Pathfinder 1E Paizo Copyright Issues at Obsidian Portal?

[billd91]

I'm not interested in either WoTC or Paizo's offerings at this point (being a convert to the glories of Warhammer FRP 3e), but I thought I'd play devil's
advocate.

Whenever WoTC issues a cease and desist there is widespread outrage.

Now that Paizo has issued a C&D they are just "protecting their intellectual property"?

Is this not blatant hypocrisy?

Perhaps it's a case of confirmation bias. Should investigate all alternatives.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Unlikely. Jail time for copyright infringement is usually limited to the commercial infringers, not random people. You can find complete, uncompressed, playthroughs of many games on Youtube and the Internet Archive, so it's obviously not the biggest concern of software companies. I'm not even sure that a 600:1 compression of a playthrough (which doesn't take of the key part of the game) wouldn't be fair use. And the instant you make it appear that it's about the negative review instead of the copying, you'll have journalists and free speech activists up in arms.

First, it's not about the negative review at all, it's about how much of the IP is used/revealed.

Second, that there has been no prosecution yet for full walkthroughs does not mean there could not be (see the RIAA piracy cases for examples: they DID go after some pretty small fry). If the IP holders don't press charges, it's highly unlikely- despite the video activist's claims- that the authorities will be looking for you.

 

[Bagpuss]

Ah, but distributing pictures of their artwork and such IS detrimental to their company. People just don't understand how it is, can be, etc....

Particularly if the image is just from their item card or npc card sets which all they sell on is the image.

If it's an image from the book, it isn't really likely to damage the sale of the book, more likely publicise it. As a book isn't selling on just one image, but the rest of the content of that book.

But their GameMastery image cards, are only a collection of images. They sell on the fact that you have to have the cards to get access to the images. If someone is putting those images up online for anyone to access for free, then clearly it devalues the product virtually completely.

There are loads of people using Pazio images on their campaign websites and Pazio haven't gone after them in the past, but then they haven't been using images from products the sell entirely on the image content.

 

[Maggan]

Using the googl

Some of them were mighty small.

I have a hard time seeing how posting pictures that small could be detrimental to Paizo's IP.

That said, it is their IP and what they do to protect it is up to them. As it is for WotC, or Games Workshop (which is the company I need to toe around running my fan site for WFRP).

I don't think I would make a stink if I recieved a C&D from GW. Remove the offending material, and that'd be it. And if that weren't enough, take down the site and put up another one for another game. Or something like that.

/M

 

[wingsandsword]

Second, that there has been no prosecution yet for full walkthroughs does not mean there could not be (see the RIAA piracy cases for examples: they DID go after some pretty small fry).

The RIAA going after the "small fry" alleged downloaders who downloaded only a few songs was more of a campaign to strike fear than anything else. They wanted everyone on the internet to fear litigation from the RIAA if they ever downloaded as much as a single song illegally.

So, they filed cases against little old ladies who barely knew what the internet was and only ever e-mailed with it (and probably had somebody leeching off a wi-fi signal, or their grandkids did it one time while visiting), or so many other spurious suits.

The RIAA's situation was far more of one where a cartel that had ruled an industry for most of a century was unwilling to accept that their business model was on the verge of obsolescence from new distribution technology. They were not particularly friendly about licensing music for legal downloads, and were far more interested in using legal means to crush new technology than embrace the changing economy.

In RPG's, physical books still offer ease of use at a level that no tablet or laptop can reach, and so many other RPG products (cards, miniatures, scenery) cannot really be replicated or used meaningfully in digital format.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The RIAA going after the "small fry" alleged downloaders who downloaded only a few songs was more of a campaign to strike fear than anything else. They wanted everyone on the internet to fear litigation from the RIAA if they ever downloaded as much as a single song illegally.

Yes, I know, which is why I brought them up. Even though there may be as-yet unsued uploaders of complete walkthroughs out there, they are still capable of being sued if an IP holder wishes to make a similar point.

The RIAA's situation was far more of one where a cartel that had ruled an industry for most of a century was unwilling to accept that their business model was on the verge of obsolescence from new distribution technology.

Not really.

Look at the membership list of the RIAA- they actually post it online- and you will find it is primarily made up of small recording labels, many owned by a single or small group of artists (and the artists themselves). These are the labels that are letting artists get a bigger percentage of the royalties; the ones that are trying to break new artists that are not cookie-cutter copies of established acts. Many of these artists and labels have no problem with electronic distribution per se, but who were on board with the prosecutions because they recently have seen their incomes drop due to illegal downloading...so they were on board with the RIAA's lawsuits.

 

[AeroDm]

I stand by my statement. This type of thing starts off in the safe harbor of Fair Use, bit the more that is posted, the greater the chance the courts will find infringement.

But, assuming you mean something else, please enlighten me with a definition, not a link to some 100 (or even 11) page thread I have zero interest in slogging through to divine your critique.

The problem, though, is that it is damn hard for a normal person to defend themselves. The safe harbor is an affirmative defense, which means you have to understand and argue it--that costs money. With Bill S978, the penalties go beyond cash and become felonies. Felonies. All the copyright owner (or, with S978, the government) has to do is tell a minion lawyer to file a complaint and the alleged infringer is now tied up for months defending themselves. Who is going to ever take on that risk to review a product?

 

[fuzzlewump]

I stand by my statement. This type of thing starts off in the safe harbor of Fair Use, bit the more that is posted, the greater the chance the courts will find infringement.

But, assuming you mean something else, please enlighten me with a definition, not a link to some 100 (or even 11) page thread I have zero interest in slogging through to divine your critique.

Let's Plays are videos of full playthroughs of a game from beginning to end. It's generally not truncated and shows the entire game completely.

I didn't read the law or anything, and I have no expertise in that area, but that's what a Let's Play is to be sure everyone's on the same page.

 

[Ry]

Physical books still offer ease of use at a level that no tablet or laptop can reach

Give it a minute

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Whenever WoTC issues a cease and desist there is widespread outrage.

Now that Paizo has issued a C&D they are just "protecting their intellectual property"?

Is this not blatant hypocrisy?

Like I said, just raising a point, I don't really have a horse in the race anymore.

You know I read the news and said "Great 200 page threads about how evil protecting your IP is" then got here and found almost no one saying 'burn the evil corp"

Now I am just pissed at the hypocrisy... and as much as I like the people at piazo, and dislike there game... I will say this is a BIG thing that pisses me off about piazo fans...