Unearthed Arcana 3.5....where besides Kazaa?

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Mach2.5 ... I hate it for you, man. Just one of many reasons I won't touch Kazaa and other file-sharing systems with a ten-foot pole; too many good people really getting hurt by it. I don't want to steal people's IP.

I do wish I could get electronic versions of many of the books I've purchased, but I'm not going to use file sharing to do it, and I'm too lazy to scan it myself, so I'll just do without.

Am I alone in finding the "it's OGL, so I'm entitled to a free copy" attitude offensive? I thought the OGL was intended to encourage the publication of 3d party products, not give free gaming handouts. Were I a third party publisher, I'd be pretty ticked -- what if it were my product, instead of WOTC's they were talking about.

Yeah, I know that legally, you can share/use the entire OGL content of UA. But really, if you want all of it, it only seems right to pay for it. Just my $0.02.

 

[BryonD]

Mach2.5 ... I hate it for you, man. Just one of many reasons I won't touch Kazaa and other file-sharing systems with a ten-foot pole; too many good people really getting hurt by it. I don't want to steal people's IP.

I do wish I could get electronic versions of many of the books I've purchased, but I'm not going to use file sharing to do it, and I'm too lazy to scan it myself, so I'll just do without.

Am I alone in finding the "it's OGL, so I'm entitled to a free copy" attitude offensive? I thought the OGL was intended to encourage the publication of 3d party products, not give free gaming handouts. Were I a third party publisher, I'd be pretty ticked -- what if it were my product, instead of WOTC's they were talking about.

Yeah, I know that legally, you can share/use the entire OGL content of UA. But really, if you want all of it, it only seems right to pay for it. Just my $0.02.

Hey Olgar

You are blurring the distinction between a product and the open content of that product.

Third party publishers are free to publisher 100% closed products if they desire. But if they want to use WotCs toys, they are required to play by the rules.

If it was your product and someone downloaded it, then you would be the victim of theft.

But if it was your product and someone copied the content that you freely of your own choice published as Open and they correctly documented it and then released it for free, then the only thing you would be a victim of is you own lack of understanding of what you got yourself into. If you don't want your product to be open, then contact WotC and offer then enough money for them to sell you a license.

 

[BryonD]

FWIW,

I have looked around on Kazaa before and virutually everything there is direct scans of product. Thus, it is theft and I am not defending it in any way.

I have downloaded a few products and reviewed them. In all cases I either: A) bought the product legally or B) deleted the file. I have also paged through documents in stores before I decided whether or not to buy them. I don't feel bad about that either.

The only product I ever "stole" off Kazaa was Beyond Monks. And I *AM* published in that one. I downloaded a product the the publisher (James Garr) had already provided to me freely just so I could give James a hard time about it.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

ByronD -- yeah, you're right, I am blurring the distinction a bit. But I still see the intent behind the OGL as a means for publishers to freely use each other's ideas to produce products, rather than as a means for consumers to get that content without paying for it.

Given the way the OGL works, consumers obviously get a perfectly legal benefit. Personally, though, I feel that getting a complete copy of the OGL elements of a product intended for sale simply because one doesn't feel like paying for the product itself is the moral equivalent of theft -- despite the fact that it is perfectly legal.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

One thing I've noticed that seems to have been overlooked...

The CONTENT of UA is OGC...but, is the artwork? I don't think it is. So even if its 'okay'(for some reason...I'd never agree with that) to download it, if you're getting the artwork and all, its just as illegal as a non-OGC book.

 

[BryonD]

ByronD -- yeah, you're right, I am blurring the distinction a bit. But I still see the intent behind the OGL as a means for publishers to freely use each other's ideas to produce products, rather than as a means for consumers to get that content without paying for it.

Given the way the OGL works, consumers obviously get a perfectly legal benefit. Personally, though, I feel that getting a complete copy of the OGL elements of a product intended for sale simply because one doesn't feel like paying for the product itself is the moral equivalent of theft -- despite the fact that it is perfectly legal.

Fair enough.

I guess I see a difference between having a moral opinion and insulting people who legally and within their rights do not live up to that moral opinion.

You can not be a thief if the product is already free for you to take.

I am very confident that 3rd party publishers are gaining vastly more than they are losing by releasing Open products.

 

[BryonD]

One thing I've noticed that seems to have been overlooked...

The CONTENT of UA is OGC...but, is the artwork? I don't think it is. So even if its 'okay'(for some reason...I'd never agree with that) to download it, if you're getting the artwork and all, its just as illegal as a non-OGC book.

You are exactly correct. There are very, very few products that can be directly downloaded. And thus the whole Open debate is almost completely beside the point when it comes to kazaa.

EDIT: I am WAY WAY not a lawyer.

 

[kenjib]

ByronD -- yeah, you're right, I am blurring the distinction a bit. But I still see the intent behind the OGL as a means for publishers to freely use each other's ideas to produce products, rather than as a means for consumers to get that content without paying for it.

Given the way the OGL works, consumers obviously get a perfectly legal benefit. Personally, though, I feel that getting a complete copy of the OGL elements of a product intended for sale simply because one doesn't feel like paying for the product itself is the moral equivalent of theft -- despite the fact that it is perfectly legal.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/msrd

Theft?

http://home.comcast.net/~kenji.baugham

Theft?

And Mongoose can publish Ultimate Feats and charge for it, but if I publish it from my website for free, it's suddenly theft? Free does not equal theft.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I guess I see a difference between having a moral opinion and insulting people who legally and within their rights do not live up to that moral opinion.

You can not be a thief if the product is already free for you to take.

True ... and I don't mean to sound like I'm running around pointing at people shouting "Thief! Thief!". It's more a vague unease in my gut, if that makes any sense.

I am very confident that 3rd party publishers are gaining vastly more than they are losing by releasing Open products.

I certainly hope so!

 

[BryonD]

True ... and I don't mean to sound like I'm running around pointing at people shouting "Thief! Thief!". It's more a vague unease in my gut, if that makes any sense.

Now see that I can 100% agree with. Because the REALITY is that people ARE stealing.

There is a link to an on-line D20 modern SRD above. I am betting that you did not blink an eye over that. Because we both know that it is fully legal. But we also know that most of the free transfer going on out there is theft and the fact that some fraction of the material COULD be potentially obtained legally and freely is being used as an easy excuse to steal the whole thing. Any reasonable person would get an unease in their gut over that.

I certainly hope so!

Me too. But the growth of the quality companies and the start of growth in new Open games outside of D20 are strong indicators to me.