote:
What's sad to me is that there really is an inherent conflict in the issues dealt with by copyright law, and the laws need to genuinely balance the conflict of author's rights vs. the good of society at large.
Oh well, -- N
It says to me that, before it was super easy to copy people's intellectual property, the issue was rarely coming up and almost everyone thought author's rights reigned supreme. But once it became an easy thing to do, suddenly a lot of people were making claims about the good of society at large. Which tells me it's not about the good of society, but the ease of breaking the law being a major factor.
Nothing to support this (other than it being your opinion).
It's been my experience. Specific examples would tend to involve specific posters, so I'm not going there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mistwell
It says to me that, before it was super easy to copy people's intellectual property, the issue was rarely coming up and almost everyone thought author's rights reigned supreme. But once it became an easy thing to do, suddenly a lot of people were making claims about the good of society at large. Which tells me it's not about the good of society, but the ease of breaking the law being a major factor.
Since 1709 people have been talking about copyright in these terms. "Suddenly"? Did the printing press somehow surprise you?
Before that, printing licenses were generally used to suppress things those in power didn't want to be seen, and to enrich those few who were licensed to print. (And neither the rulers nor the printers worried overmuch about author's rights. They just liked money and power. Can't blame them really -- money & power are nice.)
Shouldn't you know all this already?
Oh well, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Naw, that case said you cannot charge someone under a general theft statue. That does not mean you cannot describe it as theft in the common usage of the term.
Here's what it did say, or at least what Blackmun's majority opinion said:
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.
Somehow, I don't think the good of society at large would change at all for better or worse if The Temple of Elemental Evil suddenly became public domain....
Once upon a time, a filmmaker decided to film Dracula. Despite his best attempts, he was unable to obtain the rights from the Stoker estate. He changed "vampire" to "nosferatu" and "Count Dracula" to "Count Orlok." The Stoker estate sued and won. The film was ordered destroyed. However, it had already been distributed, and was subsequently copied. Thanks to those unauthorized and illegal copies, we have acess to an extraordinary film. The film is now in the public domain, where it can be loved and appreciated by anyone. I recoil with horror at the notion that the Stoker estate might have somehow eradicated the film. I had the privilege of watching it played once, with a live organist playing the original soundtrack. Aside from its innovations and its vintage, it is a fantastic film.
Now, the Temple of Elemental Evil may not be Shakespeare, or even Nosferatu, but here's the thing: D&D is 30 years old, and we are coming into an era where people are interested in the original books and modules. I would hate it if those items became unavailable, unknown, and unattainable. If no digital copies are available, we can only hope that enough copies survive the decades it will take for the work to enter into the public domain... and then that WotC or whoever will refrain from attempting to use trademark law to keep the public domain works out of reprint because of the D&D logo on the cover. For example, see the Burroughs estate, who have been very successful in assassinating many derviations of the Tarzan or Barsoom books by threatening legal action over the use of characters they consider their trademarks.
Just because a thousand people say something, does not mean it is right. I can start calling dogs cats, start a movement, hack your Kindle's and replace every instance of dog with cat, but Fido is still going to bark, he won't meow.
The arbitrariness of the sign is a basic feature of semantics at this level. If everyone starts using "cat" to mean "dog" then "cat" does, in fact, mean "dog." There is nothing to be right or wrong about: words mean what people use and understand them to mean. See the word history of internecine for a famous example:
Quote:
Word History: When is a mistake not a mistake? In language at least, the answer to this question is "When everyone adopts it," and on rare occasions, "When it's in the dictionary." The word internecine presents a case in point. Today, it usually has the meaning "relating to internal struggle," but in its first recorded use in English, in 1663, it meant "fought to the death." How it got from one sense to another is an interesting story in the history of English. The Latin source of the word, spelled both internecīnus and internecīvus, meant "fought to the death, murderous." It is a derivative of the verb necāre, "to kill." The prefix inter- was here used not in the usual sense "between, mutual" but rather as an intensifier meaning "all the way, to the death." This piece of knowledge was unknown to Samuel Johnson, however, when he was working on his great dictionary in the 18th century. He included internecine in his dictionary but misunderstood the prefix and defined the word as "endeavoring mutual destruction." Johnson was not taken to task for this error. On the contrary, his dictionary was so popular and considered so authoritative that this error became widely adopted as correct usage. The error was further compounded when internecine acquired the sense "relating to internal struggle." This story thus illustrates how dictionaries are often viewed as providing norms and how the ultimate arbiter in language, even for the dictionary itself, is popular usage.
__________________ Kosmon tonde, ton auton apantōn, oute tis theōn oute anthrōpōn epoiēsen, all’ ēn aei kai estin kai estai pur aeizōon, haptomenon metra kai aposbennumenon metra. . . . Panta gar to pur epelthon krinei kai katalēpsetai.
*shrugs* At the end of the day, those who can, do, and those who can't, want to copy and captilize on other people's work (either with or without permission).
*shrugs* At the end of the day, those who can, do, and those who can't, want to copy and captilize on other people's work (either with or without permission).
Sorry, but I calls 'em as I see 'em.
Yes, like Disney copying and capitalizing on the works of people like the Grimm brothers and Collodi and then trying to lock down their own stuff forever...
__________________ 'Can a magician kill a man by magic?' Lord Wellington asked Strange. Strange frowned. He seemed to dislike the question. 'I suppose a magician might,' he admitted, 'but a gentleman never could.'
Yes, like Disney copying and capitalizing on the works of people like the Grimm brothers and Collodi and then trying to lock down their own stuff forever...
Exactly. Or Philo Farnsworth, the man who invented television and had his invention stolen from him by some very greedy men at RCA/NBC claiming they had only the public's best interests at heart.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
