Spellbook piracy: is it theft?

[I'm A Banana]

I see this a lot. From a legal standpoint that's true (since you aren't depriving anyone of what you are taking). However, from a conversational standpoint "you know what we are talking about." It's a nitpick that doesn't add to conversation, it just sidetracks it into an irrelevant direction (unless you are discussing how it works in the legal system).

Even from a conversational standpoint, theft implies that someone else has something, then I take it from them, leaving them with nothing. In the case of copying something from someone's spellbook, I'm not TAKING anything. They still have the original spell, and now I do, too. The only people that miss out are the middle-man who collects a fee for spell transfer, and the original spell creator, who misses out on credit and payment for the spell's invention (assuming spell copyright works something like real copyright, anyway).

So calling it "theft" isn't legally correct in the real world or even conversationally accurate to what "theft" means. I mean, the spellthief doesn't just copy a critter's spells...he TAKES them so that the creature CANNOT use them anymore, robbing it of power as he powers himself up. It's the difference between healing and enervation, between sharing and stealing...there's a pretty big conceptual gulf between copying something and giving it away and taking something from someone else.

 

[Hypersmurf]

There are very few protected magical IP in D&D -- even the named spells (Bigby's Hand, etc.) is free to copy, use, and manipulate, and just usually requires a Creative Commons-style attribution. (You can use this spell all you want, but it's called Bigby's Hand, not just Hand!).

It's the opposite, isn't it? Bigby's Grasping Hand is protected IP, but you can use the spell all you want as long as you call it 'Grasping Hand'. Mordenkainen's Lucubration is protected IP, but you can use the spell all you want as long as you call it 'Mage's Lucubration'.

-Hyp.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It's the opposite, isn't it? Bigby's Grasping Hand is protected IP, but you can use the spell all you want as long as you call it 'Grasping Hand'. Mordenkainen's Lucubration is protected IP, but you can use the spell all you want as long as you call it 'Mage's Lucubration'.

Depends on if we're talking "in the world" or just about the game. I was referring to characters in a D&D world using and copying spells...the fact that "Bigby's Grasping Hand" appears in the PHB, so, presumably, every wizard in D&D who uses the PHB learns "Bigby's Grasping Hand" without paying some extra bit of money to Bigby (but still using the name whenever they copy it into their spellbook). Persumably, Bigby was a real character in the world who developed the spell and named it after himself, and the characters in the world continue to use the spell in his name.

The fact that Bigby is WotC-protected IP is, I think, kind of separate. So no wizard creating using the SRD knows Bigby's anything, thus making ALL spells in the SRD kind of just common resources that no one owns. Whereas for a character created using the PHB, Bigby definitely owns his Grasping Hand.

 

[Glyfair]

So calling it "theft" isn't legally correct in the real world or even conversationally accurate to what "theft" means.

Still irrelevant. Do you really believe that anyone using the term theft dealing with this sort of conversation believes that they are depriving the person of their property? It's not accurate, but everyone involved in the conversation knows what they mean.

Of course, my point is that this brings the conversation off-topic with an irrelevant point, and here I am bringing it off-topic So that's my last comment on the topic.

However, to bring it back on topic, it would be a different matter if it was depriving the target of the spell. There certainly have been some situations in D&D where copying a spell does remove the original. For example, if you were copying the spell from another wizard's scroll (without their permission). That would probably be thought even worse.

 

[CrusadeDave]

It's the opposite, isn't it? Bigby's Grasping Hand is protected IP, but you can use the spell all you want as long as you call it 'Grasping Hand'. Mordenkainen's Lucubration is protected IP, but you can use the spell all you want as long as you call it 'Mage's Lucubration'.

-Hyp.

Just had a weird idea on this level...

What if Larloch didn't think you could use any of his spells without paying him a royalty. What if he woke up one day and madly thought, "My good wizarding reputation is going down the drain cause all these losers are using my spells to commit affronts against wizardy..."

"No More."

And then Larloch starts hunting down spell casters who use his spells and slaughters them. It's not that they've stolen from him. But they have not asked nicely, and he's not about to let them get away with it any more.

Sort of like Tony Stark: Iron Man right around the Armor Wars.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

This was mentioned on one of the HackMaster rulebooks. It gave details about spell piracy or spell shareware. Perhaps someone else here remembers it more clearly?

 

[Kmart Kommando]

Piracy is robbery of a moving transport by force, either at sea or in the air. Software piracy is a stupid term. Just because it is now in the dictionary doesn't mean that it isn't a made-up word. They tacked on the 'piracy' to make it seem worse than it is.
Sure, it might be stealing, but it is no different than lifting someone's wallet. Where's the Pocket Piracy? I want that term in the dictionary too.

On subject, my groups always share spells at first level, it broadens their base options.

 

[Corsair]

Sure, it might be stealing,

No. Stealing would mean taking something. You're coping something.

I wonder how laws would apply to people making simulacrum of other people without permission?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Still irrelevant. Do you really believe that anyone using the term theft dealing with this sort of conversation believes that they are depriving the person of their property? It's not accurate, but everyone involved in the conversation knows what they mean.

"Theft" is the wrong term, though, and its negatively loaded to boot. The distinction is not trivial, and is, in fact, very controversial. So for the sake of clarity and neutrality, it should be replaced. Especially because it's inaccurate on so many levels. The use of the term is disingenuous, so it should be avoided wherever possible, regardless of what everyone else does. I mean, I'm sure your mom used the whole "if everyone jumped off a bridge, would you do it, too?" argument.

Spellthieves steal spells. Copying spellbooks isn't stealing spells. And, it would seem, in most D&D campaigns, copying spellbooks is relatively common (enough so that every spell in the PHB is equally available, anyway). Though I wonder what wizards who have spent their lives researching new spells would say about someone coming along and taking a peek in their magical tome...

 

[drothgery]

Given any kind of reasonable copyright laws, the vast majority of spells would have long since passed into the public domain. So no.