Spellbook piracy: is it theft?

[Kmart Kommando]

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

Xerox Piracy?

 

[ephemeron]

What if you took real-world academic writing, rather than software, as your model? Research is time-consuming, and the journals and books it's published in are expensive and available only through specalized channels -- but researchers want their work to be read, and consequently there is a venerable tradition of giving away copies of articles free for the asking. Why shouldn't a D&D world have wizards who believe that the best way to advance the state of the Art, as it were, is to encourage the sharing of spells?

(Plus, this model makes it easy to explain why the spells in the PHB are so widely-known -- Bigby's work, for example, is considered essential reading for serious students of evocation; the likes of Charm Person and Magic Missile are in standard textbooks...)

 

[Glyfair]

Why shouldn't a D&D world have wizards who believe that the best way to advance the state of the Art, as it were, is to encourage the sharing of spells?

I think there would be such wizards. I also think there would be wizards who feel that "knowledge is power" and try to keep such spells to themselves, or maybe themselves and their cronies.

The real question is, which group is in charge?

 

[I'm A Banana]

What if you took real-world academic writing, rather than software, as your model? Research is time-consuming, and the journals and books it's published in are expensive and available only through specalized channels -- but researchers want their work to be read, and consequently there is a venerable tradition of giving away copies of articles free for the asking. Why shouldn't a D&D world have wizards who believe that the best way to advance the state of the Art, as it were, is to encourage the sharing of spells?

This model works really well with D&D wizards' fluff as it exists right now. It's what I'd think of as the "default campaign assumption."

 

[blargney the second]

It's single-spell mitosis.
-blarg

 

[S'mon]

ROTFLMAO....

Um, well, yeah, I guess copying a spellbook without permission is clearly

1. Copyright infringement
2. Breach of confidence - theft of trade secrets
3. If it's a 'name' spell like Tenser's Floating Disk, TM infringement
4. Or if not #2, possibly infringing a patented spell
5. And I expect there could be registered design right in a spell's aesthetic elements
6. If you strip the name out to avoid #3, infringement of the spell author's moral right of paternity
7. And there may be a sui generis spell protection right.

Why summon demons to get your spell book back, when you can sumon lawyers?

 

[Sejs]

Why summon demons to get your spell book back, when you can sumon lawyers?

Summon Devils, that way you get the best of both worlds.

 

[WhatGravitas]

This model works really well with D&D wizards' fluff as it exists right now. It's what I'd think of as the "default campaign assumption."

I can totally imagine something like a yearly magazine, the "Wizardly National", where wizards report about the newest research in spell components and write down lower-level spells, including ads for expensive textbooks, which are containing unique high-level spells.

 

[charlesatan]

Before we begin, we must ask the question whether the owner of the spellbook allowed it to be copied. If yes, then no. If not, let's move on.

First off, it might be legal (in the sense that there aren't any city/plane laws that cover it) but just because it's so doesn't mean the spellbook owner will perceive it as such. Of course if it's a non-unique spell and if they never find out...

...what would even be interesting is if two people research the same spell independently. One could swear vengeance on the other for "stealing his spell" even if that's not the case in reality.

 

[Nifft]

ROTFLMAO....

Um, well, yeah, I guess copying a spellbook without permission is clearly

1. Copyright infringement
2. Breach of confidence - theft of trade secrets
3. If it's a 'name' spell like Tenser's Floating Disk, TM infringement
4. Or if not #2, possibly infringing a patented spell
5. And I expect there could be registered design right in a spell's aesthetic elements
6. If you strip the name out to avoid #3, infringement of the spell author's moral right of paternity
7. And there may be a sui generis spell protection right.

Why summon demons to get your spell book back, when you can sumon lawyers?

1/ What copyright? Copyright is created by the current laws of our world. It's not something that exists in all ages across history. It's not something ever mentioned in the laws of any D&D world I've ever seen.

2/ Only if the spell were researched and never shared with anyone. Without a license, any sharing = full disclosure.

3/ Trademark is something our laws created. See point (1).

4/ Patents, like copyrights and trademarks, don't exist unless laws create them. See point (1).

5/ "Look & feel" issues? See point (1).

6/ Moral right? I don't see any notes in copying a spell about the act ever being [Evil], and since D&D has concrete, absolute morality, I don't see a whole lot of wiggle room here.

7/ Again, see point (1).


D&D World has no inherent legal context, so while these issues may exist in some worlds, they would require a significant change in some default assumptions.

- - -

However, peeking into someone's spellbook uninvited is most certainly rude, and that's more than sufficient reason for that someone to kill you.

Cheers, -- N