Piracy

Have you pirated any 4th edition books?

  • Pirated, didn't like, didn't buy

    Votes: 77 21.2%
  • Pirated, liked it, but didn't buy

    Votes: 31 8.5%
  • Pirated it, liked it, went out and bought it

    Votes: 76 20.9%
  • Bought the book then pirated for pdf copy

    Votes: 93 25.6%
  • Never pirated any of the books

    Votes: 154 42.4%
  • Other/Random Miscellaneous Option

    Votes: 25 6.9%

Argh chose the wrong option in the poll...

Pirated the PDFs before the books came out, and bought the books on their release date. I just got my "fair-use" copy of the books before I actually got said books. :)

AR
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Seriously, pirate is a nice concise term when used for informal discussion of copyright violations. Is it too hard for you to do an intellectual reach around if it doesn't have a obfuscated name?

Is it to hard for you to use the proper term for the proper thing?

It's not that hard. Piracy is a crime involving theft, murder, kidnapping, etc on the high seas between one craft and another.

Copyright infringement is a crime involving the infringement of a copyright holder's rights.

Conflating the two makes the later seem much more serious, and belittles the former.

It's like saying murder to refer to slander.
 

It's not that hard. Piracy is a crime involving theft, murder, kidnapping, etc on the high seas between one craft and another
No, "piracy" used to mean only that. Now it also means "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work". Using it in that sense is perfectly legitimate. (Why would my dictionary lie to me?)

Language evolves. A century ago, "gay" meant "merry and full of joy". Now it means "homosexual". It would be silly to insist that everyone continue to use "gay" only in the first context simply because that was the original meaning of the word.
 

my faith in humanity is sinking...and I think part of my soul died when I saw the numbers...

edit at this moment over 100 people (106) have said they broke the law...and did something this site itself speaks out against...

Hypothetical question 1: Would you have a problem with me photocopying a page from one of the core books for personal use (e.g. page 42 of the DMG, the conditions page in the PHB, or whichever monsters I was intending to use in an adventure)?

Hypothetical question 2: Would you have a problem with me scanning the same page into my computer?

Hypothetical question 3: Would you have a problem with me scanning an entire book I own into the computer? (Hint: While nothing in copyright is ever as clear as it should be, it's generally accepted that format-shifting your media is within the realm of legal fair use)

Hypothetical question 4: Would you have a problem with me downloading a copy of a book I own, given that legally it's probably okay for me to make my own copy in the first place.

While you've a flare for the dramatic, and indeed I fully admit I've broken the law, I maintain that I've done nothing unethical.
 

It's complicated.

I didn't buy the .pdfs. Nor did I pirate them. My housemate bought them, and I read through them, borrowing them for a 4e game. Does that make me a pirate? Surely there's no difference between that and simply downloading a .pdf, is there? In neither case did I give money to WotC for my use of their material. I didn't buy any of the books afterwards, either. What is, ultimately, the difference between what I did and downloading the pdf?

Some people I know did pirate it. Of those that did, an unspecificed and unknown percentage bought the books afterwards. Others did not. For those that did not, would they have bought the book were it not for their tendency to sail the seven seas of the internet? For those that did, did some of the buy it BECAUSE they downloaded it in advance?

Data sharing isn't going to stop. Ever. It's always been around conceptually. Always. Even at the smallest level, of one friend borrowing a video game, movie, or yes, book from a friend. That is, at its heart, the same as data sharing. I'm not saying it's legal. I'm not saying it's right.

I'm saying that it's complicated.
 

No, "piracy" used to mean only that. Now it also means "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work". Using it in that sense is perfectly legitimate. (Why would my dictionary lie to me?)

Language evolves. A century ago, "gay" meant "merry and full of joy". Now it means "homosexual". It would be silly to insist that everyone continue to use "gay" only in the first context simply because that was the original meaning of the word.

I am well aware language changes, however this change should be opposed because it conflates a violent crime with a violation of limited monopoly.

Would you call printing counterfeit copies of the 4e PHB murdering the book?

No, that would be nonsensical. So is calling it piracy because piracy has a specific legal meaning.
 

A couple points.

First, there are several civil cases where lawyers representing IP holders have been castigated for using the term "theft" in court to describe copyright infringement. In a court of law, the distinction is important. Then again, this is a web forum, not a courtroom.

Second, despairing over the depravity of humanity over a web forum poll is a tad bit much, IMHO. Remember that the very concept of "intellectual property" is remarkably new, and even until ten years ago was typically an inside-the-industry thing only (indeed, court rulings on tape recording in the late seventies and early eighties reinforced the idea that end-consumers didn't have to worry about copyright laws). I was already a fully-formed adult when Napster came around, and, all of a sudden, consumers are also producers, and long-assumed rights became wrong. Right now, many people are still trying to wrap their head around what is actually legal or not, even aside from the ethics of it (because heretofore IP law was assumed to be for people who made money off of it). Again, I speak of the masses (like me), and not people better versed in the history of IP law.

Regardless of where you stand on the issue, this much is clear: the concept of "fair use" has been shrinking by the decade. Have patience on people who are still trying to get used to the idea that things are suddenly wrong that ten years ago were considered perfectly fine.

That said, don't break the law. And if you plan on breaking the law to protest your diminishing "fair use" rights as an act of civil disobedience, do it right and turn yourself in afterwords.

EDIT: Relevant readings:
Dowling vs. US (1985) - Holding that copyright infringement is separate and distinct from theft
 
Last edited:

I am well aware language changes, however this change should be opposed because it conflates a violent crime with a violation of limited monopoly.

I think the key thing here is why the language has changed. If it was directed by corporate desires, then it should probably be opposed.
 

My housemate bought them, and I read through them, borrowing them for a 4e game. Does that make me a pirate?
Icky situation.

Under traditional "fair use" rights? No.

Under the current interpretation of copyright law favored by most media cartels? Yes. Your housemate's "license" is non-transferable unless explicitly stated so, they say. You should have bought your own copy, they say.

Somehow, I don't think WotC is losing sleep over it, though. I log into DDI and let my roomie browse with no personal moral qualms whatsoever.
 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLsJyfN0ICU]YouTube - You are a pirate[/ame]

Seemed relevant to the discussion (at least for some posters ...) :p
 

Remove ads

Top