Update: Malhavoc PDFs no longer available at RPGnow (merged)

[Dr. Harry]

lotsa stuff

--The Sigil

Thanks for the clarification, so I'll restate it that it is not unreasonable to attempt to protect copyrights.

If DRM brings more publishers into the pdf market, that's a good thing.

If I can't actually use a DRMed pdf because I'm not able to read the thing, that's unfortunate.

If I can use the thing, I'll happily buy the pdf's I'm waiting for -- I don't think that Malhavoc, AEG, etc., are evil, evil, evil for trying this.

For me at least, it would be much better to have a way to "activate" a pdf on a given PC once, instead of every time its opened.

 

[Jraynack]

However, we wouldn't have made the change if we didn't think that they could provide the service our customers require.

As one of the representatives at Alea Publishing Group, we definitely support competition between .pdf distributors. However, with that said, it is not the DRM that upsets me (for as a publisher we enjoy the thought of better protection against piracy), but the purchasing power of potential customers is limited. Those wishing to purchase Malhavoc products must go through DriveThru and DRM instead of having a choice between multiple distributors. Customers should have a choice where to shop for the products they love whether it be at DriveThru or RPGNow.com. If you limit their (our) choice, how are you providing a better service?

 

[Dr. Harry]

You made a claim that a trademark issue was the cause of copyright protection.

Someone disputed the claim, stating that copyright and trademark laws were two different things.

None of which you were doing in the post I responded to.

 

[BryonD]

Edit: Never Mind

 

[The Sigil]

Trying to follow you here...

I'm probably wrong, but since a DRM file cannot be (legally) read except by the rightful owner, cannot placing a DRM file on a file-sharing server be defended as not braking the copyright under fair-use?

No. Fair Use has certain limited definitions, this is (likely) not one of them (I use "likely" because there is no crystal-clear line on exactly what is and is not).

The new copy CAN be read with the right tools. That the downloader does not have those tools does not change the situation, any more than I could defend picking up a xeroxed copy of a book in the French language because I don't read French or pick up a burned CD for the Mac OS because I don't have a Macintosh-compatible computer. The possession of the copy is the issue, not the possession of the tools required to read it. Whether or not someone else has the ability to read a particular copy does not change the fact that a copy has been made without the consent of the copyright holder.

Further, anyone downloading the file does not brake copyright, since he cannot read it and hence did not, in fact, copy it.

Again, downloading the file is copyright infringement. A "Copy" is defined in US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 101 as follows (emphasis mine):

''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

Whether or not YOU can perceive the work is immaterial; if the work CAN be perceived with the aid of ANY machine or device (in this case, a computer with the right password/account), the item in question is in fact a copy.

As an analogy, a burned CD is still a copy of the original CD even if I don't have a CD player.

If someone cracks the DRM, he *then* commits copyright infringment by making an illegal copy.

No, if someone cracks the DRM, he *then* violates the DMCA in the U.S. (or an analagous law, should one exist abroad; if no such law exists in the jurisdiction where the crack occurs, no crime has been committed). Copyright infringement doesn't enter into it.

But merely placing the file there isn't a violation

No. The act of merely placing a file on a P2P network is NOT copyright violation. The act of downloading is not, by a strict reading of copyright law, infringement of copyright (though the downloader does come into possession of an unlawfully acquired/produced copy). The act of uploading - i.e., the act of distribution - is where the copyright infringement occurs.

(the owner could have used it legally - for example to transfer his legal copy to his office, and read it from there),

This probably falls under "Fair Use" on the argument that the a person who has lawfully obtained a copy does not hurt the potential market for the copy by making an unauthorized copy for himself to read elsewhere (one of the 4 exemplary factors that is to be used to determine "Fair Use").

IANAL either, but hopefully that helps clear things a little.

There are three potentially unlawful situations that can occur in your example, each is independent of the other.

1.) Acquisition of an unlawful copy of a copyrighted work (the downloader)

2.) Copyright infringement through unauthorized distribution (the uploader)

3.) Violation of the DMCA (the person who removes the DRM)

Again, all laws are pertinent to those on U.S. soil only; some areas of the world may or may not have analagous laws, making one or more of the above "crimes" a "non-crime."

--The Sigil

 

[BryonD]

Thanks for the clarification, so I'll restate it that it is not unreasonable to attempt to protect copyrights.

It is frustrating to keep seeing this same false argument. They can protect their product all they want, any way they want.

And if the way they chooses to do so takes away from what we can justly expect to be our fair rights with the product if we did buy it, we have the right to complain. Heck, they can try to sell it on self-destructing audio cassettes that can only be played once if that is what they really want. It is their right to do that and our right to point out that it is stupid.

There is a very reasonable case to be made that the particular method selected has serious problems. To misrepresent that as saying they can not try to protect their property is a red herring and counter-productive.

If DRM brings more publishers into the pdf market, that's a good thing.

And if it drives consumers away it is a very bad thing. You can not bring publishers into a market that ceases to exist.

If I can't actually use a DRMed pdf because I'm not able to read the thing, that's unfortunate.

If I can use the thing, I'll happily buy the pdf's I'm waiting for -- I don't think that Malhavoc, AEG, etc., are evil, evil, evil for trying this.

For me at least, it would be much better to have a way to "activate" a pdf on a given PC once, instead of every time its opened.

Of course they are not evil for use of DRM.
However, many of them have been extremely short-sighted.
And some of them have been out-right jerks in response to the customers saying they won't play along.

 

[The Sigil]

Thanks for the clarification, so I'll restate it that it is not unreasonable to attempt to protect copyrights.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one. I believe it is an unreasonable attempt to protect copyrights because the way it does so is by using technology to (your choice of terminology): remove some of the protections ("rights") guaranteed to a purchaser of copyrighted material by law OR IF YOU PREFER remove some of the restrictions placed by law on the rights of the copyright holder (i.e., it's a "grab" of something that was not theirs to begin with). Either way, it's an attempt by copyright holders to broaden their "rights/control" in a way that directly diminishes the consumer's "rights/control."

If you are okay with that, it's your decision. As a consumer, I happen to dislike that someone is trying to gain more than the law normally provides them by asking me to give up something the law normally provides me, with NO clear external benefits (i.e., I am asked to relinquish my protections with no other real benefits to either party).

I can't even say, "well, a side effect is that piracy is being prevented" because (demonstrably) it's not. The net effect of DRM is simply a transfer of legal rights/protections from myself to copyright holders, with the added external side effect of inconveniencing me, the consumer.

This does not, IMO, offset the benefit I am gaining by having access to the copyrighted works. It doesn't even come remotely close.

In essence, the normal course of transaction, which is:

My Money plus certain rights/protections A, B, and C, given to the copyright holder
TO THE PUBLISHER IN EXCHANGE FOR
Access to Copyrighted material plus certain rights/protections D, E, and F granted to the owner of a legally acquired copy, plus the ability to sell that copy at a later date (i.e., potential money), plus the ability to use the work in an unlimited number of places
TO THE CONSUMER

has been transformed into:

My Money plus certain rights/protections A, B, and C, given to the copyright holder plus certain rights/protections D and E granted to the owner of a legally acquired copy plus the ability to sell that copy at a later date (i.e., potential money) plus the ability to use the work in an unlimited number of places less 6
TO THE PUBLISHER IN EXCHANGE FOR
Access to Copyrighted material plus certain rights/protections F granted to the owner of a legally acquired copy plus the ability to use the work in 6 places
TO THE CONSUMER

minus (or plus, I suppose, depending on how you look at it) the inconvenience of registration

I as a consumer have lost in this shift:

certain rights/protections D and E granted to the owner of a legally acquired copy plus the ability to sell that copy at a later date (i.e., potential money) plus the ability to use the work in an unlimited number of places less 6 minus (or plus, I suppose, depending on how you look at it) the inconvenience of registration

That's a pretty darn significant amount I'm giving up for nothing in return. That is one of many reasons I don't like it.

--The Sigil

 

[Dimwhit]

And some of them have been out-right jerks in response to the customers saying they won't play along.

Maybe because so many of their customers are being out-right jerks to them. Listening to what some of the people here say about them, I'm confident that's the case.

 

[BryonD]

Maybe because so many of their customers are being out-right jerks to them. Listening to what some of the people here say about them, I'm confident that's the case.

Maybe.

I have clients that are jerks.
But they pay me and I am always very nice to them.
If I become a jerk to them once, even if they deserve it, I would be a fool to ever expect to see a penny from them again.

And I think there are some cases where the jerk comments were down-right premeptive on the publisher side, but I'll still agree that your claim of it going both ways is true. I just won't agree that it matters.

 

[Funksaw]

Funny thing is I have never bought much of Steve Jackson Games, but am going to do so now to just support their decision. An RpgNow will always have my business, since they are actually listening to the customer.

SJG, for all I really argue with them, for all they -annoy the hell out of me- for all the bad art and the stupid jugement calls regarding it, that's all been penny-ante stuff.

(I really don't think there's a game company on this planet I find more frustrating and annoying than SJG. They drive me f'ing nuts!)

BUT, they're still a great company, they're still producing products that don't infringe anyone's rights - they've made some major mistakes in the past but usually made up for them, and all in all I can't say that you'd be dissapointed getting into GURPS, especially if you're into D20.

See, d20's alot like Linux because of the OGL. Linux was grown from many different programmers and has advanced greatly. GURPS is more like (the non-open versions of) the Berkley System Distribution - unlike d20, which grew into different genres and was expanded greatly, GURPS was designed from the beginning.

Now, granted, it's not as open as d20, but if you're into highly detailed systems which can be used for a number of different things, GURPS is certainly a good buy and I hope you do buy their products.

Indeed, if GURPS 4e is sold as non-DRMed files at 1/2 the price, I'd probably pick that up despite my problems with the GURPS 4e art... mostly because I can get rid of the GURPS 4e art and just get the meat, arrange it how I like in InDesign, and print it out and play it that way.

Before you decide if GURPS is for you, I'd suggest checking out GURPS Lite, which is really all you "need" to play gurps, just like all you "need" to play d20 is in the 3.0 player's guide. It's free - and even though the GURPS Lite currently on the SJG site is 3rd edition, 4th edition GURPS Lite should be launched pretty close to the full product, datewise. I'd check it out at the very least. I don't think you'll be dissapointed.