Anyone else find this really irritating?

mortwatcher · Nov 13, 2018

the Jester said:
Subclasses either cast from a given class' list (e.g. eldritch knight casts from the wizard list), use the list of their parent class (e.g. wizard subclasses) or offer access to a few extra spells that are listed in the subclass itself (e.g. cleric domain spells), so I don't really know what you think is going to happen here. Labeling the classes that, by default, have access to a given spell is a no-brainer to me.

but you already have a list of spells a class can use, why the need to double down on it in spell descriptions?

Guest 6801328 · Nov 13, 2018

LordEntrails said:
Side story: I myself have digital product for sale online. They also happen to be available for free and without my permission on various websites. How could I possible ever prove those sites are taking sales away from me? And even if they are not, are you really arguing that they are not doing anything morally wrong? And, is that really the world wish to live in?

Yes, the owner of the grimoire is publishing, without permission, a subset of WotC books. Technical violation.

No, doing so does not mean that the PHB isn't still needed to play the game. (Feel free to cross out pairs of negatives in that sentence...)

If you don't see the difference...morally...between offering a digital product so that people don't have to buy the legal version, and offering a convenient reorganization of a subset of that product, in such a way that it does not eliminate the need for the full product and in fact increases the utility of that product...then I'm not really sure we should bother discussing this.

the Jester · Nov 13, 2018

mortwatcher said:
but you already have a list of spells a class can use, why the need to double down on it in spell descriptions?

Because if I see a cool spell, it would be nice if something in the description told me whether I could cast it, based on my class. Flipping pages is a minor inconvenience that could be easily alleviated. It's like the stupid decision someone made to have the entries in the index include a lot of "see x" instead of just putting the damn page number in it.

Dessert Nomad · Nov 13, 2018

Actually, if they just list the class then it's pretty useless because just tagging a spell 'Cleric' or 'Warlock' isn't sufficient, as there are a number of spells that aren't on the regular Cleric or Warlock list but that they can cast based on Domain or Patron. You either have spells that you can cast that still won't be tagged with your class if you don't include Domain/Patron, or you have a bunch of spells tagged for your class that you can't actually cast. All the ritual spells and cantrips need a 'Warlock' tag, since you can take Pact of the Tome and Book of Secrets to be able to use any of them. And all cantrips and first level spells would have to be tagged with every class, since any class can take the Magic Initiate feat to get a first level spell and two cantrips. You'd also need to list Fighter and Rogue on all of the spells on the Wizard list up to 4th level since they can use any of them. And 'Bard' needs to be on every single spell up to sixth level since a Lore Bard can take any two of them.

I can see why they didn't try to index by class, they wouldn't get a useful result. Either you'd have a silly number of tags, or you'd have a lot of spells that you actually can cast that aren't flagged for your class.

LordEntrails · Nov 13, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Yes, the owner of the grimoire is publishing, without permission, a subset of WotC books. Technical violation.

No, doing so does not mean that the PHB isn't still needed to play the game. (Feel free to cross out pairs of negatives in that sentence...)

If you don't see the difference...morally...between offering a digital product so that people don't have to buy the legal version, and offering a convenient reorganization of a subset of that product, in such a way that it does not eliminate the need for the full product and in fact increases the utility of that product...then I'm not really sure we should bother discussing this.

Well, as has already been pointed out by others, the PHB is not needed to play the game, and not only for those that purchase the game, but for those that do not purchase the PHB the grimoire adds utility to the game, and reduces the need (significantly) to purchase the PHB.

It's simple, with a site that "just" reorganizes the spells (and includes all the copyrighted text as well) being acceptable, would not a site that "just" reorganizes all the races fall in the same category? And if that is ok, then why not classes?

Now you have all the spells, races and classes from not just the PHB, but from every product produced by WotC in another format for free. Given what WotC already provides for free, i.e. all the rules to play the game, the only thing you are arguing should not be distributed for free is the fluff.

Besides, there are already two legal products (DDB & FG) that provide the utility of the grimoire, though implemented differently, that someone can purchase if they want the type of functionality that the grimoire provides. So, now justifying use of the grimoire because an arguement of 'why should I pay for the content twice'? And not a 'well, I can't get this functionality legally'.

If that's not morally objectionable, then just what is morally wrong theft to you?

Guest 6801328 · Nov 13, 2018

LordEntrails said:
It's simple, with a site that "just" reorganizes the spells (and includes all the copyrighted text as well) being acceptable, would not a site that "just" reorganizes all the races fall in the same category? And if that is ok, then why not classes?

Now you have all the spells, races and classes from not just the PHB, but from every product produced by WotC in another format for free. Given what WotC already provides for free, i.e. all the rules to play the game, the only thing you are arguing should not be distributed for free is the fluff.

Ah, the Parade of Horribles argument. I'm betting that when certain politicians use that rhetorical device you facepalm and wonder how their supporters can fall for that.

Question: do you ever drive even slightly over the speed limit, and tell yourself it's ok because it's "just a mile or two". Well, by applying your argument a mile or two might be 3 miles, which might be 4 miles, etc. And because ample research shows that speeding costs lives, aren't you implicitly approving of homicide by speeding even a little?

No, of course not. So let's can the silly arguments.

Furthermore, the distinction between the spell list and the other information you mention is that only the spell lists benefit significantly from being organized electronically, in a way that's impossible on print paper. Sure, being able to look on your computer rather than lug around a book is also utility, but I will happily agree with you that this is insufficient utility to justify breaking copyright law.

The fact that some people post that information anyway is not sufficient reason (for me) to say that the spell lists therefore shouldn't exist, because the two activities are not connected.

Besides, there are already two legal products (DDB & FG) that provide the utility of the grimoire, though implemented differently, that someone can purchase if they want the type of functionality that the grimoire provides. So, now justifying use of the grimoire because an arguement of 'why should I pay for the content twice'? And not a 'well, I can't get this functionality legally'.

If that's not morally objectionable, then just what is morally wrong theft to you?

Wait...exactly why is it morally objectionable to say, "I already purchased this content; I just want to be able to sort it differently"? If anything, I think the morally objectionable part is for the publisher to try to tell us we must buy it again.

Extensive case law has established that if you purchase content (or "purchase a license to content", as the lawyers have now arranged things) you are allowed to reconfigure it for your own use. The content companies try to get around that by making us violate the DMCA in order to reconfigure it, but Fair Use remains. The grimoire may be violating copyright law by providing that content online, but the service it provides is a great example of Fair Use for the end user (assuming they bought it in the first place, which I am assuming and you're not.)

Anyway, regarding "theft": you have yet to demonstrate that any theft has happened. And, sorry, copyright infringement itself is not "theft", whatever Disney would have us believe. And even if you could demonstrate a negative impact on sales (which you can't) that would just be "damages". It is only theft is the offender has what the victim has lost. So you'd have to prove that the grimoire (which is ad free) is somehow making money that belongs to WotC. You can't. Thus my massive /eyeroll every time you zealously use the word 'theft'.

You are reminding me of the attitude of the record companies in the early 2000's, which was "the laws...the laws that we paid good money for...are entirely on our side, so we have no reason to compromise even a little." They nearly destroyed themselves with that approach, and the only reason they are alive (and thriving) today is that they did, eventually, realize that they can't control their content 100%, and that if they try to the inconvenience just turns away customers.

EDIT: Ooh, I just realized there's another great (and illustrative) parallel between copyright infringement and speeding: sometime speed limits are set not because they are the optimal limit for that area, but so that municipalities can rake in fines from egregious speeder. In other words, the rules are written for the benefit of those who write the rules, not because they are morally right.

Azzy · Nov 13, 2018

Tormyr said:
No, I have a tab in my PHB at the start of the spell lists (and at all the other chapters) so reference is quick and easy.

I made a pdf of the spell lists that includes the spells from the PFH, SCAG, & XGtE and printed it out. It doesn't include the subclass spell lists, though.

LordEntrails · Nov 14, 2018

Elfcrusher said:
Ah, the Parade of Horribles argument. ...No, of course not. So let's can the silly arguments.

And I'll just ignore the insults, even though I disagree with your premise.

Furthermore, the distinction between the spell list and the other information you mention is that only the spell lists benefit significantly from being organized electronically, in a way that's impossible on print paper. Sure, being able to look on your computer rather than lug around a book is also utility, but I will happily agree with you that this is insufficient utility to justify breaking copyright law.

I would disagree that only the spell lists benefit significantly from being formatted in a way other than on paper (and I'm sure the users of HeroLabs and PC Gen would agree with me). But I am interested in your argument that justification for theft is dependent upon utility. I mean theft for survival is one thing, but for utility? Interesting.

The fact that some people post that information anyway is not sufficient reason (for me) to say that the spell lists therefore shouldn't exist, because the two activities are not connected.

Wait...exactly why is it morally objectionable to say, "I already purchased this content; I just want to be able to sort it differently"? If anything, I think the morally objectionable part is for the publisher to try to tell us we must buy it again.

Because you did not purchase the content. You purchased the content in a specific format. If you wanted that content in a different format then you should have purchased it in a different format. And just because the file type for the format that you want is not available is not, imo, sufficient to justify theft in that specific file type.

i.e. if you want digital, buy it in digital, but don't steal just because its not available in digital pdf format.

Extensive case law has established that if you purchase content (or "purchase a license to content", as the lawyers have now arranged things) you are allowed to reconfigure it for your own use. The content companies try to get around that by making us violate the DMCA in order to reconfigure it, but Fair Use remains. The grimoire may be violating copyright law by providing that content online, but the service it provides is a great example of Fair Use for the end user (assuming they bought it in the first place, which I am assuming and you're not.)

Yes, case law says you can convert for your own use. So if you want a pdf, buy the content and convert to pdf yourself.

I don't see how the grimoire provides any type of legal service under fair use. It makes no attempt to control the distribution of its illegal content to only those who has legal fair use of such content. It doesn't even go through the comical steps of having a user claim they have the products.

Anyway, regarding "theft": you have yet to demonstrate that any theft has happened. And, sorry, copyright infringement itself is not "theft", whatever Disney would have us believe. And even if you could demonstrate a negative impact on sales (which you can't) that would just be "damages". It is only theft is the offender has what the victim has lost. So you'd have to prove that the grimoire (which is ad free) is somehow making money that belongs to WotC. You can't. Thus my massive /eyeroll every time you zealously use the word 'theft'.

All right, so you are taking the word theft and giving it a specific legal definition, which may or may not be legally accurate. I'm not arguing legal definitions, never have. You have. A common definition of theft is; "theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent."

Taking someone written words, duplicating it, and distributing it without the author's/creator's permission is theft. Legally or not, morally it is theft/plagiarism/wrong. Put forth another word if you wish, one with accurate common understanding and connotations and I will use it.

So, are they illegal immigrants or undocumented workers?

You are reminding me of the attitude ...

EDIT: Ooh, I just realized there's another great (and illustrative) ...

And who now is on the Parade of Horrible Arguments? At least what I was discussing was applying directly to the situation at hand, illegal distribution of D&D 5E content from copyrighted products.

guachi · Nov 14, 2018

Azzy said:
I made a pdf of the spell lists that includes the spells from the PFH, SCAG, & XGtE and printed it out. It doesn't include the subclass spell lists, though.

I made a Word doc of all the classes and subclasses from the available books (PHB, SCAG, Xanathar's) plus content I liked from UA in a format as close to the 5e format as possible (minus pictures) and then printed that out.

It's exceptionally useful, especially with each class given its own section and comb bound.

Guest 6801328 · Nov 14, 2018

LordEntrails said:
And I'll just ignore the insults, even though I disagree with your premise.

Note that I am not insulting you personally; just the nature of one of the arguments you are using.

I would disagree that only the spell lists benefit significantly from being formatted in a way other than on paper (and I'm sure the users of HeroLabs and PC Gen would agree with me).

That's a fair point: character generators do provide significant utility beyond just easy reference. I also think that character generators cross the line of providing too much of the content: a (complete) character generator does make it less likely that somebody would buy the book. Likewise if WotC published a book of just spells, and nothing but spells, I would begin to have serious reservations about the grimoire.

But I am interested in your argument that justification for theft is dependent upon utility. I mean theft for survival is one thing, but for utility? Interesting.

Remember that you are the one calling unlicensed viewing of information "theft", not me. And, yes, I think copyright infringement for utility can be justified, as long as it doesn't negatively impact revenues for the copyright holder.

Because you did not purchase the content. You purchased the content in a specific format. If you wanted that content in a different format then you should have purchased it in a different format. And just because the file type for the format that you want is not available is not, imo, sufficient to justify theft in that specific file type.

i.e. if you want digital, buy it in digital, but don't steal just because its not available in digital pdf format.

These claims contradict Fair Use.

Yes, case law says you can convert for your own use. So if you want a pdf, buy the content and convert to pdf yourself.

I don't see how the grimoire provides any type of legal service under fair use. It makes no attempt to control the distribution of its illegal content to only those who has legal fair use of such content. It doesn't even go through the comical steps of having a user claim they have the products.

As I said, the grimoire itself is not within Fair Use because it is being redistributed, but for end-users it is a Fair Use use-case. I was only presenting that argument to say that use of the website is not unethical (especially since doing so does not provide any financial support for the ad-free website).

All right, so you are taking the word theft and giving it a specific legal definition, which may or may not be legally accurate. I'm not arguing legal definitions, never have. You have. A common definition of theft is; "theft is the taking of another person's property or services without that person's permission or consent."

No, my definition is not the legal one, it is the common sense one. You're making up (or parroting Disney) with your thing about "services" and "consent". Theft is when you take something from someone, and they don't have it anymore. Anything beyond that is the result of lobbying and other shenanigans by wealthy media companies.

Taking someone written words, duplicating it, and distributing it without the author's/creator's permission is theft. Legally or not, morally it is theft/plagiarism/wrong. Put forth another word if you wish, one with accurate common understanding and connotations and I will use it.

"Copyright Infringement" is precise, accurate, and perfectly fine.

It's just not as good at eliciting public sympathy as "theft".

So, are they illegal immigrants or undocumented workers?

Although it infuriates my friends with whom I otherwise agree politically on the issue, I still use the word "illegal" in this case because it is true and accurate, and I think it's important to resist Orwellian distortions of language. (They think that swaying opinions is more important.)