Monte Cook's BoEM2 Sorcerer Variant

[Wolf72]

ooh I like this better than the MonteCook.Ranger ... (I kinda like the ranger as is, make the virtual feats customizable is about all)

 

[Mistwell]

<quote>
But of course, I agree that the ripping off somebodys livelyhood is a bad thing.
</quote>

Agreed, and this is the salient point.

Here's a thought for you Mistwell:
If there's _any_ chance that someone will use the material you post, instead of paying Monte $5, then you should refrain from posting it. The OGL-snips that were also posted were clever, and a more reasonable compromise, since anyone that was tempted by it would need to buy the PDF to get full use of the material.

From now on, instead of getting ruffled over issues of legality, ask yourself this: if I was a writer, trying to make money by selling my work, would it be fair for someone to post my writing without my permission? If there was a chance it would impede my livelihood?

You may be legally justified in competely posting everything Monte has ever written, but that's not the issue, is it?

Funny.
1) If there is "any" chance? As in a .0001% chance? No. If there is a reasonable chance it would harm Monte Cooks pocket book in a material way, then you have a point. But any chance? No. The odds are, by seeing part of the work Monte did, someone will want to buy the rest of it from Monte. But there will always be "some" chance they won't, and would instead skip buying the book.
2) I am a writer trying to make money selling my work, and it would be fair to post SOME of my writing, for non-commercial discussion purposes. When Dreamer Design's books are ready for publication, I expect that will happen (because they will be good, and worthy of discussion, I hope).
3) The "more reasonable compromise" you mention was exactly the content I had linked to (you just didn't bother to look at it). I never said the link contained the entire book! It was just a small part of the book, the same small part posted.
4) As far as being "legally justified" not being the issue, I never made it the issue. Other people here deleted it NOT because it was morally wrong, but because they felt it violated US Copyright laws. So yes, it was the precise issue, which the moderator focused on.

 

[Shaele]

--Mistwell--
The "more reasonable compromise" you mention was exactly the content I had linked to (you just didn't bother to look at it). I never said the link contained the entire book!
----
The link was removed by the admins before I saw this post, so I had no way of reading it. I did jump to the conclusion - based on other comments and that you were asked to remove it - that it was the "complete sorcerer".

If all you did is post the OGL portions, as someone else did, then I apologize (although I do have to wonder why your link was banned and his post stayed?)

--Mistwell--
I am a writer trying to make money selling my work, and it would be fair to post SOME of my writing, for non-commercial discussion purposes.
----
I agree with this in principle, and I also think it might help sales. However I don't think that you should presume to post Monte's work on his behalf. If Monte agrees with your assessment, maybe _he_ will choose to post his work. I know that if I was trying to make a living from my writing, I would be pretty annoyed to find people scanning it and reposting it on the web without asking first.

--Mistwell--
Other people here deleted it NOT because it was morally wrong, but because they felt it violated US Copyright laws.
----
Fair enough... then let me clearly state that I find it morally objectionable for anyone to post someone else's work without gaining permission. Bringing up copyright law is a great vehicle for removing the link, but I think at least part of the issue is ethical.

 

[WSmith]

Well, Storm Raven IS a lawyer and Mistwell, IIRC is a law student, so this could be the best match up since Gandolf vs. Saruman on the roof of Orthanc!



JK

 

[AGGEMAM]

It is highly likely that the laws are very similar in all three countries, since the US, UK and Denmark

When it comes to written material I agree, however in Denmark we have very different copyright laws than most other parts of the world when it comes to electronic material.

Basically the law in Denmark says:

1) It is legal to copy any electronic material for personal use if it is copied from an original, how this original was optained does not matter. It could be a bored CD, or a DVD lend at BlockBuster.

2) It is illegal to copyprotect electronic material, if doing so is only implemented on the danish market.

3) It is legal to remove copyprotections.

4) It is illegal to use this material for anything other than personal use.

 

[N Hammer]

I got the BoEM 1 and 2 for free.....Isn't the internet great ...

I very much liked both books and recommend anyone thinking of getting them, to spend the money...it's worth it...

 

[Michael Tree]

I got the BoEM 1 and 2 for free.....Isn't the internet great ...

I very much liked both books and recommend anyone thinking of getting them, to spend the money...it's worth it...

If it's worth it, then go to montecook.com and pay for the books that you stole.

 

[N Hammer]

I never said I stole them..... .....They were given to me...

 

[Mistwell]

Well, Storm Raven IS a lawyer and Mistwell, IIRC is a law student, so this could be the best match up since Gandolf vs. Saruman on the roof of Orthanc!



JK

Actually I'm an attorney, and have been for over 7 years. In fact, much of what I do involves copyright law But I don't want a battle over the issue. Sure, it would be fun to discuss Fair Use, but I don't think that was really the issue I was getting at anyway. I just don't like people throwing around the law. If you think something is ethically wrong, or if you just want to say "That's the rules of my web page, like it or leave it", that's fine. I don't like it when non-lawyers say things like "I'm removing this because it is illegal", or "what you did was illegal". Those are big, important ideas to be throwing around, and more care should be taken when people use the law that way.

 

[WSmith]

Dang, I had you confussed with another EN Worlder. Oh well, seven years makes it even a better match!

But to say it would be FUN to debate fair use... well all I will say is fun in that context is a very subjective word.

Anyway back to the Sorcerer. I have read and really like this variant. I need to figure a way to change the "uses XP for costly spells" cause I have been moving toward a more abstract XP system, like Geoffrey posted in the "Who still plays Basic D&D?" thread.