D&D 5E Basic rules paperback tweeted by Morrus

[fanboy2000]

Sure. China doesn't give a crap. A future Mars colony might not. In the US and Western Europe, the point stands. If you really want to argue that there are places on the planet where the point doesn't stand, then sure. Yawn, but sure. It doesn't make for good legal advice.

You're wrong. It is. "Probably" or not (and "probably" has no place here). However, it is overlooked. You can't distribute copyrighted work. The exception is items marked for reproduction for personal use, which the Basic Rules PDF is not.

You were replying to my post, not his.

Sorry. I misspelled TrippyHippy's username. Wow, that was really dumb of me.

How about this: what do you think about a book publisher who reproduces a concert poster without the copyright owners permission? The publisher is publishing a book detailing the history of a rock band and goes to the owner of the copyright on the poster to get a license. License negotiations break down and the publisher goes ahead an reproduces the poster in their book without a license. Do you think that's legal?

For the answer, see Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F. 3d 605 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2006

The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569 for their analysis. The factors come from 17 USC §107.

Sometimes you can copy things without permission. Sometimes permission is implied. These are legal facts. Usually, you need permission and that permission needs to be explicit. But there are exceptions.

 

[Morrus]

How about this: what do you think about a book publisher who reproduces a concert poster without the copyright owners permission? The publisher is publishing a book detailing the history of a rock band and goes to the owner of the copyright on the poster to get a license. License negotiations break down and the publisher goes ahead an reproduces the poster in their book without a license. Do you think that's legal?

For the answer, see Bill Graham Archives v. Dorling Kindersley Ltd. 448 F. 3d 605 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit, 2006

The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 US 569 for their analysis. The factors come from 17 USC §107.

Sometimes you can copy things without permission. Sometimes permission is implied. These are legal facts. Usually, you need permission and that permission needs to be explicit. But there are exceptions.

What do you mean, "what do I think about..."? Who cares what I think about it? The courts certainly don't.

Dude, if you're determined to publicly distribute WotC's books, then it's not me you need to convince. Do what you like. The consequences - if any - will be between you and WotC and a court, not me. If you honestly think you can distribute WotC's books, then go right ahead. I've expended as much energy as I'm willing to suggesting otherwise. I feel like I'm now in a Monty Python sketch. Sure, go ahead. Distribute what you like. It doesn't affect me in any way.

Honestly, I'm not the person to convince. Good luck, and everything, and I've offered what advice I can, but you do what you gotta do. As a personal favour, if you do decide to go ahead, would you be so kind as to keep me apprised? It'll make great news for the news page!

 

[fanboy2000]

What do you mean, "what do I think about..."? Who cares what I think about it? The courts certainly don't.

Dude, if you're determined to publicly distribute WotC's books, then it's not me you need to convince. Do what you like. The consequences - if any - will be between you and WotC and a court, not me. If you honestly think you can distribute WotC's books, then go right ahead. I've expended as much energy as I'm willing to suggesting otherwise.

Honestly, I'm not the person to convince. Good luck, and everything, and I've offered what advice I can, but you do what you gotta do. As a personal favour, if you do decide to go ahead, would you be so kind as to keep me apprised? It'll make great news for the news page!

I certainly don't plan on putting the Basic PDF up on a POD site! As I said before, that's probably illegal.

 

[Morrus]

I certainly don't plan on putting the Basic PDF up on a POD site! As I said before, that's probably illegal.

I really am in a Monty Python sketch.

[video=youtube;kQFKtI6gn9Y]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y[/video]

 

[Mouseferatu]

THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

Also, we don't carry cheddar. Not much call for it.

 

[Talath]

What did I just read?

 

[mechascorpio]

I can't help but think that incidents such as this are not a great way for us to get the kind of GSL (or SRD or OGL) that we would like to see for fifth edition. There will always be people who will want to push the boundaries beyond what was permitted or intended.

 

[Uder]

While I think it's perfectly OK to get PODs with or without publisher permission (and good luck with your rep if you try to stop it!), how are people thinking this had zero profit? The person who uploaded it saw zero return, sure, but Lulu's not a charity.

 

[Mistwell]

Under U.S. law implied consent is a real thing.

It's a cornerstone of fair use, which was originally a court created equitable doctrine under U.S. law prior to be codified in 1976 act in §107. Fair use, as codified by Congress, was always meant to be a flexible standard. And, indeed, it's been used for a wide variety of things.

Fanboy2000, it's a defense, not itself a good justification. It's something you argue once you're being sued - not something you argue to justify it in the first place to avoid a lawsuit. I think you're wrong in this case also - I don't know that you'd have a good defense on this one using implied consent. I don't see WOTC's actions in this case implying the kind of consent that is implied if, say, they fail to include a noindex tag on their web page to avoid Google indexing a page. I think you're stretching things on this one, and I would advise my clients to not do it.

 

[Mistwell]

I certainly don't plan on putting the Basic PDF up on a POD site! As I said before, that's probably illegal.

You appear to be arguing with yourself. You definitely appeared to be saying it was legal before, and I can make no sense of any of your prior posts if that was not your point, given the context. Which is why you just got the snarky Monty Python reply from Morrus.