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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Andy_Collins" data-source="post: 1494716" data-attributes="member: 1982">Although it appears that this thread has devolved into something akin to namecalling, I'll try to clarify some of my earlier thoughts on the matter just in case anyone's still paying attention. Note that these opinions (like any that I share here or elsewhere) are MINE, not those of my employer.1) I'm the reason that UA is open content. I was the lead designer/developer on the book, and it was my crazy idea way back at the start of the process to make the book open. (Obviously, a lot of other people had to agree--I don't actually have the power to make something that significant happen.) 2) I think the d20 system license and the OGL are great for the industry. Obviously, publishers have to be careful about why, how, and when they use these tools, but I think overall, it's been beneficial both to consumers and to publishers.3) I'm fiercely protective of copyright, regardless of who owns it. I believe that it's no more "OK" to illegally distribute a book that's sold 100 million copies for a multibillion dollar transnational megacorporation than to rip off a guy trying to make rent money by self-publishing his fiction. I recognize that not everyone shares this opinion--I've had to come down hard on a player *in my own campaign* who illegally obtained electronic files of books written by people I sit next to.4) Even after more than 3 years, I'm still trying to wrap my head around how #1, #2, and #3 all work together. Obviously, by making material Open, a publisher is allowing for its redistribution by other parties--that's the whole point, after all. On the other hand, does that mean it's morally OK for me to scan & post on my site the open content of every d20 product that hits the market? There's a slippery slope there, and I think it's fair to say that different people are comfortable standing on different parts of the slope. Personally, I feel most comfortable toward the least-slippery part of the slope; I wouldn't feel good about widely redistributing significant portions of Open Content except as part of a new product designed to add additional value to the entire system (or for my own personal use, but even then I'd only do so from a product I already legally owned). To do otherwise, I believe, is a disservice to those who've put hard work into the creation of that content, and ultimately serves to dissuade companies from continuing the practice.5) I also recognize that in the end, people are going to do what they want to do. Those who want to download illegal copies of a sourcebook--whether its from Wizards, Malhavoc, Game Mechanics, or anyone else--will find a way to do it. That doesn't make the practice any less abhorrent to me, and I don't think it justifies the stance of "I might as well post it, since they'll get it somewhere else anyway." Just as "I won't get caught" doesn't make stealing OK, neither does "someone else would do it anyway."I realize that in today's get-everything-for-free-on-the-Internet culture, these opinions probably mark me as the equivalent of a crotchety old geezer. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> I guess I'll just have to live with that.Anyway, I hope that clarifies things a little bit, and that at least one person finds it vaguely informative. If anyone feels like discussing this with me further, I'd encourage you to come over to my boards at <a href="http://www.andycollins.net" target="_blank">www.andycollins.net</a>, where I'm a much more frequent visitor and am thus more likely to see your post.</blockquote>

Verification