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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hatmatter" data-source="post: 9425708" data-attributes="member: 75077">Perhaps I am one of only a few who find it odd that anyone would think that being delivered an early version of a book for promotional purposes would entitle that person to systematically reveal many pages of the book in video or photographic format?I recall Wizards of the Coast making the barebones of fifth edition D&D rules available for free online back in 2014, which seemed extraordinary to me. I also recall that same company making whole cloth adventures available for free in 2020 as gift to the community when many people were shut in. These are extraordinary efforts of community engagement. Perhaps they have set up the community here to be unreasonably expectant of free deliveries and gifts?Could someone point me to a different publisher who would not respond with a request that copyright material be removed from an Internet platform? I agree that an initial direct communication with the Youtube video creator would be preferential, but we do not know who or how many people are responsible for protecting the copyrighted material and asking for someone else to do that might be easy for us to do, but it could be a tremendously heavy workload to impose on someone else when they have a host of other duties and responsibilites.It strikes me as common sense that a publisher would not want the contents of its book revealed online. There is a reason the "sneak peaks" of books on Amazon and other retail sites are always quite limited.Some have argued that it would be so laborous to bootleg a version of the Player's Handbook from jpegs of screenshots or what have you. Perhaps, but all piracy requires work and the labor of the bootlegger does not mean that people do not have the right to protect their creations. Why would such a line of reasoning deter Wizards of the Coast...or any other company or, in fact, any solitary author/publisher from wanting to keep copyrighted material off the Internet. I am sure that the Youtubers involved would not want their videos copied and distributed through other channels where they no longer have a means of monetizing them.At what point does this "cut off one's nose to spite one's face" argument become not a logical argument, but the vagitus of a community that has been entitled for so long that it has lost sight of how intellectual property -- and in fact respect for the creation of others -- works?</blockquote>

Verification