PDFS--Of the WotC Court Case

[pedr]

I think it's been mentioned somewhere in these sprawling discussions, but Greg Stolze's approach is interesting: supplements for his RPG 'REIGN' are made available for free download from his website - once he's received $1,000 for them. So people who know that they want the material can choose to speed its release by paying, or can wait and get it for free. There is an incentive to pay: I think that if the 'ransom' isn't met within a certain timeframe the material isn't released (and the people who paid/pledged don't have to pay/get their money back). But once the ransom is met, the material is available for everyone who wants it.

He's also released a compilation book, so people who want hard-copies of material can buy that instead (or as well).

Now, I imagine that this system would be too limited to sustain a company the size of WotC, but it's certianly food for thought.

 

[malraux]

I am not worried about being hacked, as long as my anti hacking software works, I am more interested in the facilitation of proper "fair use" over the internet.

I think you misunderstand. It's not about someone hacking your machine to get at the data, its about how someone, on their own computer, will always be able to circumvent the fair use restrictions.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Would you feel a victim were someone to remove your name from a work you did for academia and replace it with their own? Do you have an expectation of proper accreditation of the source of one of your works? Why cannot one simply put one's name in the place of others' names?

Again, there is a difference between piracy and identity theft.

When someone pirates your goods, your name is still on them. They are still spreading your works. What you are suggesting is drastically different from that.

 

[Treebore]

I think you misunderstand. It's not about someone hacking your machine to get at the data, its about how someone, on their own computer, will always be able to circumvent the fair use restrictions.

Well as long as it proves I follow the "fair use" laws and protects me, I don't care what someone else does.

 

[jgbrowning]

Again, there is a difference between piracy and identity theft.

No, there's a difference between copyright infringement and identity theft.

What I described (someone placing their name on someone else's academic work and then distributing that work - even for free) isn't identity theft, it's plagiarism. They're not pretending to be someone else, they're claiming they have the right to repeat that text verbatim as if they were the copyright owner just like someone who put's up one of my products for distribution claims to have my copyright to distribute my products.

They're both copyright issues. One would have to rely upon copyright to prove that one was the actual creator of the work, just like I have to rely upon copyright to prove that I have the exclusive right of world-wide distribution.

The copyright laws protecting creators from plagiarism (having someone else claim your work as theirs) are the same laws that allow creators to determine the distribution of their works, not just the proper identification of the creator of the work.

In modern times, the only legal reason one can claim credit for an idea and prove ownership of an idea is copyright. Along with ownership and credit comes exclusive distribution.

joe b.

 

[Treebore]

No, there's a difference between copyright infringement and identity theft.

What I described (someone placing their name on someone else's academic work and then distributing that work - even for free) isn't identity theft, it's plagiarism. They're not pretending to be someone else, they're claiming they have the right to repeat that text verbatim as if they were the copyright owner just like someone who put's up one of my products for distribution claims to have my copyright to distribute my products.

They're both copyright issues. One would have to rely upon copyright to prove that one was the actual creator of the work, just like I have to rely upon copyright to prove that I have the exclusive right of world-wide distribution.

The copyright laws protecting creators from plagiarism (having someone else claim your work as theirs) are the same laws that allow creators to determine the distribution of their works, not just the proper identification of the creator of the work.

In modern times, the only legal reason one can claim credit for an idea and prove ownership of an idea is copyright. Along with ownership and credit comes exclusive distribution.

joe b.

Yep, and if you want to know even more than what Joe talks about read the laws for yourself:

U.S. Copyright Office

They even start making sense after about the 5th time reading them.

 

[jgbrowning]

Clearly, it is a counter-intuitive concept. And businesses are completely within their rights to pursue their business interests however they want and wherever they think they will lead. But as I'm a fan of RPGs and of RPG PDFs, I wish companies would wake up to the new reality.

The real reality is that you don't have the right to benefit me without my explicit permission. The issues is not one of benefit or harm, it is of rights and who makes the decisions concerning the use and distribution of a produced product.

For example, if you don't have the owners explicit permission, it is illegal for you to renovate someone's house even if what you think you are doing is improving the value of the house. You don't have that right. Only the owner of the house does.

What would I do, if I were in charge for a day? Make your own case study. I'd slap a big "promotional material" watermark on a bunch of PDFs and float them in the pirate channels. Provide an easy in-copy link where someone can either buy a reasonably priced, non-promotional-watermarked PDF or buy a print copy on your Web site. And then see what happens.

Of course, I work in the newspaper business. So what do I know?

I've been selling PDFs since 2003. I understand the benfit of the digital medium. I understand the potential benefits of copyright infringment to my business, but it is still illegal and

tremendously

disrespectful

because someone's telling me that they don't give a damn about my rights and that their desires about what they want to do are more important than my desires, as creator and copyright holder of the work.

Also, anyone claiming that one of my works is under creative commons license isn't "mislead" - they know what they're doing and choose to be as big a jerk as possible about it.

joe b.

 

[MadLordOfMilk]

From the documents it is clear that the main argument will point to the fact that the watermarks with their name on it were removed. It shows they were trying to hide their identity. Someone who stole it from them would have little reason to do that.

Well, actually, having a watermark with some arbitrary name and order # on a PDF you ripped off from someone would be kind of annoying... I could completely understand someone removing it if only for aesthetic reasons. Plus, in that position, I'd remove it just to try and keep the poor guy from getting nailed for it, but obviously not everyone would do that.

 

[darjr]

That is one sweet idea, and seems extremely doable.

Egads! No.

Imagine your government usurps the controls to what is acceptable. Or a megacorp decides that certain types of sharing, like reviews, are not acceptable.

This kind of control sounds like a very bad idea to me.

 

[Jraynack]

But at what point?

I understand that the last one IS file sharing, plain and simple, even if it was unintended file sharing at that degree. But what about all the others?

That is the reason why, I quoted you on the last point. Anytime you put something on the web, it has a potential to become file sharing.

For instance, I wanted some WotC .pdfs on my iPod Touch. I did not pay for the full version of an APP that allows me to do it by posting it to a private, protected server. I chose the free version to try it out. The free version uses a public server, therefore I DID NOT put those .pdfs on there because of the possibility of them being illegally downloaded. I did put things on it, however, that other companies were distributing for free.

Which, again, we put out free products and if they are free, I don't care how many times or where, or who downloads them.

I am sorry, but you must make a choice:

Either accept that sharing of digital files are one of the most inherently valuable aspects of the new technology, as well as the fact that the people you call "pirates" 1) haven't actually stolen anything and 2) most probably you have several friends and acquaintances which will face jail time or economic ruin if you get your wish.

No, I do not have to make a choice. 1) I know it comes with the territory, but it does not mean I have to like it. 2) I do have friends that pirate and I will not rat on them. Does it mean I like it or accept it? No, I take them, as a whole, rather than judge them by an incident (unless that incident defines them). But if they get caught and carted away to jail, that was their decision. I would be sorry for them, and support them when they get out, but it doesn't change the fact what they did was illegal.

Of course, there is a third option:

Say no to orwellian police states where nine year old kids are sued for millions for sharing their favorite books with others.

I keep on hearing police state and George Orwell. I would like to stop those people right now and tell them, "Take a break from the forum, actually read his books, fully digest them, and then come back for a real conversation."

Some people confuse file sharing with censorship or limiting personal liberty, and it is not. Believe it or not, I am an idealist (or else I wouldn't be a .pdf publisher).

Out of 1,300, how many didn't buy the product but would have if it wasn't illegally available for free?

Out of 1,300, how many bought the product but wouldn't have if it wasn't illegally available for free?

Without some credible information about this, I don't think it's possible to judge whether illegal file sharing earned you money or cost you money.

Has any serious research been done on this subject?

Serious research, no. It is not needed cause I have the answer, and it took me a second to collect the data. The majority of our sales for that particular product took place in the first four to five weeks - around 240. According to the date it was made available on the file share until today, we sold around 30 more.

To be clear, I never said it cost us money - if you read my post, I said potential money. There is a difference. But, it was one of our best sellers out of the gate, enough so, it did get recognition to be put up into a file share along with several WoTC books.

I did joke with my friends, "That is how I know I hit the big time, my product was file shared!"

I recognize that the person who did it was probably a fan, but if he knew how hard I worked on that project for the little money I got in return, I am sure he wouldn't have done it. And it wasn't like I was charging an arm and a leg ($3.95), but I might consider raising my prices on future products to offset what I might potentially loose to file sharing.

Now, if our Feudal Lords setting takes off when it is released due to the file sharing of that small product, than I will stand corrected and might change the way I do business. But, as I am an idealist, I am also a realist. There are a lot more people who will download something for free than people who will download it and then say, "Hey, I like this - I think I will buy it eventhough I have a free, illegally downloaded copy."

Look, I am not a hard a**. If you bought the Player's Handbook and wanted a .pdf copy and you downloaded a from a file share, that is one thing. But, downloading it for free with no intention to buy a copy or putting it up so others (and I mean more than just your friends; because thinking that only your friends will download it is simply naive) might download it without buying it is wrong.

And yes, I know what I just said is a little hippocritical and causes a bit of a conundrum ("How can you download it if the guy you say was wrong put it up in the first place, blah, blah, blah), but we are all human and that is exactly what humans are.

Oh, one last thing about the academia bit, because I worked a little in that field. Besides being the nature of the field, it is true that your work is distributed freely, but you were paid by the institution while writing the paper or performing experiments. And, most often, you (and I mean you in general) get pressure from the higher ups to consistantly produce material. You can't just sit back and teach classes all day.

The issue is not wholly about distribution (or even copyright), the issue is payment for a job/service/product, etc. You still got paid and, if the paper was good, increased your job security, chance for a Nobel prize, or spots on the History channel or Discovery for one or two of their pretty specials (all equates to money in one form or another). So, it is slightly different than file sharing something that was intended for purchase and something that was not.