Spellbook piracy: is it theft?

[GodOfCheese]

I also like the thought of trapping personally researched spells. For example Bob's Fireblast might detonate at Range=0' unless the optional material Focus (lets say, a talisman with Bob's Arcane Mark on it) is also used. Someone Bob's Fireblast should probably be allowed a high-DC Knowledge(Arcana) check to know something is wrong with the spell though.

Yeah, I was thinking about that too. It seems that a spellcaster who beats the DC required to decypher the spell by more than X could know something is not right with the original spell during the copy procedure. Beating it by Y (where Y>X) would be necessary to remove the spell's protection measure.

What I'm not sure of yet is the mechanics for getting the spell protections into place. A feat, combined with added gp cost of scribing the spell, might do it... a spell researcher could budget such a feat easily. Theoretically, you could buy such spells with custom protections keyed to the user for additional cost, too, so you wouldn't need the feat yourself.

 

[Faraer]

In the World of Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms, most wizards are jealous of and careful with their spells, and would resent someone copying from their spellbook without permission, and potential copiers know that's the case.

 

[Delta]

In fact, the Court said "Only the 2314 counts concern us here." and made a decision overturning only the counts of the charges against Dowling based on that law, and in doing so, distinguished copyright infringement from the subject matter of 18 U.S.C. 2314.

I don't see it as being so narrow. Justice Blackmun's opinion for the majority seems to make a very general statement, namely:

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Whereas your earlier boldfaced argument focused on "exerting unauthorized control over property", here is Justice Blackmun saying exactly the opposite, that "the infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright". If true for 18 U.S.C. 2314, then it's true for any law concerning theft.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whereas your earlier boldfaced argument focused on "exerting unauthorized control over property", here is Justice Blackmun saying exactly the opposite, that "the infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright". If true for 18 U.S.C. 2314, then it's true for any law concerning theft.

"Only the 2314 counts concern us here." is from the first footnote to the majority opinion- thus you can only apply the logic Blackmun cites to that law. To do otherwise is to expand his ruling beyond his self-stated scope.

And 2314 only covers physical property.

As the majority also wrote:

Federal crimes, of course, "are solely creatures of statute."

And given (further on)

Nor does it matter that the item owes a major portion of its value to an intangible component. See, e. g., United States v. Seagraves, 265 F.2d 876 (CA3 1959) (geophysical maps identifying possible oil deposits); United States v. Greenwald, 479 F.2d 320 (CA6) (documents bearing secret chemical formulae), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 854 (1973). But these cases and others prosecuted under 2314 have always involved physical "goods, wares, [or] merchandise" that have themselves been "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." This basic element comports with the common-sense meaning of the statutory language: by requiring that the "goods, wares, [or] merchandise" be "the same" as those "stolen, converted or taken by fraud," the provision seems clearly to contemplate a physical identity between the items unlawfully obtained and those eventually transported, and hence some prior physical taking of the subject goods.

IOW- Blackmun is saying you can't apply 2314 to the purely intangible, not that the intangible cannot be stolen.

In fact, stealing the intangible is a fairly common crime (besides copyright infringement) in the forms of theft called embezzlement and industrial espionage.

The vast majority of the money in the world exists only in an intangible form- more than 95% exists only as data in banking computers around the world.

As an example, suppose I use a variant of the scheme from Superman 3 (reiterated in Office Space) in which I redirect company funds into an account that I control. However, unlike in those movies, I introduce a further wrinkle- this account has a higher interest rate- say 12% as opposed to my company's 8%- and instead of keeping the whole amount, I merely keep 2% of the excess- the bulk is re-redirected back into the company's account (the extra 2% goes back to cover some lost interest due to some instant interest that would otherwise be lost).

No physical control is exerted over the property. The company is no worse off for my redirection- they still have the exact same amount of money at the end of the day as they would have- and I'm somewhat better off.

Despite this, I can still be convicted of embezzlement because I have excercised unauthorized control over my company's property. Why? Because the crime of embezzlement (like many forms of theft and other crimes) is complete once the intent is formed. (People v Parker, 235 Cal App. 2d 100, 108 (Cal App. 1965), including the telling language "intent to restore the money at some later time is of no avail.")

But enough of US law hijack- lets try to get back to the OP's concern.

 

[airwalkrr]

Most of the wizards I play would consider it piracy and desire it be illegal (at least with respect to their own spellbooks).

 

[Delta]

IOW- Blackmun is saying you can't apply 2314 to the purely intangible, not that the intangible cannot be stolen...

I don't see Blackmun making any reference to whether property is tangible or intangible.

What he does say is this: How does someone making a copy of a book exert control over the copyright? Can they now license it, or legitimately produce copies of the work? No, they certainly can't. That is actually what Blackmun is explicitly talking about... making a copy takes no control over the copyright at all.

In your financial example, clearly control is being taken over of the financial statement. The copying-equivalent situation would be if someone takes an unauthorized photocopy of your bank statement. Did you allow it? No. Do they have control over your bank account beacuse of it? No, they don't. Similarly, does someone who violates a "do not trespass" or a "don't walk on the grass" sign get prosecuted for property theft? No, they don't (and that's precisely the analog to infringing copyright). Very different situations, with very different penalties, as it should be.

Now, I totally agree -- let us not hijack the thread further and return to the OP's concern.

 

[hong]

I can see it now:

The Rogue sneaks carefully into the cave filled with Orcs. He pulls out a scroll case and begins to read from the vellum within. At its completion, he vanishes from sight. However, a moment later, a booming voice issues from the cavern: "This Invisibility scroll brought to you by Splognitz's House of Scrolls, located on the corner of 5th and Aardvark street in the Cobblestone township! Think Splognitz for all your disposable spell-completion item needs!"​

A really funny thing to do to your players ONCE.

If you said it in a Robin Williams voice, I'd let you do it twice!

 

[Pyrex]

It seems that a spellcaster who beats the DC required to decypher the spell by more than X could know something is not right with the original spell during the copy procedure. Beating it by Y (where Y>X) would be necessary to remove the spell's protection measure.

I wouldn't allow beating the DC by Y to remove the protection; but it would tell the reader what is necessary to bypass it upon casting.

Example:
--The DC to copy Bob's Fireblast into your spellbook is Spellcraft DC 20. (15 + SpellLevel 5).
--If you beat the DC by 5 (i.e., DC 25) you know that there is something missing in the spell description.
--If you beat the DC by 15 (i.e., DC 40) you learn that to properly cast the spell you need a jade totem inscribed with Bob's Arcane Mark

Removing the protection would involve researching a new spell based upon the original.

What I'm not sure of yet is the mechanics for getting the spell protections into place. A feat, combined with added gp cost of scribing the spell, might do it... a spell researcher could budget such a feat easily. Theoretically, you could buy such spells with custom protections keyed to the user for additional cost, too, so you wouldn't need the feat yourself.

I wouldn't require a feat. Specifying those sorts of protections is just part of the process of researching/creating a new spell from scratch. You're never going to come across a protected version of Fireball because it's a common spell and no one is going to waste the time required to research a protected version.

Paranoid wizards researching their own custom spells however, might add such protections.

 

[Voadam]

That's incorrect.

While you cannot copyright ideas, once affixed to a permanent medium, the IP creator is protected regardless of form. If I write a book in English, and it is copied into Greek or Russian (which use a Cyrillic alphabet) or Japanese (Kanji, Hiragana, or Katakana) against my permission, it is still copyright infringement. Nor can George Lucas do a movie of my book without my permission (unless it can reasonably be deemed a kind of fair use like parody).

I'm not an IP lawyer. Are you saying that if you write a book with a bunch of common recipes, formulae, or how to instructions you have created IP in the recipes, formulae, or instructions that is protected? What would be the copywritable portion of a spellbook?

 

[nute]

I'm not an IP lawyer. Are you saying that if you write a book with a bunch of common recipes, formulae, or how to instructions you have created IP in the recipes, formulae, or instructions that is protected? What would be the copywritable portion of a spellbook?

It would not be a copyright violation, since copyright implies copying of text. And by the RAW, every wizard writes a spell differently and uniquely. Thus, copying a spell from another wizard's spellbook to your own unique "spell-coding" would be like:

@()$&@%^)#^^$(!!! = "Wiggle little finger and say 'a la peanut butter sandwiches' while sprinkling fairy dust in a circle widdershins" = C@$+ +#3 5P311 d00d!

What you are "stealing" is the method for casting that spell, which would not fall under coypright law but under patent law (the laws concerning the procedures for a process).

A bard's song could be copyrighted. A wizard's unique spell would need to be patented. If the spell has a unique and identifying effect (not the case for any PHB spell, as they can look subtly different depending on the caster, this would only apply to uniquely researched spells), there may be applications of trademark law in there as well.