I partially agree with your assesment of our current copyright concept, and the bad signs on which way it is heading. But, it is what it is. Law or no law, pcgen is not making a statement of civil diobediance, they are using wotc IP to create value in their product.
Point taken there - it is apparent that PCGen is not making a statement of Civil Disobedience. One might argue that some of its users that post on this board are (for the record, I do not use PCGen).
Your cd analogy does not apply, for the same reason that I can't say "oh I don't have a cd burner so hence can't make a "backup" so can you send me the full cd in mp3 format, thx!" You can freely copy for your personal use because simply there is no enforceable way to prevent that, give away that which you cannot hold.
Ah, but with DMCA and its provision to allow "copy-protected" CDs, we're walking down the path to having an enforceable way to prevent that. It's not a case of "giving away that which you cannot hold" in my mind, it's a case of "he that buys the product has every right to do whatever he wishes with it so long as that use remains within his own personal realm (e.g., not photocopying and redistributing books, but photocopying a section so he himself can highlight it)."
Thats only if the other product is also OGC, which pcgen upto v3 was not (and are still repairing now). These are the same concepts used in GPL, if I make some GPL software you can use it and reuse it as long you also follow the GPL. If you are not GPL then you certainly cannot use other GPL. LGPL is a bit different.
I admit to having only a passing familiarity with the GPL, but by your use of the term it appears clear that you have only passing familiarity with the Open Game License (a product cannot be OGC, only material within a product can be OGC, for instance) but let's not split hairs on terminology here. And has been pointed out, it is possible to use anything - OGC or not -in an OGL publication without using the Open Game License itself. The rules that govern that are called "copyright law." ;-)
I take a harder line than that, the mere fact that they have violated it for 2 years should show that they aren't doing anything in good faith. They willfully used non-SRD, non-OGC for at least 2 years.
Using material in products such as Sword and Fist, et al is not legally defensible (agree with you there). I was of the understanding that they asked WotC, "what may we use and what may we not" and WotC never bothered to answer. Assuming they proceeded under the "game mechanics are not copyrightable" assumption, they should have asked WotC "is X a game mechanic." I won't comment further on this since I am uninformed of what discussions did and did not take place (I imagine you are too) and therefore my doing so is merely speculation and wholly unhelpful.
Thats pretty shaky logic. Silence means exactly that, nothing.
In legalese, there is the concept of a "contract of adhesion." This is a contract where one party draws up the contract and the other party may sign or refuse to sign, but may not negotiate the terms. The OGL is a contract of adhesion. If there is any lack of clarity in a contract of adhesion, the interpretation is ALWAYS construed against the person who drew up the contract. IOW, if something is unclear in the OGL, WotC automatically loses the fight as to "how should this be interpreted." I would suggest that publishers that release their material under the OGL and do not make it abundantly clear what is OGC stand to lose any battle over something that is ambiguous (i.e., is this OGC or not? if there is any question, the law automatically assumes it is).
Is the material OGC? If no, then you can't use it, simple. Just because you *want* to use it, doesn't make it a moral imperative for wotc to come forward and let you know wether you can or can't.
Your point that obviously nothing from WotC books is OGC is well-taken. Stuff from other publishers, where the question might be, "I'm not sure if this is OGC or not. Is it?" will be met with a legal interpretation of "yes it is" if the company remains silent (see above).
The one with the gold makes the rules. You complaining about that just sounds like whining. Its *their* ball, they *can* take it home with them.
And we all know how popular the kid who takes his ball and goes home every time he starts to lose because someone plays the game better than he does is. Is WotC within their rights? Yes. Should they have done something about this long ago? Yes. They should have had the PCGen folks develop E-Tools or something.
So there is no innovation in commercial software? But I agree pcgen has lots of innovation, I'm still astounded by the skill it took to get 5 different window edge effects on the same screen.
Looks like some of the PCGen people missed your compliment.
Yes and that is exactly why we have copyright, so that you can print your idea and we *all* can benefit. Its just that for the first gazillion years you have strict "copying rights".
Do not agree. The benefit to society comes when anyone can copy the idea freely (e.g., Handel's Messiah would not be nearly as useful to society if we had to kick royalties out every time we wanted to sing it). Not when they have to pay you to use it.
So I can't take your idea, add nothing to it, then reprint it and make money. Pcgen is doing exactly that.
Not only that, you can't take the idea, add a lot to it, and then reprint it and make money. PCGen, in my mind, has added functionality to the basic information. They HAVE added to it. Yet copyright law prohibits them from printing it even if (as they have said) they don't make money.
Is that a rephrashed version of, no true scotsman would argue for IP? I think so.
Perhaps it is. I don't mind strictly limited terms of copyright (e.g., 7 years). But by extending copyright terms to infinity we allow society's natural intellectual heritage - the public domain - to be pirated. It is only when copyright extends to infinity that an idea can be truly called Intellectual Property. If that means I am saying that no true scotsman would argue for IP (where IP is defined as stuff protected by infinitely long copyright), the answer is, "hell yes, no true scostman would argue for IP."
Oh my. Is that so? The simple fact that Napster existed to transfer IP should already prove that "it" (music in this case) very much is already property, maybe its your view of property that is outdated and at odds with society, property is not so much attached to real world mass than value.
You miss the point of Napster. I will not tell you that every Napster user had the mentality of "this is my civil disobedience to spite the exploitation of copyright laws by media giants." But obviously the prevailing sentiment among Napster users was, "this stuff SHOULD be shared - especially with me." Is that a direct ideological war? Absolutely - it is plain that the common user felt that stuff that was protected by copyright ought to be in the public domain.
You are approaching the Napster issue with the assumption that "Napster existed to transfer IP." Hidden in that assumption is "IP is property." Your conclusion is "IP is very much already property." This is a logical fallacy - you are concluding your assumption. I can't really speak to your argument because you have given me no logical basis for it. Your comment that "maybe its your view of property that is outdated and at odds with society, property is not so much attached to real world mass than value" is the only thing that gives me an insight into your views on property. To you, property is "that which has value." I ask you, "where does that value come from?" I argue that it is exclusivity of ownership that creates value. There are two ways of having exclusivity - natural exclusivity (tying it to physical mass, as you suggested) and exclusivity by fiat (i.e., a law is created to make something exclusive). My contention is that exclusivity by fiat is morally wrong, though practically desirable if done for a limited time in order to encourage creation of more "stuff" (for lack of a better term).
There is no struggle, there is no war. People have been voilating copyright and reselling copies since the birth of it all.
Perhaps it is because they see copyright as a fundamental infringement upon their natural right to life, liberty, and property? Perhaps I am outdated, but IMO it is not unethical to acquire more property provided that such acquisition does not relieve others of the use of their life, liberty, or property (note that I do not believe that "property" somehow includes the right to control how an idea is used or expressed). IOW, if I use your idea, it has no bearing on how you use it. (I know, I know, "I can't charge money for it if you're giving it away for free". Tough. You have no right to charge money for ideas IMO).
This means nothing about the validity of copyright, for the same reason that people still murdering doesn't mean that murder should be legal.
Murder impinges upon another's use of his own life, liberty, and or property.
What it really is, is power, and with that comes responsibility, most people cannot handle that level and will abuse it, by pirating or killing people.
Again, you are using the term "pirate" in the sense the media companies want you to. He who controls the definitions wins the game by default. Here are some definitions for you:
Pirate: One who takes that which belongs to private entities and/or the public at large with the express permission of, and in collusion with, a (corrupt) government. (This is the way 17th-century pirates worked. It also happens to be the way modern media companies work as they take that which ought naturally to be in the public domain).
Thief: One who takes that which belongs to private entities and/or the public at large without the permission of a government (corrupt or not). (This is the way so-called "software pirates" work today. It also happens to be the way Robin Hood worked. I will not say that "software pirates" are on the same moral ground as Robin Hood, but understand that the term thief does not always equal moral bankruptcy, just as the term "within the law" does not always equal moral perfection.)
Your choice of words immediately tells me that your worldview is biased and that you feel that the concept of IP is a desirable one. That is your right. But please do not dismiss me out of hand because I hold different biases. I have at least tried to honestly evaluate my biases and know what they are (and share them). That we come to different conclusions is inevitable. I respect your right to your biases and hope you at least see what mine are (even if you reject them as I have rejected some of yours). But don't claim that you're automatically right - claim that you're right "if you subscribe the the same assumptions and/or biases that I do." ;-)
If I have learned anything from D&D it is that there are 9 alignments. My morality is that of true neutral, we differ, so which one of us is right? (That last part you can't learn from D&D.)
Which of us is right? Neither. Both. That's the beauty of life.
Thanks for keeping it mostly civil too - although I suspect my tone may have been slightly less than civil at some points in this post. I appreciate the intelligent discussion instead of the flames, even if we don't agree.
--The Sigil
