Suggestion for compromise on Wizard's PDFs

[pawsplay]

Um.

No.

(1) You have no guarantees they won't sell it in the future. Mistwell's Disney example is a prime case. If they are not selling a movie right now, that doesn't mean they won't in the future. And they are intentionally withholding to create scarcity, too.

My argument is not predicated on the idea that an item being temporarily unavailable makes it immediately available for download. And Disney is entitled to create scarcity, because that is a right to profit from their copyright. Your second example is more interesting.

(2) If something has never been sold, you can still violate copyright. I don't think Disney is selling Song of the South due to racist implications. It is not therefore okay to download it.

Of course, I never said, "It is not available, THEREFORE you may download it." What I said was intentionally making something unavailable was not a right of the creator. In fact, the less physically available The Song of the South is to watch, the more and more defensible it becomes for documentarians, libraries, etc. to copy portions of it for reference purposes. And if Disney wished to come forward and say, "We desire to NEVER sell the Song of the South because of its racist implications," then their case against infringement becomes weaker against any infringement against that movie.

Of course, Disney did make an unadvertised and small release of the Song of the South. Only prudent, really. Even if it were possible to entirely squelch a work, it is, as I noted, not Constitutionally based.

(3) Even if I write something that I don't make commercial profit from, you can't copy it willy-nilly. You're still violating my copyrights.

Where did I say things can be copied willy-nilly?

A general point: it is a basic underpinning of the US copyright laws, which owed their authority to a clause in the Constitution, that copyright protects a creator's right to profit so that society will benefit from their creativity. If society entirely lacks benefit from a given work, then there is no Constitutional authority to grant the right to the creator in some absolute sense, and the public good, freedom of speech, and privacy laws kick in.

 

[Dire Bare]

What I said was intentionally making something unavailable was not a right of the creator. In fact, the less physically available The Song of the South is to watch, the more and more defensible it becomes for documentarians, libraries, etc. to copy portions of it for reference purposes. And if Disney wished to come forward and say, "We desire to NEVER sell the Song of the South because of its racist implications," then their case against infringement becomes weaker against any infringement against that movie.

Of course, Disney did make an unadvertised and small release of the Song of the South. Only prudent, really. Even if it were possible to entirely squelch a work, it is, as I noted, not Constitutionally based.

Really? I'm no lawyer, but this just sounds wrong. A creator (or rights holder) doesn't have the right to keep their creative work off the market?

So, I write an awesome fantasy novel that hits the NYT bestseller list, but later find Jesus and demand my publisher stop printing new copies and refuse to allow anyone else to print my novel, online or otherwise . . . . I have no right to do that?!?!

Hmmm, seems strange. I don't believe it.

 

[jdrakeh]

Hmmm, seems strange. I don't believe it.

More importantly, the argument that individuals are entitled to pirate copyrighted material if the copyright holder isn't actively circulating it is 100% bullocks. The people making this argument should be ashamed.

 

[Jack99]

This thread is pure win. There is so much bitch-slapping of people claiming incorrect things that it made me laugh out loud at 6 AM on a Sunday morning. I can't believe I skipped it for so long.

@OP

Won't happen. If they come up with PDF's, I suspect it will be a service available to [cue drumroll] DDI subscribers..

 

[pawsplay]

Really? I'm no lawyer, but this just sounds wrong. A creator (or rights holder) doesn't have the right to keep their creative work off the market?

Not in any absolute sense, no. They have the right to profit from it, to creative derivative works from it, license it, etc. In US law, the public interest is the chief interest of copyright law, with the franchise granted to creators being a means to that end. In the US, "moral rights" only exist as some rights to attribution and to not have one's work defaced, and only for some visual arts, not for writen works. Stating, "I am forbidding reproduction of my work purely because I wish to erase it from history" is contrary to the legal basis for copyright. The public interest comes first.

 

[jaerdaph]

But I read in on teh interwebs so it must be true...

 

[Dire Bare]

Not in any absolute sense, no. They have the right to profit from it, to creative derivative works from it, license it, etc. In US law, the public interest is the chief interest of copyright law, with the franchise granted to creators being a means to that end. In the US, "moral rights" only exist as some rights to attribution and to not have one's work defaced, and only for some visual arts, not for writen works. Stating, "I am forbidding reproduction of my work purely because I wish to erase it from history" is contrary to the legal basis for copyright. The public interest comes first.

Sounds like you are making a moral argument rather than a legal one. Or are you really claiming that legally, a creator cannot suppress new copies of his/her work?

I mean, depending on the medium, obviously once published some works are "out there". If I publish a novel that later I decide to "suppress", there are obviously going to be physical copies floating around out there, and maybe ebooks on peoples laptops. And I certainly wouldn't have the right to come into your home or your computer and take them back from you (er, Amazon "1984" incident notwithstanding). But I'm pretty sure I'd have the legal right to stop all future publication and that filesharing my work would still be illegal.

I just don't buy it.

 

[caudor]

Whatever happened to the idea that if you buy the hard copy, there is a code that grants you access to the pdf?

I don't recall where, but I'm sure I read somewhere that WotC was going to do just that.

 

[Glyfair]

Whatever happened to the idea that if you buy the hard copy, there is a code that grants you access to the pdf?

I don't recall where, but I'm sure I read somewhere that WotC was going to do just that.

That was the original plan. When WotC got around to actually planning the implementation, they discovered that it wasn't workable from a technical standpoint. Presumably they couldn't get a system that would be secure enough for their purposes.

 

[Mark]

Of course, used books earn no royalties for the copyright holder.

I'm not quite sure what point you are making but mine was only regarding availability. Are you meaning to point out that WotC is missing out on a revenue stream? I would agree but point out that WotC seems to believe that such a revenue stream in regard to PDF sales is negligible balanced against the need to increase DDI subscribership. Honestly, the secondary market on OOP materials is much healthier because WotC got out of the PDF game. Frankly, I prefer WotC's isolationist policy when it comes to the resale value of my OOP materials.


Sadly, though, I think even EN World is feeling what a large portion of the OGL market has felt when they rely primarily on WotC-only (or mostly) D&D fans. When a group decides they will only spend on one company (official material), you cannot build a business on those coattails, particularly when the coat-wearer regularly shakes the tails to keep others off and creates a business model that constantly shortens the tails.