Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1559964" data-attributes="member: 2013"><p>Let me re-quote, with emphasis... the two paragraphs in question were referring to different sets of works; the first to foreign-published works, the second to domestic works...</p><p></p><p><em>Beware! <strong>Many foreign works that were previously in the public domain ... were restored to copyright in 1996</strong>.</em></p><p></p><p>The claim was that nothing can ever be restored to copyright once it hits the public domain. I was refuting that point with a counterexample. It is a point of fact that some foreign works were at one time in the public domain in the United States and were later restored to copyright status. Thus the claim, "nothing in the public domain can ever go back to copyrighted" is necessarily false by counterexample. </p><p></p><p>Regardless of the justification used in restoring something's "copyrighted status," (even if it is on technicalities), the point is, there IS precedent for returning public domain works to copyrighted status. That was all I was trying to point out. *shrugs*</p><p></p><p></p><p>I refer you to Eldred v. Ashcroft, only one of the most high-profile copyright cases of the last decade. The case was a challenge of the validity of the retroactive extension of copyright; i.e., it did not challenge that new works should receive the Sonny Bono Act copyright term of life+70 years, but challenged the validity of adding 20 years to the copyright term of existing works (prior to the Bono act, life+50 years); basically stating that extending copyright term on works already in existence was in effect "changing the rules of the game" ex post facto and specifically pointing out that a 20-year extension every 20 years was effectively the same as "in perpetuity." The Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny Bono act, extending copyright for existing works by an additional 20 years, WAS Constitutional.</p><p></p><p>Thus, that very point HAS been challenged in court... and the challenge was lost. The ruling means that copyright is for all intents and purposes perpetual, so long as perpetuity is only claimed one finite chunk at a time (say, a 20 year extension every 20 years). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>The media companies had everything to do with it, as it was the lobbying of Walt Disney Co. that has directly led to the past two copyright extensions. As for the claim that the media companies would like to amend the statement to "any use of material constitutes infringment," I suppose you are unfamiliar with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act... this statute states that it is illegal to break the encryption mechanism that protects a copyrighted work for ANY reason. Even though you may be attempting to use that 3-second cut of "Return of the King" for "Fair Use" purposes, the act of circumventing the encryption on the DVD to get your 3 seconds of footage is illegal. The law is designed and intended to lock out ANY use of material, infringing or not.</p><p></p><p>I'm not making these statements lightly, do some research on the law. Currently, a bill is in committee (introduced by Rep. Boucher of VA, if I recall correctly) to insert into the DMCA an exception for Fair Use; essentially, a clause that "circumventing encryption for non-infringing use shall not be illegal" (the wording is very close to that) and the media conglomerates are fighting this tooth and nail. That they don't want even NON-INFRINGING use to be allowed tells me that it's not about infringement, it's about complete lockdown of the material.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case. Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine? Did they use THAC0s? I don't know, so I can't address this one.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I fail to see how the parallel works to illustrate your point. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. are and were all "PC Compatible." It is also of note that IIRC, the "3rd-party platform makers" did not come into their own until Microsoft released MS-DOS and software and hardware were "decoupled." The 3rd-party platform makes did not come up with their own OS. </p><p></p><p>If anything, Dell, HP, Gateway etc. are the "3rd party" d20 publishers of today, eating share from WotC. In fact, widespread acceptance of PCs did not occur until IBM lost its dominance - when it did, and you got competition for equivalent machines, and thereby lower prices, THAT is when the PC boom hit (at least, if my remembrances are correct).</p><p></p><p>Maybe I'm interpreting your analogy the wrong way... would you please elaborate?</p><p></p><p></p><p>Is this a d20 failing? Traveller did not need to transform the game to d20. <strong>All they had to do was release the old "Traveller" system under the OGL... which they were unwilling to do</strong>. I would wager that had they done so, they would see 3rd party product supporting the "old Traveller System." It's pretty simple, actually... <strong>game systems that have a low barrier to entry in order to support them will by definition have more third-party support than those that don't</strong>. The barrier to entry to support the d20 System is OGL compliance, and that's it. Right now, I couldn't support the old Traveller System if I wanted to without contacting them, jumping through licensing hoops, and (probably) paying a hefty licensing fee! Given those two options - "follow these free instructions and use our stuff free" versus "contact, negotiate, pay" which will you choose? Most will choose "follow these instructions and use our stuff free." </p><p></p><p></p><p>*chuckles* You're preaching to the choir as to game systems. I cut my teeth on D&D, but GURPS holds a special place in my heart. Unfortunately, I can't publish products in support of GURPS. I like some aspects of the Palladium system... and I can't publish products in support of Palladium. That's not a failing of game designers' creativity so much as it is a concession to the current litigious IP atmosphere.</p><p></p><p>Note that I agree with you - homogenization is BAD. But I ask you - if you have to get an RPG product out the door, do you want to have to build up something from scratch, run it by a lawyer (and hire one) to make sure it doesn't infringe on any of a hundred systems out there, and that just to START your product line... or simply use the d20 system as is and make sure to update your Section 15, WHICH WILL YOU CHOOSE? It's the path of least risk and least resistance.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Of course it COULD have been, but you're changing the game here. I said, if you do it right the first time, it will be too late to have an impact. My example assumed the first instance for someone to copy something in a non-copyright world would be the day of publication. Of course it is possible to hack/game the system and get it early, but that falls under plaigarism ethics ("I published first, it's mine") IMO.</p><p> </p><p></p><p>I agree with you there... but I have to assume that part of "getting it right the first time" is avoiding leaks. We're talking about a hypothetical non-copyright world anyway, give me a hypothetical "no-leaks" world. <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=";)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. (sarcasm) This is of course why the RIAA has lobbied in the person of Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to include a clause that "placing a file in a folder shared on a P2P network shall automatically be assumed to have shared over $10K worth of material and be subject to the maximum fine of $250,000 plus prison time per file" - the fact that the person never actually distributed the file being irrelevant to the fact that the law is now defining possibility instead of proven deed as criminal activity. Now the facts of intent and actual distribution don't have to enter into it anymore - just the potential to distribute (without actual proof of distribution) has to be there for them to sock it to you. Makes it much easier to punish criminals, after all. Similarly, we should fine libraries for copyright infringement because they provide copiers right next to copyrighted materials - clearly their intent is to allow you to infringe and we don't even need to check the counter on the copier to know they've allowed hundreds of millions of copies to be made.(/sarcasm) <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=";)" /></p><p></p><p>I have seen both sides of the issue. Heck, I'm ON both sides of the copyright issue (as both a producer of copyrighted material such as E-books and music CDs an as a consumer of copyrighted material). Learning about and reading up on copyright has convinced me that currently, copyright law is screwed up beyond belief in the U.S. because it violates some of the fundamental principles that I hold about rights, important freedoms, the nature of human beings, and the nature of ideas. But that's neither here nor there. I suggest you look at the areas above, where I have pointed out facts (as opposed to those where I have offered up opinions - which are just as bad or good as your own) such as the Eldred v. Ashcroft case or the ramifications of the DMCA (can you say, "DVDJon" or "Sklyarov") and form your own beliefs based on facts (some of which directly disprove some of your current beliefs).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Sigil, post: 1559964, member: 2013"] Let me re-quote, with emphasis... the two paragraphs in question were referring to different sets of works; the first to foreign-published works, the second to domestic works... [i]Beware! [b]Many foreign works that were previously in the public domain ... were restored to copyright in 1996[/b].[/i] The claim was that nothing can ever be restored to copyright once it hits the public domain. I was refuting that point with a counterexample. It is a point of fact that some foreign works were at one time in the public domain in the United States and were later restored to copyright status. Thus the claim, "nothing in the public domain can ever go back to copyrighted" is necessarily false by counterexample. Regardless of the justification used in restoring something's "copyrighted status," (even if it is on technicalities), the point is, there IS precedent for returning public domain works to copyrighted status. That was all I was trying to point out. *shrugs* I refer you to Eldred v. Ashcroft, only one of the most high-profile copyright cases of the last decade. The case was a challenge of the validity of the retroactive extension of copyright; i.e., it did not challenge that new works should receive the Sonny Bono Act copyright term of life+70 years, but challenged the validity of adding 20 years to the copyright term of existing works (prior to the Bono act, life+50 years); basically stating that extending copyright term on works already in existence was in effect "changing the rules of the game" ex post facto and specifically pointing out that a 20-year extension every 20 years was effectively the same as "in perpetuity." The Supreme Court ruled that the Sonny Bono act, extending copyright for existing works by an additional 20 years, WAS Constitutional. Thus, that very point HAS been challenged in court... and the challenge was lost. The ruling means that copyright is for all intents and purposes perpetual, so long as perpetuity is only claimed one finite chunk at a time (say, a 20 year extension every 20 years). :( The media companies had everything to do with it, as it was the lobbying of Walt Disney Co. that has directly led to the past two copyright extensions. As for the claim that the media companies would like to amend the statement to "any use of material constitutes infringment," I suppose you are unfamiliar with the Digital Millenium Copyright Act... this statute states that it is illegal to break the encryption mechanism that protects a copyrighted work for ANY reason. Even though you may be attempting to use that 3-second cut of "Return of the King" for "Fair Use" purposes, the act of circumventing the encryption on the DVD to get your 3 seconds of footage is illegal. The law is designed and intended to lock out ANY use of material, infringing or not. I'm not making these statements lightly, do some research on the law. Currently, a bill is in committee (introduced by Rep. Boucher of VA, if I recall correctly) to insert into the DMCA an exception for Fair Use; essentially, a clause that "circumventing encryption for non-infringing use shall not be illegal" (the wording is very close to that) and the media conglomerates are fighting this tooth and nail. That they don't want even NON-INFRINGING use to be allowed tells me that it's not about infringement, it's about complete lockdown of the material. I can't speak to this one, not having all the facts on the case. Did Judge's Guild use the Str/Int/Wis/Dex/Con/Cha routine? Did they use THAC0s? I don't know, so I can't address this one. I fail to see how the parallel works to illustrate your point. Dell, HP, Gateway, etc. are and were all "PC Compatible." It is also of note that IIRC, the "3rd-party platform makers" did not come into their own until Microsoft released MS-DOS and software and hardware were "decoupled." The 3rd-party platform makes did not come up with their own OS. If anything, Dell, HP, Gateway etc. are the "3rd party" d20 publishers of today, eating share from WotC. In fact, widespread acceptance of PCs did not occur until IBM lost its dominance - when it did, and you got competition for equivalent machines, and thereby lower prices, THAT is when the PC boom hit (at least, if my remembrances are correct). Maybe I'm interpreting your analogy the wrong way... would you please elaborate? Is this a d20 failing? Traveller did not need to transform the game to d20. [b]All they had to do was release the old "Traveller" system under the OGL... which they were unwilling to do[/b]. I would wager that had they done so, they would see 3rd party product supporting the "old Traveller System." It's pretty simple, actually... [b]game systems that have a low barrier to entry in order to support them will by definition have more third-party support than those that don't[/b]. The barrier to entry to support the d20 System is OGL compliance, and that's it. Right now, I couldn't support the old Traveller System if I wanted to without contacting them, jumping through licensing hoops, and (probably) paying a hefty licensing fee! Given those two options - "follow these free instructions and use our stuff free" versus "contact, negotiate, pay" which will you choose? Most will choose "follow these instructions and use our stuff free." *chuckles* You're preaching to the choir as to game systems. I cut my teeth on D&D, but GURPS holds a special place in my heart. Unfortunately, I can't publish products in support of GURPS. I like some aspects of the Palladium system... and I can't publish products in support of Palladium. That's not a failing of game designers' creativity so much as it is a concession to the current litigious IP atmosphere. Note that I agree with you - homogenization is BAD. But I ask you - if you have to get an RPG product out the door, do you want to have to build up something from scratch, run it by a lawyer (and hire one) to make sure it doesn't infringe on any of a hundred systems out there, and that just to START your product line... or simply use the d20 system as is and make sure to update your Section 15, WHICH WILL YOU CHOOSE? It's the path of least risk and least resistance. Of course it COULD have been, but you're changing the game here. I said, if you do it right the first time, it will be too late to have an impact. My example assumed the first instance for someone to copy something in a non-copyright world would be the day of publication. Of course it is possible to hack/game the system and get it early, but that falls under plaigarism ethics ("I published first, it's mine") IMO. I agree with you there... but I have to assume that part of "getting it right the first time" is avoiding leaks. We're talking about a hypothetical non-copyright world anyway, give me a hypothetical "no-leaks" world. ;) Agreed. (sarcasm) This is of course why the RIAA has lobbied in the person of Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to include a clause that "placing a file in a folder shared on a P2P network shall automatically be assumed to have shared over $10K worth of material and be subject to the maximum fine of $250,000 plus prison time per file" - the fact that the person never actually distributed the file being irrelevant to the fact that the law is now defining possibility instead of proven deed as criminal activity. Now the facts of intent and actual distribution don't have to enter into it anymore - just the potential to distribute (without actual proof of distribution) has to be there for them to sock it to you. Makes it much easier to punish criminals, after all. Similarly, we should fine libraries for copyright infringement because they provide copiers right next to copyrighted materials - clearly their intent is to allow you to infringe and we don't even need to check the counter on the copier to know they've allowed hundreds of millions of copies to be made.(/sarcasm) ;) I have seen both sides of the issue. Heck, I'm ON both sides of the copyright issue (as both a producer of copyrighted material such as E-books and music CDs an as a consumer of copyrighted material). Learning about and reading up on copyright has convinced me that currently, copyright law is screwed up beyond belief in the U.S. because it violates some of the fundamental principles that I hold about rights, important freedoms, the nature of human beings, and the nature of ideas. But that's neither here nor there. I suggest you look at the areas above, where I have pointed out facts (as opposed to those where I have offered up opinions - which are just as bad or good as your own) such as the Eldred v. Ashcroft case or the ramifications of the DMCA (can you say, "DVDJon" or "Sklyarov") and form your own beliefs based on facts (some of which directly disprove some of your current beliefs). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
File-Sharing: Has it affected the RPG industry?
Top