D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[mamba]

Not capable of copying a car.

Precisely. Does that mean you do not own it?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Copies for personal use have always been a bit morally gray, but generally accepted as long as you aren't disturbing it in a way that harms the copyright holder. Examples could include showing a Disney movie for a bunch of Kindergartners or making a burned CD of an album you item for your car (back when CDs were the primary method of listening to music). Neither is robbing the owner of potential revenue. But selling tickets to a Disney movie or giving away burned copies of an album on the street does.

It seems reasonable to me that, unless you're asking for money (which you shouldn't do), what you do with your own property, do long as it's not causing direct harm to anyone, should be ok.

I know that isn't exactly how it works, but I don't think the blanket illegality is fair and wish the law had more nuance.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Precisely. Does that mean you do not own it?

I'm not following. My literal ability to make a copy is quite different from my legal ability to do so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Copies for personal use have always been a bit morally gray, but generally accepted as long as you aren't disturbing it in a way that harms the copyright holder. Examples could include showing a Disney movie for a bunch of Kindergartners or making a burned CD of an album you item for your car (back when CDs were the primary method of listening to music). Neither is robbing the owner of potential revenue. But selling tickets to a Disney movie or giving away burned copies of an album on the street does.

Legally gray, sure. Morally gray? To make a copy for yourself?

 

[AlViking]

Just to clarify, what happened was that WotC sent out preview copies to channels with some loose restrictions, pretty standard permissive stuff.

Channels made their videos and posted them, then a day or so later WotC changed the rules to be much more restrictive and sent out copyright strikes. A few days later they retracted strikes, but the damage is done. Creators spend a long time making those videos according to the original guidelines, then have to blur 90% of the video if they don't want their channel struck as per the new guidelines.

I appreciate the explanation. Sounds like someone in legal or marketing simply screwed up I guess I would call that a mistake not something worthy of ongoing condemnation.

 

[Remathilis]

ever tried to apply that to your car?

As they used to say

 

[Remathilis]

Legally gray, sure. Morally gray? To make a copy for yourself?

Yeah, misspeak. I meant legally.

 

[mamba]

I'm not following. My literal ability to make a copy is quite different from my legal ability to do so.

you were talking about ownership, not a legal ability ('How can you own something if you're not allowed to copy it?')

 

[Micah Sweet]

you were talking about ownership, not a legal ability

You were taking my statement much more literally than intended. If I own something, I shouldn't be legally prevented from making a copy of it under all circumstances.

 

[mamba]

I appreciate the explanation. Sounds like someone in legal or marketing simply screwed up I guess I would call that a mistake not something worthy of ongoing condemnation.

I doubt there is ongoing condemnation, certainly have not heard any, but the claim was that there is nothing at all to object to

it’s been a couple of years now since they did anything even slightly objectionable