Suggestion for compromise on Wizard's PDFs

[Nifft]

Hm. No. The law is the law.

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

 

[Treebore]

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.

 

[Obryn]

You know, if I had listened to so called "experts" my life would be very different right now, and much worse off.

Yeah, like that guy who told you it was okay to pirate books someone's not selling. I mean, that guy had to be on something!

-O

 

[pawsplay]

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

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.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

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.

 

[yogipsu]

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.

 

[rogueattorney]

U.S. Copyright Act section 501(a):

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:

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.

The vast majority of D&D .pdf copyright issues will fall under the purview of these two laws. Read up and draw your own conclusion. For the rest of the Act, see here: U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright Law of the United States

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.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

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.

 

[Treebore]

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.

 

[yogipsu]

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.