Piracy

[rgard]

You said, "Following laws IS moral." You didn't say "Following copyright laws is moral." Once more, I only debunked what you said.

Please say what you mean and read what I write.



I bought the books. Why should I pay twice?

You would be paying for two different products; one hard copy, one digital. If you want a digital version and the hardcopy version, (but don't want to pay for the digital version) you can always type what you need into a word document. That falls under fair use.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Prism]

I downloaded the pre release books and then also bought the hard copies. I still have those pdfs. I have also bought 2 of the other books on pdf. I have also pirated other pdfs and not bought them because I didn't like them.

So that means I knowingly broke the law because I didn't want to pay for the book twice. I also break far more important laws almost every day (speeding) and as a kid far less important laws (drinking) too. I guess I follow my own morals.

I would also say that almost every single person I know or meet has few issues with some level of piracy. I am sceptical of the validity of this poll to be honest

 

[resistor]

You would be paying for two different products; one hard copy, one digital. If you want a digital version and the hardcopy version, (but don't want to pay for the digital version) you can always type what you need into a word document. That falls under fair use.

The whole premise of copyright is that, when buying a book, you purchase two things: the physical book, and a license from the copyright holder to view and use the copyrighted content within it.

If you've already bought a hard copy, you already have the license to view and use it.

Now, imagine that you go about pirate a PDF. You already hold a license to view and use the content, so you have not violated the copyright.

While WotC (and all content producers) would certainly prefer you to pay to acquire your digital copies from them, if you already own hardcopies you are under no obligation to pay them anything more for it.

 

[Mercutio01]

apples and oranges... seriesly...are you try to compair unfair laws that are harmful and prejadice and the fight of people to be treated as equals with getting free books..

Are you implying that stealing is somehow not harmful?

As a poet, I expect to be paid by customers for all the work that goes into my creations. You mean to tell me that your selfish desire to get everything for free, things you never worked for, didn't struggle over, didn't work long hours at perfecting--you think you deserve a free book simply because you want it? That's more than selfish. How about if you wanted a free (or greatly reduced in price) Blu-ray player--does that make it right to take/buy one that "fell off a truck?" I'll answer my own question: hell no.

 

[rgard]

The whole premise of copyright is that, when buying a book, you purchase two things: the physical book, and a license from the copyright holder to view and use the copyrighted content within it.

If you've already bought a hard copy, you already have the license to view and use it.

Now, imagine that you go about pirate a PDF. You already hold a license to view and use the content, so you have not violated the copyright.

While WotC (and all content producers) would certainly prefer you to pay to acquire your digital copies from them, if you already own hardcopies you are under no obligation to pay them anything more for it.

Nope.

 

[resistor]

Nope.

That, sir, was a very deep and insightful post. To go with my best guess at your objection:

You'll notice that I did not address the morality of doing so. It's completely reasonable to say that one should buy it twice because to do otherwise is immoral. But, the way copyright is formulated, you are not legally obliged to pay for it twice.

It may be convenient to do so, there may be added value for doing so. The producer (who undoubtedly has a bigger legal team than you) may even bully you to. But you're not obliged to.

 

[rgard]

Are you implying that stealing is somehow not harmful?

As a poet, I expect to be paid by customers for all the work that goes into my creations. You mean to tell me that your selfish desire to get everything for free, things you never worked for, didn't struggle over, didn't work long hours at perfecting--you think you deserve a free book simply because you want it? That's more than selfish. How about if you wanted a free (or greatly reduced in price) Blu-ray player--does that make it right to take/buy one that "fell off a truck?" I'll answer my own question: hell no.

Besides being correct, you put the discussion on a more personal level. I was thinking of the Fiendblade pdf (Lion's Den Press: Classes of Legend) written by Ari Marmell. He posts here on enworld. I purchased the pdf awhile back and really enjoyed it. Ari has written alot of other rpg stuff:

Ari Marmell :: Pen & Paper RPG Database

Now, I purchased the pdf and it sits on my pc hard drive. I would never think of sharing this pdf with anybody whether it be by emailing it, posting it on line or via file sharing.

I won't do that as I would prefer that folks who want to play the class buy it themselves. Hopefully Ari gets some cut of each purchase. It's only right that he would.

I prefer that Ari and others in the industry keep writing, but if folks suck away their income via pirating electronic copies of their work, we will all suffer as they find other things to do.

Mercutio01, your post earned experience points from me.

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Thasmodious]

Nope.

Yep. He's quite right, actually. If I own the book, I own a license to the content. I can copy it on a copier for my personal use. I can scan it and create a .pdf for personal use. A .pdf is a .pdf and as far as me having a copy on my harddrive, it does not matter if I created it myself or if I downloaded it. The end result is the same, I have a digital copy of a phsyical book I own. Nothing illegal (nor immoral) about that. Now, the person or website distrubting those copies may well be doing so illegally, but that's a separate concern. Having a digital copy of something I own is a consumer right. Sure, the IP industries would love to, and try to, change that. The RIAA doesn't think you should really own a CD you buy, shouldn't be allowed to make copies or rip the songs into your digital library. But they haven't won that fight yet, but are trying to find ways around the law themselves, so they can charge you more based on the different types of media you wish to use. THIS is immoral.

 

[Mercutio01]

It's completely reasonable to say that one should buy it twice because to do otherwise is immoral. But, the way copyright is formulated, you are not legally obliged to pay for it twice.

It may be convenient to do so, there may be added value for doing so. The producer (who undoubtedly has a bigger legal team than you) may even bully you to. But you're not obliged to.

From what I understand (and just looked up at copyright.gov), you can transfer formats of media so that you can use said product on various devices in your house. Specifically CD to MP3 was mentioned as being legal, so long as it all remains in your sole possession. Whether books are covered or not explicitly, the implicit reasoning says that you could print out a PDF and store the hardcopy on your shelf (for when you go off the grid), or you could personally transfer the medium from the book to your computer (say, by scanning), but under law you cannot receive a product, even if you own it in another form, if that form was obtained or distributed illegally.

Owning a pdf of the PHB that you downloaded from Mininova, even if you own the hard copy, is technically illegal.

 

[Krensky]

Are you implying that stealing is somehow not harmful?

As a poet, I expect to be paid by customers for all the work that goes into my creations. You mean to tell me that your selfish desire to get everything for free, things you never worked for, didn't struggle over, didn't work long hours at perfecting--you think you deserve a free book simply because you want it? That's more than selfish. How about if you wanted a free (or greatly reduced in price) Blu-ray player--does that make it right to take/buy one that "fell off a truck?" I'll answer my own question: hell no.

While authors and other rights-holders deserve to get paid, one of the major issues with modern copyright in the US is that it's been perverted from the intent, in the US, anyway. The Constitution gives you a time limited monopoly on your work in exchange for you allowing it to enter the public domain. As it stands now, nothing you write will enter the public domain until 90 some years after your death. Or longer, if Disney buys another extension to the term the next time Steamboat Willie is close to entering the public domain. This leads to all sorts of issues with works once they are no longer profitable and no one knows who owns the rights anymore. None of this makes pirating (I stand corrected on the origination of the phrase, I was under the impression it was coined in the 1980s) creative works legal or right, but it is part of the frustration, and in some cases the problem is that we don't know who owns the rights any more.