Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fanboy2000" data-source="post: 6339278" data-attributes="member: 19998">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. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification