Piracy

[Echohawk]

No, you really do have the legal right to change your media from any format to any other format(with all the advantages and disadvantages of each), if you are capable of making the transfer. If 3d books come out in the future, I'm allowed to change my hardcover books into 3d books, even if I didn't pay extra for the 3d version.

Sure, I understand that. What you are describing is the legal right to transform something you have purchased into another format. It makes sense that if you put the effort into transforming something you own into some other form, that you should be entitled to do so, and that you also be entitled to use that transformed work however you want (as long as you don't share it).

But that doesn't equate to a legal right to automatically "have" the work in a different format (unless you transform it yourself). Buying a book doesn't give you a legal right to download the PDF of that book. It doesn't give you the legal right to download an audio book version of the same work. It doesn't give you the legal right to download the movie of the book.

It is quite possible to be of the opinion that consumers should, morally, gain the right to download a book in a different format once they have purchased it. But legally, the only right you gain is the right to transform the work into a different format yourself.

Yes, I admit that if we're talking purely man hours, that it costs around 300 bucks to pay someone to do it. But it only needs to be done once and then sold to everyone who buys it. If you add a dollar to the price and sell 300 copies of it, you've already made your money back.

I think that WotC's PDFs are currently overpriced, and would love to see some mechanism for owners of the printed books to get a cheaper PDF. However, I have a bit of a moral problem with the line of thought that says "because the PDFs are overpriced, that makes it okay to download illegal copies, which I wouldn't do if they only cost $1". (I realise that you didn't say that at all Majoru Oakheart -- I'm just paraphrasing what seems to be the philosophy of some posters, and borrowing your $1 price point to make the point.)

I'd really like to see WotC reexplore the idea of a PDF activation code in the printed books, possibly linking that to a DDI subscription to try to reduce fraud. I know that there are several logistical problems inherent in that model, but it seems like the right way to go in the long-term.

 

[Thasmodious]

I don't believe that what you have written above is entirely true. Specifically this bit: "who all have purchased a [print] copy and all have a fair use right to transfer media and have digital copies of the PHB". I do not think that owning a printed copy of a PHB gives you any right to "have digital copies". Owning a book may well give you the right to make a copy of that book for your own personal use, but owning a printed book does not mean that you inherently have the right to obtain a digital version from any other source. As least as I understand things.

It does give you that right. You can make a copy for personal use. If you own a copy of the book and have a copy of said book in digital form on your PC, how does it matter from where that digital came? Scanning it is fine, but getting it scanned from someone else isn't? That doesn't make any sense.

While I am no lawyer, I think any prosecutor would have a hard time proving you did anything wrong if you downloaded copies of things you own. A .pdf of a book, DRM free copies of songs you have on CD, things like that.

And I definitely don't see the case that downloading a copy of something you already own is somehow immoral. That just doesn't make any sense. You bought the book, you wish to make a copy of it, so you do. Whether you make the copy by scanning it yourself or acquiring a .pdf scan or use a copier and stick the pages in a binder, its all the same. The end result is you get your copy, that you are legally allowed to have.

So, if I had scanned my PHB and created a PDF of it, I certainly would not share that PDF with my friends. I would indeed view that as an act of piracy.

If your friends own the PHB, too, you would be wrong. How can you pirate things you already own? You can't.

I don't have the right to give a digital copy of a book I have scanned for my own personal use to other people.

Didn't say you did. That is distributing copyrighted material. That is illegal. That is not what you are doing if you and your friends all own the PHB and you happen to be the only one with a scanner. You are not making it available to people to possess illegally. Everyone who would get a copy from your scan has the legal right to such a copy.

Thasmodious, from the wording of your example it is clear that you understand that there is additional value in having the PDF versions -- specifically, using a digital version will "preserve the books", so that you can play "for many years". Presumably, that is instead of buying replacement PHBs every few years due to wear and tear. Given that the PDFs offer this tangible benefit to everyone who has one, why is it wrong to expect everyone who enjoys this benefit to pay for it?

Because I already did. I bought the book. I shouldn't have to pay the same cost to have a copy of the book. And I won't, incidentally. I can copy the book, scan the book, download a copy of the book... it's all the same. Sure, the site I download the book from may well be an illegal operation, making such things available to the public for free. But I am not using it in that manner, I am exercising my rights as a consumer in regards to something I purchased. Again, I would love to see a prosecutor go after someone for having a digital copy of something they legally bought.

I'm genuinely a little surprised that so many people seem to think that owning a printed book entitles them to download a digital copy from whatever source they want.

I'm genuinely surprised that there is contention over this point. Sure, it would be nice if the pirate sites could be shut down. Well, not really. I am glad for the existence of piracy as long as the industries involved continue to try and strip their consumers of their basic fair use rights and tell us how many times we can play their game or how many devices we can put the music we bought on and things like that. But that is another discussion.

To me, that sense of entitlement is worryingly similar to saying "I already own a copy of the PHB, so I should be automatically entitled to a copy of the deluxe PHB

Two different products, not the same thing at all.

 

[Thasmodious]

The idea that it legally comes down to effort is absurd. "Acquiring" the .pdf by scanning it myself or finding it online or getting it from a friend all result in my legal right to have a copy of the book I own. The site offering such downloads may well be illegal, but that is their problem, not mine.

The law says nothing about "effort" and where would such a line be drawn anyway? Technology? Once books had to be copied by hand, and I believe you had to have several levels of monk, too. Now, of course, we have scanners. Echo says you making your own scan is fine. But what if you don't own a scanner? Kinko's has scanners, does that still count as "effort", especially since they charge for use. What about a friends scanner? Are you, echohawk, really going to argue that the line exists here. That if your friends scans it for you, it is illegal but if you scan it yourself on his scanner it is legal? I would really require even the most basic of evidence to support that assertion before dismissing it outright.

 

[resistor]

"I already own a copy of the PHB, so I should be automatically entitled to a copy of the deluxe PHB, and that makes it okay for me to buy a cheap copy of the deluxe PHB that I know has fallen off the back of the proverbial truck."

Alright, I'm calling strawman on this one.

Nobody in this thread has claimed that physical property rights don't or shouldn't apply to the physical entity of a book.

This discussion is about intellectual property rights, which are a different thing altogether, and all too often sensationalized with invalid analogies like this to try to sway observers.

To make it absolutely obvious: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.

It is its own offense, governed by its own set of laws, and, for many people, a distinct set of moral/ethical questions. You're welcome to hold particular views on those questions, but do not attempt to muddy the issue by conflating it with something it is not.

 

[Echohawk]

Two different products, not the same thing at all.

I'm of the opinion that a PDF of the PHB and a printed PHB are also different products. Certainly there is a lot more difference in functionality between the PDF and print versions of the PHB than there is between the Deluxe PHB and the ordinary PHB. Why then are the Deluxe PHB and the PHB different products, but the PDF and print versions not?

The idea that it legally comes down to effort is absurd. "Acquiring" the .pdf by scanning it myself or finding it online or getting it from a friend all result in my legal right to have a copy of the book I own. The site offering such downloads may well be illegal, but that is their problem, not mine.

I don't think it comes down to effort. My understanding is that it is the involvement of a a third party that changes the situation. My understanding (which may not be correct, I concede) is that I am entitled to transform a work that I have purchased, but that I may not distribute my transformed work to anyone else. Therefore, if I am obtaining a transformed work from someone else, then there is a crime being committed. That crime might not be committed by me, depending on the jurisdiction, but since there does seem to be crime committed by the distributor, it seems to me that downloading that transformed work is morally questionable.

Of course, I understand and respect the fact that other people do not view that as morally questionable. I can only try to explain why I have a problem with this.

To make it absolutely obvious: COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT IS NOT THEFT.

I'm aware of that. I have avoiding labeling copyright infringement as theft. (At least I hope I have!) But go back and reread my example. I was not equating downloading a PDF with stealing a Deluxe PHB. I was comparing downloading a PDF from a source that is clearly distributing that PDF illegally, with buying a Deluxe PHB from someone who has probably obtained a copy of the physical book illegally. I realise that those are still not quite the same thing, since most countries have laws specifically against knowingly purchasing stolen goods, while the legality of knowingly downloading illegally copied content is far more grey. However, for the purpose of illustrating why I personally have a moral issue with downloading illegal PDFs, I believe that the comparison is a reasonable one. In both cases the recipient of the product is transacting with someone that they know is committing a crime. And that causes my moral compass to spin.

 

[Asmor]

I've said my peace and I've been trying to stay out of this thread, but I really do need to agree with Resistor. The scenario with the 'fallen off the truck' deluxe PHB is opening a huge can of worms that shouldn't be opened.

Perhaps a better analogy for you to use would be if someone scanned their PHB and offered to sell you a memory stick with it, or something like that. Or, if you don't mind getting off the topic of RPGs, buying bootlegged video cassettes/DVDs.

 

[Echohawk]

Perhaps a better analogy for you to use would be if someone scanned their PHB and offered to sell you a memory stick with it, or something like that. Or, if you don't mind getting off the topic of RPGs, buying bootlegged video cassettes/DVDs.

Thanks Asmor, I think both of those analogies are better than mine .

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Bit off topic, but, even as an artist, I want the current, lunatic, extreme and dangerous copyright and IP laws gone.

Totally about "Immortal non-human entities" (that's corporations not Chtulhu ) having more power than real people, it's not about genuine honest protection and logic, plus you cannot ever own anything you can't touch and hold and defend perosnally.
"Own a photon, you cannot!" says Yoda.

I've never met a "corporation" they don't exist except as fictional entities.
Artists and writers though, do exist.

Art's gone once you make it.
The moral right of the creator to be identified as the creator is what's important.

Folk (especially lawyers and corporates hehe) are still thinking with 19th century mindsets.

 

[Mercutio01]

Art's gone once you make it.
The moral right of the creator to be identified as the creator is what's important.

No, it's not. The moral right of the creator to be compensated (if he chooses) and to control the distribution of the art is what's important.

It does me no good if someone has my work and says, "Oh, that's a poem by Cameron." I want to be heard and read, sure, but I'd also like to be able to make a living at it as well. Simply identifying me as author isn't enough.

 

[Krensky]

No, it's not. The moral right of the creator to be compensated (if he chooses) and to control the distribution of the art is what's important.

It does me no good if someone has my work and says, "Oh, that's a poem by Cameron." I want to be heard and read, sure, but I'd also like to be able to make a living at it as well. Simply identifying me as author isn't enough.

This. As I said before, the express point of copyright law in the US was to give artists absolute control over their work for a period of time. Once that period was over, the work would enter the public domain. It was an implicit deal. You make stuff, you profit from it, you let it go. This was to encourage artists to produce, and to create a body of work for them to produce with and from.

Artists have a moral right to be compensated and credited for their work if they so choose. They also have a moral obligation to allow their works to enter the public domain eventually. Media and software corporations, chiefly Disney) have been pushing to have eventually pushed so far off it effectively becomes never. So far they've been succeeding. As it stands now, Steamboat Willie will enter the public domain in 2023. Expect to see Disney buy another retroactive extension law from Congress before then.