Anyone else find this really irritating?

guachi said:

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I've done something similar but for each of the classes I've played (I'll get around to all of them eventually). It is quite handy.

Elfcrusher said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

Click to expand...

So as long as you don't do the stealing/infringement, you are ok with the use of it? So why don't you (or do you?) download all your RPG content from various websites? They are all available and since you wouldn't be doing anything wrong (only the person hosting the infringing content is) you would be morally justified.

It sounds to me though like you do purchase at least some of what you use. So, why purchase any if you believe you can download PDF copies of it all morally anyway...

These claims contradict Fair Use.

Click to expand...

Maybe, I'm not a lawyer. But I didn't mean to disagree that someone can't convert to any format for themselves (thought I agreed one could). I said getting those files from someone else was illegal. Again, is it legal to use stolen goods if you didn't do the stealing? I was raised to believe not only was it morally wrong, but illegally too.

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.

Click to expand...

No, I'm not making up that definition. It's the one from Wikipedia and very similar to ones I found from other reputable resources.

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

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

Click to expand...

I feel the same way with the word 'theft'.

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.)

Click to expand...

So do you dislike the word 'theft' because it implies that activities you engage in are morally wrong? And that by insisting the word theft not be used you are lessening the harm of your actions?

I think its very interesting you don't like the word and insist on using another phrase that has connotations that lessen the morally questionable behavior. But I guess if you feel that using illegally distributed content is morally acceptable, you would object to a word that has strong connotations that such behavior is morally objectionable. I feel that using illegally distributed content is morally objectionable, so 'theft' works fine for me.

LordEntrails said:

So as long as you don't do the stealing/infringement, you are ok with the use of it? So why don't you (or do you?) download all your RPG content from various websites? They are all available and since you wouldn't be doing anything wrong (only the person hosting the infringing content is) you would be morally justified.

Click to expand...

Interesting. You are being a bit sanctimonious about morality/ethics, and yet you seem skeptical that some of us may choose to act ethically even when nobody's watching and there's no impact on anybody's sales.

It sounds to me though like you do purchase at least some of what you use. So, why purchase any if you believe you can download PDF copies of it all morally anyway...

Click to expand...

I actually use lots of those other resources (subclasses, monsters, etc.) AND I purchase the books. I also download PDFs of other games, in order to see what they are like (sort of like flipping through a book in a bookstore.) If I like them (whether or not I will get around to playing them) I buy them. If I really like them I'll buy the book, not just the PDF, to support the authors.

I would never buy most of these without a chance to peruse first.

So do you dislike the word 'theft' because it implies that activities you engage in are morally wrong? And that by insisting the word theft not be used you are lessening the harm of your actions?

Click to expand...

Excuse me for a moment while I try to excavate the words that have been put into my mouth.

I dislike the word theft because nothing has been stolen. You cannot point to a single thing that the "owner" (of a right to distribute, not even to a physical object) has lost. You suspect revenues are lost, but my hypothesis about why revenues are gained is equally valid.

So, yeah, it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.

I think its very interesting you don't like the word and insist on using another phrase that has connotations that lessen the morally questionable behavior. But I guess if you feel that using illegally distributed content is morally acceptable, you would object to a word that has strong connotations that such behavior is morally objectionable. I feel that using illegally distributed content is morally objectionable, so 'theft' works fine for me.

Click to expand...

Are you actually reading what I take the time to write? I feel that using illegally distributed content can be morally acceptable. It depends on the circumstances, as I've tried very hard to convey. I refuse to accept that any violation of a law is automatically morally objectionable when the law in question is written for the exclusive benefit of, and is the result of heavy lobbying by, large corporations. (And that's coming from an enthusiastic free market capitalist.)

(P.S. I'm not going to report this post, but you're getting very close to attacking me personally with snarky conclusions about my morality.)

S'mon said:

It's mildly annoying.

Click to expand...

Not even close to that PHB's d*** effin' index!

So the who-can-cast-this-spell-problem is easily solved by a paper bookmark in a paper book.

Elfcrusher said:

So, yeah, it's not theft. It's copyright infringement.

Click to expand...

Well, seems we have different definitions of 'theft' and neither is going to be convinced by the other. So no point in continuing that discussion.

Are you actually reading what I take the time to write?

Click to expand...

Yes, and more than I feel that you are reading and comprehending what I am writing. But no point in discussing that either.

I feel that using illegally distributed content can be morally acceptable. It depends on the circumstances, as I've tried very hard to convey.

Click to expand...

So you believe in situational ethics. So do I, just not nearly as much as you do.

I refuse to accept that any violation of a law is automatically morally objectionable ...

Click to expand...

Agreed. But I thought we had moved onto ethics.

...when the law in question is written for the exclusive benefit of, and is the result of heavy lobbying by, large corporations. (And that's coming from an enthusiastic free market capitalist.)

Click to expand...

I disagree. You think the laws were written only for the benefit of Disney et al. I agree they certainly lobby and benefit from the current laws, but I also see the current laws of benefit to the independent creator as well. I know many artists, authors, and creators that depend upon copyright and intellectual property laws as the primary means to protect their works. Though they all recognize that since enforcement is so difficult, expensive, and ineffective, that the existence of the laws only serve to protect them from those who act ethically according to the laws. If those laws were changed, it is likely that they would lose that protection (even as limited as it is).

But, I'm not sure I'm interesting in discussing this either. Though maybe you have some interesting insights on the subject?

(P.S. I'm not going to report this post, but you're getting very close to attacking me personally with snarky conclusions about my morality.)

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was trying to get you to look at what I see as a disconnect in your logic and ethical views, not insult you. But, obviously that didn't work, so not sure any follow up on that would be constructive.

LordEntrails said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ah, but here's the question: when one buys, say, a book is one purchasing the content or the format?

Given various rulings over the years allowing personal-use format conversion of content one already owns (starting with making it legal to make a personal-use cassette tape of a legally-owned record album so you could play it in your car, and going on from there), it seems it's in fact the content that one is purchasing.

And if that's the case, and one already legally owns the content in one format, how is it 'stealing' to convert it for your own use to another format which may sometimes be more useful?

For example, I own just about all the 1e material that's out there; multiple copies, in some cases. I've taken all the 1e spells - content I already own, note - and put them online myself, editing and tweaking as I went as well as adding in some others we'd invented ourselves, so they'd work for my game and to make future editing much easier. If by your definition that's theft then you're about 40 years behind the times...if not 50.

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.

Click to expand...

In effect that's what he's doing, only he's getting someone else to do the actual conversion for him.

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, this is more of an issue. It's providing a legal service - format conversion - for those who own the content but has no method in place to check for that ownership before doing so.

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.

Click to expand...

Except that simple format conversion has been defined as not-theft provided you already own the product.

Not that everyone seems to believe this. I'm in an amateur band, we write and record loads of original music but we have to do any copying of said music via analog hookup, as the equipment we have in our studio won't allow digital transfer - the manufacturer's assumption being that any copying violates copyright even when we own the flippin' copyright! (what the manufacturer really wants is for people like us to buy the "studio use" version of the hardware for six times the price; it's basically the same hardware with the copy-protection stripped out - bugger that.)

Lanefan said:

(what the manufacturer really wants is for people like us to buy the "studio use" version of the hardware for six times the price; it's basically the same hardware with the copy-protection stripped out - bugger that.)

Click to expand...

No, no, no, you've got it ALL WRONG! Those safeguards are there to PROTECT YOU, the little guy! It's not about money, it's about what's right.

Sheesh.

Bootlebat said:

Anyone else hate how in the spell descriptions it lists the level but doesn't say WHAT classes can use it, forcing you to go back to the beginning of the chapter to check?

Click to expand...

It has annoyed me as a DM more than as a player.

Lanefan said:

...
And if that's the case, and one already legally owns the content in one format, how is it 'stealing' to convert it for your own use to another format which may sometimes be more useful?...

Click to expand...

You and Elf keep harping on this. I have repeatedly said that converting something you own the rights for to another format for your own use is not illegal or immoral. What I have always been talking about is the illegal distribution of copyright protection. Continuing down this line is ignoring the issue and throwing FUD into the discussion.

In effect that's what he's doing, only he's getting someone else to do the actual conversion for him.

Yes, this is more of an issue. It's providing a legal service - format conversion - for those who own the content but has no method in place to check for that ownership before doing so.

Click to expand...

One could argue that IF the website it was intended to be used by those that legally own all of the stolen content. But it makes no such claim.

Except that simple format conversion has been defined as not-theft provided you already own the product.

Click to expand...

But making those products in whole or part available to those who do not legally own the content is illegal.

That is the issue I have been opposed to and which you and Elf continue to defend trying to muddy the discussion by implying that only legal owners of the content are the intended recipients of the content.

The only other issue related to this that I find of interest is that posting links to such information on this forum is against the rules, yet the moderators do not enforce that rule even when they are aware of the issue.

LordEntrails said:

You and Elf keep harping on this. I have repeatedly said that converting something you own the rights for to another format for your own use is not illegal or immoral. What I have always been talking about is the illegal distribution of copyright protection. Continuing down this line is ignoring the issue and throwing FUD into the discussion.



One could argue that IF the website it was intended to be used by those that legally own all of the stolen content. But it makes no such claim.


But making those products in whole or part available to those who do not legally own the content is illegal.

That is the issue I have been opposed to and which you and Elf continue to defend trying to muddy the discussion by implying that only legal owners of the content are the intended recipients of the content.

The only other issue related to this that I find of interest is that posting links to such information on this forum is against the rules, yet the moderators do not enforce that rule even when they are aware of the issue.

Click to expand...

The question Lanefan and I are asking is: "Does this particular website cause harm to the copyright holder?" We don't think it does. Yes, technically they are violating copyright (which you keep referring to as "theft" or "stealing"). But we don't think a technical violation itself makes it wrong. (@Lanefan: please correct me if I've mischaracterized your position.)

And unless I'm getting your position wrong, you (Lord Entrails) seem to be saying that a technical violation is also an ethical transgression, and is "theft", regardless of whether or not any harm is done, because A might lead to B which might lead to C, etc.

If I've got that right then I think maybe we're done, because I don't think either of us is going to budge from our mutually exclusive positions.