Eclipse Phase: Sexy

[I'm A Banana]

So what I'm getting from this is that, if indeed this is a creative commons work (and I haven't got the book to verify that), that someone can scan it in and post a link here for everyone to download.

That's almost accurate.

The details are right there on EP site.

Specifically:

What this means is that you are free to copy, share, and remix the text and artwork within these books and PDFs (with the exceptions noted below) under the following conditions:
1) You do so only for noncommercial purposes;
2) You attribute Posthuman Studios (see below);
3) You license any derivatives under the same license.

Exceptions
The following items are not covered under the Creative Commons license:
The Circle-A anarchist logo on p. 77 of the EP core rulebook is public domain and usable by anyone for any purpose.
All artwork by Sean McMurchy (pp. 243, 314, 319, 363, and 377 of the EP core rulebook) is copyright© 2009 Posthuman Studios, LLC, and may not be reused without permission.

So someone COULD take the text of the book, stick it in a Word File, convert to PDF, and post that here. They'd have to use the same CC license, and they couldn't sell it. They'd have to attribute it as the EP website says to Posthuman Stuidos.

Someone could also just block out the Sean McMurchy artwork and post the PDF here. Likewise, they'd have to attribute it and use the same CC license, and they couldn't sell it.

You could also build a bridge out of her.

Game rules are pretty much non-copyright-able (e.g.: I can take 4e, change the IP names, and release it as "KM's Awesomesauce Game 2010" and no one can stop me. I could do the same thing with EP); fiction and art and trade dress and logos and exact wording are, so the CC license helps free those up.

Mostly, it's good for fansites, fan-publishers, etc. Note that it's noncommercial, so unlike, say, the OGL, I can't take EP, modify it for my home game, and then sell the PDF, though I could post the PDF to my website for free download.

Bonus Points: They've got a response to the Religion Stuff up on their site, which gives a lot of insight into why they made those choices.

 

[Cadfan]

That's almost accurate.

The details are right there on EP site.

So someone COULD take the text of the book, stick it in a Word File, convert to PDF, and post that here. They'd have to use the same CC license, and they couldn't sell it. They'd have to attribute it as the EP website says to Posthuman Stuidos.

Someone could also just block out the Sean McMurchy artwork and post the PDF here. Likewise, they'd have to attribute it and use the same CC license, and they couldn't sell it.

Thanks for the answer. I didn't see that section.

It is somewhat annoying that the book's contents are almost all creative commons, but that the art randomly isn't. But I assume that they're not really hoping that people will create digital copies to trade rather than purchase the rules, and they're under no obligation to make that easier just because they've made it legal.

Hopefully someone with a copy of the book will scan a pdf that blocks those pieces of art. More likely, they'll just scan the whole book to save time, but I'd rather have a fully legal, free copy.

 

[JohnRTroy]

It is somewhat annoying that the book's contents are almost all creative commons, but that the art randomly isn't. But I assume that they're not really hoping that people will create digital copies to trade rather than purchase the rules, and they're under no obligation to make that easier just because they've made it legal.

The more people do that the less likely people will end up releasing a CC or "open" license.

This is most likely not so much the company's desire, but the artists. Most savy artists nowadays will never give up copyright of their art, because it is valuable and can be reused for other works--they also want to keep the rights to sell their own compliations, or originals. And most art can be recycled. Just because Elmore drew a dragon and some adventures doesn't mean the artwork is exclusive to D&D. It would be very rare for a publisher to buy everything outright.

I doubt any professional artists would ever release CC stuff.

 

[Cadfan]

The more people do that the less likely people will end up releasing a CC or "open" license.

Well, that or they'll use a more restrictive license next time. I don't intend to feel any guilt. I'm sure that they were smart enough to understand the incredibly obvious implications of the Creative Commons license they selected. I stand firmly in the "take advantage of the licenses we're given to the fullest" camp. I didn't purchase the 3e SRD materials, because they were free online. I don't purchase 4e books that are in the Compendium. And I'm not going to purchase Eclipse Phase because its free as soon as someone cleanses it of the non CC artwork. I'm sure someone will.

I don't believe in economics by guilt. I'm not going to pay money for something explicitly and intentionally made available to me for free. If that's misusing the license, then I've been subjected to some seriously mixed signals. I figure that if you're making your product available to me for free, you've figured out some other revenue source on which you're willing to rely, or you feel that the number of people who want a physical copy will outnumber those happy with an electronic one. And who knows? Maybe they've engineered the game such that a physical copy is necessary. I won't know until I've downloaded my free, legal, entirely authorized copy and checked it out.

This is most likely not so much the company's desire, but the artists. Most savy artists nowadays will never give up copyright of their art, because it is valuable and can be reused for other works--they also want to keep the rights to sell their own compliations, or originals. And most art can be recycled. Just because Elmore drew a dragon and some adventures doesn't mean the artwork is exclusive to D&D. It would be very rare for a publisher to buy everything outright.

But if you look at the license, it says that the copyright is retained by Posthuman Studios, LLC. That's the publisher. They had the option of releasing it, but chose not to. Which is fine, really. They didn't have the obligation to release anything under CC. It just means that someone will have to scrub the book a bit before a genuinely legal pdf can be uploaded.

 

[Shemeska]

Hopefully someone with a copy of the book will scan a pdf that blocks those pieces of art. More likely, they'll just scan the whole book to save time, but I'd rather have a fully legal, free copy.

It's an awesome book, so dude, be cool and buy a copy.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I doubt any professional artists would ever release CC stuff.

Nina Paley did. Admittedly, it was a film, and not RPG book art, but still, drawings are drawings.

I'm sure she's not the only one, either, though she is the only one I know off hand.

But you are right that some of the "re-usability" for artworks probably means that it's probably less likely than in many other media. Still, photographs have some of the same re-usability and Flickr is an awesome source of CC-licensed photos put up by lots of different people, some pro, some semi-pro, some just some dude.

I stand firmly in the "take advantage of the licenses we're given to the fullest" camp. I didn't purchase the 3e SRD materials, because they were free online. I don't purchase 4e books that are in the Compendium. And I'm not going to purchase Eclipse Phase because its free as soon as someone cleanses it of the non CC artwork. I'm sure someone will.

Fair enough. I stand firmly in the "give money to people who make awesome things in the hope that they will make more awesome things" camp, but I'm also a believer in Whuffie. $30 and maybe some derivative work in the setting can be my way of saying "This is good, do more of this," and giving them the resources to do it!

For devil's advocate, though, why pay for the 4e Compendium? Since game rules aren't protected, why not just wait for someone to copy-paste the text to a Word file and cleanse it of WotC IP? I suppose it's a bit less likely to happen, but certainly the public has a license to do that. Unless there's something inherently valuable about, I dunno, the word "Bael Turath" to you? The license the public has with any published game is to rip the rules out and do whatever the heck we want with them, and even publish our own versions and make phat lewt off of it. Your local "opoly" game uses the heck out of that capacity!

I'm not going to pay money for something explicitly and intentionally made available to me for free. If that's misusing the license, then I've been subjected to some seriously mixed signals.

No one's saying you have to pay money, and no one is saying you're misusing the license. Who are you talking to? That's part of what a CC license does. A lot of it works on the theory that a free product will hit the maximum possible reader base, which is useful for niche products (like EP) to hit as big market as they can. There's no risk in initial investment. Then, if you like it, you pay for the "real thing" (with artwork, in this case). If you're a fan of dark transhuman sci-fi role-playing, I'm not sure why you wouldn't want this lovely thing sitting on your shelf, but yeah, you can have it without that.

It's also entirely possible that Posthuman is, like a lot of small games publishers, not a lot more than four guys, some connections, some free time, and some software. Unlike a big fat public monstrosity, they can break even or make a small profit and be totally happy. If they get close to selling out their limited supply of books for a little niche RPG, I'm sure they'll be super-pumped, regardless of the amount of other people playing some de-nuded version for free.

Hey, if you start a game, you should post about it here, tell us what you're doing with the setting, maybe show us the player handouts or adventures you're making with the system, give us some real-world feedback on the game, and other such stuff. I'm sure the other players would be pumped to hear about it, and I bet the creators would be, too.

 

[Cadfan]

For devil's advocate, though, why pay for the 4e Compendium? Since game rules aren't protected, why not just wait for someone to copy-paste the text to a Word file and cleanse it of WotC IP? I suppose it's a bit less likely to happen, but certainly the public has a license to do that. Unless there's something inherently valuable about, I dunno, the word "Bael Turath" to you? The license the public has with any published game is to rip the rules out and do whatever the heck we want with them, and even publish our own versions and make phat lewt off of it. Your local "opoly" game uses the heck out of that capacity!

1. Scrubbing the 4e rules of protectable material is probably a lot harder than most people think. Remember, the part that can't be copyrighted is the process- not the aesthetic names and labels and flavor text that make that process translate into an RPG.

2. As a result, no one's bothered to do it. So even if I want, I don't have the option of downloading a purely procedural version of 4e. This point is a trump of all other points.

3. Even if someone did, the copyrightable, non procedural, non rules flavor text is not valueless to me. "Two Fanged Strike" is of more value to me than "Level 3 Attack Number 4." And while renaming would be possible, again we return to the fact that no one has done it- a complete trump of all other points.

4. I'm not convinced that the present uncopyrightability of game rules is legally stable. I acknowledge that it is present day precedent, but feel that it is in a degree of tension with other modern day precedents such as those which govern copyrightability of computer code, which, much like games, consist of purely procedural code designed that function as a medium for creative content. I do not expect the law to change as long as infringement is too minor for anyone to need to file large lawsuits on the issue, but I suspect that there is potential for a shift in this precedent over time.

5. If someone told me that they'd created a scrubbed copy of 4e, I'm not 100% sure I'd trust them to have done it right. The sorts of people likely to take up that cause tend to be the sorts of people likely to take the most file sharer friendly possible approach of all possible approaches when it comes to interpreting what is or is not copyrighted material.

No one's saying you have to pay money, and no one is saying you're misusing the license. Who are you talking to?

I'm not a fan of the idea that its not "cool" to obtain a free copy of a product that a company has explicitly, intentionally, and with forethought released for free. Or that I should worry that other companies, watching me freeload, will choose not to make freeloading available. It seems an odd sort of concern, that. If that were an issue for them, why did they offer me a free copy?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Scrubbing the 4e rules of protectable material is probably a lot harder than most people think. Remember, the part that can't be copyrighted is the process- not the aesthetic names and labels and flavor text that make that process translate into an RPG.

It would probably require some savvy knowledge and some time, but y'know, scan -> OCR -> copy-paste to word -> edit out IP = Free & Leagal copy of 4e rules.

I can get paying for the convenience of the DDI, though.

"Two Fanged Strike" is of more value to me than "Level 3 Attack Number 4."

Probably not the best example, since "Two Fanged Strike" is probably far too broad to be copyright-able, too. But I also get that WotC IP has value for you.

I'm not convinced that the present uncopyrightability of game rules is legally stable.

What might happen legally in the future probably shouldn't drastically impact your decisions of what you do today, right now. I'm worried thoughtcrime might be illegal in the year 2046 when nanoneurobots can analyze our desires to do illegal activities, but I'm not going to not think about punching that jerk at the bar in the face this weekend because of that.

The sorts of people likely to take up that cause tend to be the sorts of people likely to take the most file sharer friendly possible approach of all possible approaches when it comes to interpreting what is or is not copyrighted material.

Man, now you're just generalizing.

I'm not a fan of the idea that its not "cool" to obtain a free copy of a product that a company has explicitly, intentionally, and with forethought released for free. Or that I should worry that other companies, watching me freeload, will choose not to make freeloading available. It seems an odd sort of concern, that. If that were an issue for them, why did they offer me a free copy?

It's fine, but it's not contributing anything.

It's more of a conflict of ethos. It's similar to the old trick with the kids: put them in a room with a marhsmallow, and say they can eat the marshmallow now, or they can wait 10 minutes and eat 2. You are totally permitted, legally, and allowed, to eat that marshmallow RIGHT NOW, but it's going to be better for you if you wait.

Now replace "wait" with "pay for an actual book." And maybe with "make and publish fan stuff for the game."

Rather than just getting as much as I can (legally) for me, I prefer to take the things I am offered and build with them, construct a place where the things I like can be had by as many people who want them for as little effort and money as possible. A CC license like this lets me do that, and actually WANTS me to do that. To me, I gain more if I give out (namely, I gain more cool game stuff) than if I just take the content and run. If I like what this is, and I contribute to its future, I can have more of it, instead of just having one marshmallow right now. This is how I engage the community, how I make the experience for EVERYONE playing EP stronger.

I'm not sure I can fully understand or sympathize with a more mercenary/consumerist/corporatist mindset of individual gain. I get that it's out there, and even some of the reasons for people having that idea, but it's just not the smartest way to act, from my perspective. If you like what you get, you contribute to getting more of it. Enlightened self-interest. The old: if you want to get Christmas presents, you continue to give them to others. If you want your neighbors to help you move, you help them move. Even if they say they don't need it, or even if you say it's a pleasure just to help.

It's the gift, the potlatch, the community-building exercise, the "elderly care money." It's essentially the kind of world I want to live in!

Now, with EP specifically, I'm not so interested in a sci-fi RPG. I think it has some really cool ideas, and is working with some awesome things, but it's not for my bag o' tricks. I might love to play, but I'd never run it. If I play, I'd buy the book, and I'd probably make some CC derivative works (character fiction, for instance!). So you probably won't see that from me, given my generally non-gamer circles.

But if you're going to go through the effort of getting a free & legal copy of the game, you presumably want to play it, or run it (you know, use it), and when you do, why wouldn't you want Posthuman to keep making stuff like this? And if you want them to keep making stuff, probably the best way to do it is to give them money and to use their world in your own CC-published works. I mean, at least either/or!

No one is saying you have to, of course.

No one is telling you you can't have that marshmallow.

But there are marshmallows that you can't see, and there are great games in the minds of EP's folks that have yet to be published.

I guess this whole thing is a little philosophical, but I figure it's kind of apt in a thread about a sci-fi game in which we're all part of the same network.

 

[Cadfan]

Probably not the best example, since "Two Fanged Strike" is probably far too broad to be copyright-able, too. But I also get that WotC IP has value for you.

See, that's a great example of my 5th point then. You don't think its copyrightable, but I think that since copyright doesn't always function on single phrases taken in isolation, the collection of ranger power names, in context, might be. And that's leaving out the aesthetic choices inherent in describing something with a flavorful name and then realizing something that embodies that flavor mechanically.

It's more of a conflict of ethos. It's similar to the old trick with the kids: put them in a room with a marhsmallow, and say they can eat the marshmallow now, or they can wait 10 minutes and eat 2. You are totally permitted, legally, and allowed, to eat that marshmallow RIGHT NOW, but it's going to be better for you if you wait.

I think it might be more akin to being allowed to eat one marshmallow now, or being allowed to eat one marshmallow later, while being told that there's no real rule that says you have to wait if you don't want to, and you can go ahead and eat the marshmallow now or later as you see fit, but really your Mom is going to be very disappointed in you if you didn't figure out that secretly everyone wanted you to wait. I'm not a fan of bait and switch.

Rather than just getting as much as I can (legally) for me, I prefer to take the things I am offered and build with them, construct a place where the things I like can be had by as many people who want them for as little effort and money as possible. A CC license like this lets me do that, and actually WANTS me to do that. To me, I gain more if I give out (namely, I gain more cool game stuff) than if I just take the content and run. If I like what this is, and I contribute to its future, I can have more of it, instead of just having one marshmallow right now. This is how I engage the community, how I make the experience for EVERYONE playing EP stronger.

You can do those things with a free copy. And a simple fansite policy would have accomplished encouraging these things just as easily, without the obvious and rather large side effect of offering me a free copy of their book.

I'm not sure I can fully understand or sympathize with a more mercenary/consumerist/corporatist mindset of individual gain. I get that it's out there, and even some of the reasons for people having that idea, but it's just not the smartest way to act, from my perspective. If you like what you get, you contribute to getting more of it. Enlightened self-interest. The old: if you want to get Christmas presents, you continue to give them to others. If you want your neighbors to help you move, you help them move. Even if they say they don't need it, or even if you say it's a pleasure just to help.

Well, that's why I don't pirate. But when something is explicitly and intentionally made available to me for free, I don't have a problem taking it. I figure that whoever made that choice knew what they were doing.

It sounds like what you really want is a patronage system. If that's really what Posthuman wants, they should just post their entire ruleset online, sell hardcopies for those who want them, and put up a paypal donation box.

They haven't done that.

It's the gift, the potlatch, the community-building exercise, the "elderly care money." It's essentially the kind of world I want to live in!

Well, no. Its a business model designed to make you feel like you're in a community building exercise in order to get you to give them your money. Trust me, secretly, in back rooms, there are discussions going on about how to make money from Creative Commons licensed properties. People are floating ideas like how to make their game compatible with accessories that are more easily purchased than downloaded, how to make their game require physical copies of as many rules as possible at the game table, and probably a dozen other ways to make sure that offering a Creative Commons license functions as a faux signal of community membership while secretly functioning as a blind.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Well, that or they'll use a more restrictive license next time. I don't intend to feel any guilt.

...snip...

But if you look at the license, it says that the copyright is retained by Posthuman Studios, LLC. That's the publisher. They had the option of releasing it, but chose not to. Which is fine, really. They didn't have the obligation to release anything under CC. It just means that someone will have to scrub the book a bit before a genuinely legal pdf can be uploaded.

First of all, I'm not saying you need to feel guilty. I am just saying that the logical consequence of people not contributing/purchasing will end up leading to less of these products being supported.

Regarding the second paragraph, yes, it might be held by the studio but I bet there's some payment arrangement with that particular artist, etc. Artists are less likely to do a gratis thing--unlike writers (and heck, in the RPG world every DM thinks they are a professional writer), artists have a talent that is very hard to duplicate, so they are savvy enough not to. While it looks like most went along with it, I'm sure this guy was like "no way, buddy". ;-)

Well, no. Its a business model designed to make you feel like you're in a community building exercise in order to get you to give them your money. Trust me, secretly, in back rooms, there are discussions going on about how to make money from Creative Commons licensed properties. People are floating ideas like how to make their game compatible with accessories that are more easily purchased than downloaded, how to make their game require physical copies of as many rules as possible at the game table, and probably a dozen other ways to make sure that offering a Creative Commons license functions as a faux signal of community membership while secretly functioning as a blind.

So Cadfan, do you approve or disprove of CC stuff? It's hard to tell, you're giving mixed signals? Personally, I think all this open-source/CC stuff can only be supported in the long run by payment, otherwise a lot of this stuff will dry up. That's why I am critical of these movements in general since they ignore basic economic theory. That's why I think WoTC replaced the OGL with the GSL.

It sounds like KM is thinking of optimistically (CC is the future, commercial projects are "old hat"), while you have either the cynical view, or else are the type of audience that is the truer version (people want free stuff, and if you give your stuff away most people won't buy it at all and take full advantage of it). So what is your take of CC or other open releases. Are they a viable business model, or doomed to failure?



Finally, a subtle Irony.



Does anybody remember an outfit called the Null Foundation. It was being started by Mark Rein-Hagen and I remember a beta of the rules for a new SF game dealing with many of these concepts being release. They were trying to form a game company as a non-profit organization. It never got off the ground, from what I remember. What ended up happening with that. (This was in the days when "open source" was a hard-core geek thing and didn't have much publicity and we didn't have anythings like the OGL available, I think this was around 1996 or 1997.

ETA--Here's the remnants of that--it was for a game called Exile (not the current WW game).

http://whitewolf.wikia.com/wiki/Null-f.org/main.html