D&D 5E Basic rules paperback tweeted by Morrus

[Warunsun]

TrippyHippy you are allowed to print the Basic rules for yourself and members of your game group that play with you at your table. I would definitely put a nice cover on it.

 

[Morrus]

I’m just asking questions. On the download site:

“We want to put D&D in as many hands as possible, and a free, digital file is the best way to do that”

…along with a printer friendly version, provided.

It’s not an issue of whether it’s my ‘job’ or not to decide what they want, it’s a question of understanding what permission are they actually granting?

If you haven't clearly and obviously been granted permission to do something, them you haven't. If you have to guess, or try to understand if you have permission, then you haven't. The things WotC have given you permission to do will be clearly outlined.

Personally, I just want to print out my own copy - with a cover, incidentally - so I have a ‘complete’ game with the Starter set. But say I was to distribute other copies to my players so they can prep, would this be illegal then?

Technically, yes. But you'll get away with it, and they really should explicitly give permission for that. But it's illegal, yes. Can they not download it themselves?

 

[TrippyHippy]

If you haven't clearly and obviously been granted permission to do something, them you haven't. If you have to guess, or try to understand if you have permission, then you haven't. The things WotC have given you permission to do will be clearly outlined.



Technically, yes. But you'll get away with it, and they really should explicitly give permission for that. But it's illegal, yes. Can they not download it themselves?

At the moment it’s conjecture anyway - but I don’t assume to know what access they have to computers and printing facilities.

 

[Morrus]

At the moment it’s conjecture anyway - but I don’t assume to know what access they have to computers and printing facilities.

It's not conjecture. If you don't know if they've given you permission to do something, they haven't. It's really easy.

You'll know when they give you permission to print and sell their property.

No conjecture. No guessing.

 

[fanboy2000]

It's not conjecture. If you don't know if they've given you permission to do something, they haven't. It's really easy.

You'll know when they give you permission to print and sell their property.

No conjecture. No guessing.

Under U.S. law, that's not true at all. Consent can be implied and it often is. True, companies are known for spelling out what permissions they grant with exacting detail, but that doesn't mean there isn't also implied consent.

Consider a six person D&D group, five players and one DM. Each has access to the Basic Rules PDF via WotC's website, which has a copy labeled "printer friendly version." Here, consent to print out your own copy is implied. They are explicitly providing the file in a format that is printer friendly.

So, clearly each person could print out their own copy at home. Permission isn't explicit, but it's implied because the file is labeled 'printer friendly'.

But one if one of they players doesn't have a printer (or, maybe no ink) do they have permission to go to another player's house and print out the rules there? Again, it's not explicit, but if you can print the file at your home, I don't see why you can't print it at someone else's. Assuming you have your friend's permission to use up their paper and ink.

At that point, it makes sense that, if one person simply has more resources to print out six copies, one for themselves and one for each other person. After all, individually they each have permission to use their home equipment to print it out. No one's obtaining a copy that don't already have permission to possess in a format they already have permission to have it in.

But why go through all of that when we have the first sale doctrine?

the owner of a particular copy...lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy...

This is why used bookstores are legal.

I wouldn't rely on this though. For one thing, the reproduction right is implicated in our scenario. That said, I would consider it strange if it was illegal to make copies for people who have permission to make the copies themselves. Especially when you have the right to make the same copies.

 

[Morrus]

Under U.S. law, that's not true at all. Consent can be implied and it often is. True, companies are known for spelling out what permissions they grant with exacting detail, but that doesn't mean there isn't also implied consent.

Consider a six person D&D group, five players and one DM. Each has access to the Basic Rules PDF via WotC's website, which has a copy labeled "printer friendly version." Here, consent to print out your own copy is implied. They are explicitly providing the file in a format that is printer friendly.

So, clearly each person could print out their own copy at home. Permission isn't explicit, but it's implied because the file is labeled 'printer friendly'.

But one if one of they players doesn't have a printer (or, maybe no ink) do they have permission to go to another player's house and print out the rules there? Again, it's not explicit, but if you can print the file at your home, I don't see why you can't print it at someone else's. Assuming you have your friend's permission to use up their paper and ink.

At that point, it makes sense that, if one person simply has more resources to print out six copies, one for themselves and one for each other person. After all, individually they each have permission to use their home equipment to print it out. No one's obtaining a copy that don't already have permission to possess in a format they already have permission to have it in.

But why go through all of that when we have the first sale doctrine?

This is why used bookstores are legal.

I wouldn't rely on this though. For one thing, the reproduction right is implicated in our scenario. That said, I would consider it strange if it was illegal to make copies for people who have permission to make the copies themselves. Especially when you have the right to make the same copies.

This is not correct.

 

[fanboy2000]

This is not correct.

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.

The EU, FWIW, doesn't have fair use. All the exceptions that fair use covers in the U.S. are spelled out.

 

[Morrus]

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.

The EU, FWIW, doesn't have fair use. All the exceptions that fair use covers in the U.S. are spelled out.

I am familiar with US copyright law. Your interpretation as applied to this scenario is not correct. You cannot sell the basic rules (even at zero profit) no matter what jurisdiction you choose to use. Any implication to the contrary is not just wrong, it puts people at risk, and is thoroughly unethical.

Folks, you cannot do this. Please don't listen to anybody telling you you can. You'll only make things difficult for yourself (though, to be fair, it will manifest at worst as a takedown notice unless you're making money from it).

 

[fanboy2000]

I am familiar with US copyright law. Your interpretation as applied to this scenario is not correct. You cannot sell the basic rules (even at zero profit) no matter what jurisdiction you choose to use. Any implication to the contrary is not just wrong, it puts people at risk, and is thoroughly unethical.

Folks, you cannot do this. Please don't listen to anybody telling you you can. You'll only make things difficult for yourself (though, to be fair, it will manifest at worst as a takedown notice unless you're making money from it).

First, Jurisdiction totally matters, some countries don't recognize copyright protection in foreign works.

Second, you said that a DM making copies for their players was technically illegal. It probably isn't.

Third, putting the file up for other pay for POD probably is. If you read my first post again, you see that I was talking about a scenario more like TriggerHappy's.

 

[Morrus]

First, Jurisdiction totally matters, some countries don't recognize copyright protection in foreign works.

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.

Second, you said that a DM making copies for their players was technically illegal. It probably isn't.

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

If you read my first post again, you see that I was talking about a scenario more like TriggerHappy's.

You were replying to my post, not his. I don't know who TriggerHappy is. I'm only having this conversation.